Mumbai: NCLT Admits SBI Insolvency Plea Against Videocon Promoter Venugopal Dhoot Over ₹6,157 Crore Default

The NCLT has admitted SBI’s insolvency plea against Videocon promoter Venugopal Dhoot over a Rs 6,157 crore default. The tribunal imposed a 180-day moratorium and appointed a resolution professional, rejecting Dhoot’s limitation defence and initiating insolvency proceedings.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
Pranali Lotlikar Updated: Wednesday, April 15, 2026, 10:20 PM IST
NCLT initiates insolvency proceedings against Venugopal Dhoot, appoints resolution professional and imposes moratorium | Representative Image

NCLT initiates insolvency proceedings against Venugopal Dhoot, appoints resolution professional and imposes moratorium | Representative Image

Mumbai, April 15, 2026: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has admitted a personal insolvency application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) against Videocon Group promoter Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot, initiating insolvency resolution proceedings over a default exceeding Rs 61,57,57,79,505.96.

Tribunal findings on default

The tribunal, in its order, maintained, “Upon perusal of the documents on record, it is clearly established that the Corporate Debtor (company) has committed defaults in repayment of loan amount granted by the Financial Creditor. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot, Personal Guarantor to Videocon Industries Limited and Videocon Telecommunications Limited, has also committed default in repayment of loan facility demanded by the Financial Creditor (SBI) after invocation of Personal Guarantee. The Application filed by the Creditor satisfies the requirement as set out in Section 95 of the Code.”

The order, dated April 8, 2026, held that Dhoot, who had acted as a personal guarantor for loans extended to Videocon Industries Limited (VIL) and Videocon Telecommunications Limited (VTL), had failed to repay dues despite invocation of guarantees by SBI.

SBI’s claim and timeline

SBI had approached the tribunal under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), seeking recovery of Rs 61,57,57,79,505.96, with the date of default traced back to February 2018. The bank argued that despite multiple demand notices issued in 2018 and a fresh insolvency demand notice in July 2020, the dues remained unpaid.

Dhoot’s defence on limitation

Dhoot, in its defence, had claimed, “The alleged debt is barred by law of limitation as the present application was filed on September 1, 2020, whereas the first cause of action to invoke the Personal Guarantee arose on the first date of default by the principal borrower. Dhoot has relied upon decision dated June 6, 2018, passed by the tribunal, as per which the first default had occurred on March 5, 2016, which gave a first cause of action to the Petitioner to claim the alleged debt from the principal debtor/corporate debtor as well as personal guarantor, as admittedly as per the settled law of guarantee, the liability and default is co-extensive for principal borrower and personal guarantor. That as such, the time has begun to run as prescribed in the Limitation Act for principal borrowers/corporate debtor as well as the personal guarantor on the very day of first default, i.e. May 1, 2016, as the liability of personal guarantor and principal borrower is co-extensive.”

Tribunal rejects limitation argument

Rejecting Dhoot’s contention that the plea was barred by limitation, the tribunal ruled that the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor begins from the date of default in fulfilling the guarantee obligation—not from the borrower’s initial default. The bench noted that SBI’s application, filed in September 2020, was within the prescribed time.

Maintainability upheld

The tribunal also dismissed objections regarding the maintainability of the plea, observing that the guarantees were executed in favour of lenders including SBI, and that the bank was well within its rights to initiate proceedings.

“In view of the material on record, it is clearly established that the personal guarantor has committed default,” the bench noted while admitting the plea.

Moratorium and next steps

With the admission of the petition, the tribunal has declared a moratorium for 180 days, during which all legal proceedings related to the debt will remain stayed. The order restrains Dhoot from transferring or disposing of any assets during this period.

Also Watch:

The tribunal has appointed resolution professional Asish Narayan to oversee the process and directed issuance of a public notice inviting claims from creditors. The resolution professional will prepare a list of creditors and facilitate a repayment plan in consultation with the debtor.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Published on: Wednesday, April 15, 2026, 10:20 PM IST

RECENT STORIES