Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, comprising Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, has admitted an insolvency petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and initiated personal guarantor insolvency proceedings against Puneet Singh Jaggi, co-founder and whole-time director of Gensol Engineering Ltd., following a default of ₹9.91 crore.

Also Read: Absence Of Charge Defeats Income Tax Department's Secured Creditor Status: NCLAT New Delhi

Background

The case arose from a petition filed by Equentia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., which had extended an invoice discounting facility of ₹15 crore to Gensol Engineering on August 22, 2023. The facility was secured by personal guarantees from Puneet Singh Jaggi and his brother, Anmol Singh Jaggi.

According to Equentia, the company defaulted on repayment in March 2025, and a cheque issued by Gensol in April 2025 was dishonoured. Although ₹3 crore was adjusted from cash collateral, a balance of ₹9.91 crore remained unpaid. Following this, Equentia issued a loan recall and demand notice before filing the present insolvency petition under Section 95 of the IBC against the personal guarantor.

Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal found that both debt and default stood clearly established under Sections 95 and 99 of the IBC. It held that there was no material on record to indicate any repayment or genuine dispute regarding the debt. Quoting the operative portion of the order, the Bench observed:  “In view of the above, the Company Petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 is complete. The existence of financial debt and default stands established and there is no evidence of repayment or dispute under Section 99(3). The requirements under Sections 95 and 99 are met, warranting admission under Section 100(1) for Insolvency Resolution Process against the Personal Guarantor Puneet Singh Jaggi.”  Accordingly, the Bench admitted the petition and appointed Ativ Hasmukhbhai Patel as the Resolution Professional (RP).

Moratorium Declared

A moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC has also been declared, prohibiting any legal proceedings or recovery actions against the personal guarantor or his assets during the 180-day resolution period.

Respondent’s Contentions

In response to the petition, Puneet Singh Jaggi contended that the application was premature, claiming that a repayment plan had been shared through WhatsApp messages. He argued that the account had only been classified as a Special Mention Account (SMA) and not a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and hence, insolvency proceedings were unwarranted. He further asserted that the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Gensol Engineering Ltd. already included Equentia’s claim and that initiating parallel proceedings against the guarantor amounted to a pressure tactic, particularly in light of ongoing SEBI and judicial actions.

Tribunal’s Findings

The Tribunal rejected these objections, holding that the liability of a personal guarantor is independent and co-extensive with that of the corporate debtor. Therefore, parallel insolvency proceedings against the guarantor are legally permissible under the IBC framework. It further noted that the Interim Resolution Professional’s report was found to be in order and that Jaggi had failed to submit a net worth certificate or any credible evidence of repayment. Consequently, the Bench concluded that all statutory requirements had been fulfilled and that the petition deserved admission.

Finding the petition complete in all respects, the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench admitted the application filed by Equentia Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. against Puneet Singh Jaggi under Section 95 of the IBC, appointed a Resolution Professional, and imposed a moratorium under Section 101.

Also Read: Distribution Among Financial Creditors Should Be Based On Pro Rata Basis As Per Vote Share: NCLAT New Delhi

The NCLT Ahmedabad has thus initiated the insolvency resolution process against Puneet Singh Jaggi, holding that the existence of debt and default stood clearly established, and that the proceedings were maintainable even alongside the CIRP against Gensol Engineering Ltd.

Appearance 

For Petitioner: Advocate Nisha Ojha

For Respondent: Advocate Rahul K Kanoujia

For IRP: Advocate Arun M Padhiyar

Cause Title: Equentia Financial Services v. Puneet SIngh Jaggi

Case No: C.P(IB)333(AHM)12025

Coram: Judicial Member Shammi Khan, Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma.