"Cont’d…/ NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2378 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Vicky Sukanraj Shah …Appellant Versus DBS Bank India Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Varun Chugh, Mr. Jenil Shah, Mr. Atul Dong, Mr. Saurish Shetye, Advocates. For Respondents : With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2379 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Mrs. Lalitkumari Sukanraj Shah …Appellant Versus DBS Bank India Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Varun Chugh, Mr. Jenil Shah, Mr. Atul Dong, Mr. Saurish Shetye, Advocates. For Respondents : With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2380 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Sahil Sukanraj Shah …Appellant Versus DBS Bank India Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Present: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2378, 2379, 2380 of 2024, 15 & 16 of 2025 2 of 5 For Appellant : Mr. Varun Chugh, Mr. Jenil Shah, Mr. Atul Dong, Mr. Saurish Shetye, Advocates. For Respondents : With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 15 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Mrs. Sapna Vicky Shah …Appellant Versus DBS Bank India Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Varun Chugh, Mr. Jenil Shah, Mr. Atul Dong, Mr. Saurish Shetye, Advocates. For Respondents : With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 16 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Sukanraj Bhabutmal Shah …Appellant Versus DBS Bank India Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Varun Chugh, Mr. Jenil Shah, Mr. Atul Dong, Mr. Saurish Shetye, Advocates. For Respondents : O R D E R (Hybrid Mode) 01.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. These appeals have been filed by the Personal Guarantors of the Corporate Debtor – SKS Textiles Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the NCLT, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2378, 2379, 2380 of 2024, 15 & 16 of 2025 3 of 5 Mumbai Bench-I by which Section 95 application filed by the DBS Bank alleging default committed of Rs.28,79,39.439.56 only as on 31.10.2024 has been admitted. The personal guarantee of the Guarantor was invoked on 18.05.2021 which has been noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in Para 32 of the order and the Adjudicating Authority held that application is within time and after invocation, notice in Form B was issued and thereafter, application under Section 95 was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellants challenging the order submits that one ECLGS facility was extended to the Corporate Debtor on 27.10.2020 with respect to which no personal guarantee was given by the Appellants, hence, default of said facility cannot be fastened on the Appellant nor the said amount could be recovered from the personal guarantee of the Appellant. He however, submits that the Appellants are ready to give repayment plan to the Resolution Professional and Resolution Professional may consider their objection regarding ECLGS independently. 3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the notice under Section 13(2) which was issued for invoking personal guarantee dated 11.10.2021 which is at page 342 of the paper book. He has referred to Para 15 of the notice, which provides as follows: “15. As per the terms of the aforesaid fresh facility letter bearing Ref No. BSU/IBG-3/ECLGS/113 of 2020 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2378, 2379, 2380 of 2024, 15 & 16 of 2025 4 of 5 dated 27.10.2020, the repayment of the said facilities were continued to be secured by the personal duly hypothecated under Deed of Hypothecation executed from time to Guarantee of the You No. 2 to 6 and hypothecation of tangible movables time and as detailed in Forth Schedule written herein below and also by the mortgaged of right, title and interest of You No. 1 in the property described in First Schedule written herein below, also by mortgaged of right, title and interest of the You No. 2 and 3 in the property described In Second Schedule written herein below and also by mortgaged of right, title and interest of the You No. 4 and 6 in the property described in Third Schedule written herein below.” 5. The only grievance raised by the Appellant is with regard to ECLGS facility which is referred to in above that the said facility is not covered under personal guarantee of the Appellant. The copy of the fresh facility letter dated 27.10.2020 is not on record to nor other details of ECLGS and other documents are before the Court, hence, we are, in these appeals, cannot express any opinion with regard to objection which is raised by the Appellant. We, however, are of the view that Appellant may submit repayment plan to the Resolution Professional and the said objections of the Appellant may be looked into by the Resolution Professional while finalizing the repayment plan. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the submissions of made by the Appellant and the Resolution Professional may look into the facility letter dated 27.10.2020 and other documents executed with respect to ECLGS facility and form an opinion as to whether the ECLGS facility is also Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 2378, 2379, 2380 of 2024, 15 & 16 of 2025 5 of 5 covered by the personal guarantee or not and thereafter put the repayment plan before the CoC. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 95 application warranting our intervention. Subject to observation as above, Appeals are dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks for and is allowed two weeks’ time to file repayment plan. [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn "