1. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent No.1 2. Interim Resolution Professional of ...Respondent No.2 Sanwariyaji Business Ventures Pvt Ltd. (Arising out of Impugned Order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) in C.P. (I.B) No.94/7/JPR/2024) With Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.294 of 2025 Shankar Khandelwal, ...Appellant Erstwhile Director of Shrinathji Business Ventures Pvt Ltd. Vs. 2 1. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent No.1 2. Interim Resolution Professional of ...Respondent No.2 Shrinathji Business Ventures Pvt Ltd. (Arising out of Impugned Order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) in C.P. (I.B) No.93/7/JPR/2024) For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakul Khurana and Mr. Gourav Asati, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Counsel and Mr. Ayush J. Rajani, Advocate for R1 JUDGEMENT Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial) These appeals are preferred by the erstwhile director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the Order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Jaipur, dated 22.01.2025 in C.P IB 94/7/JPR/2024, and C.P.93/7/JPR/2024 admitting two independent petitions for initiating CIRP IBC against the same financial creditor. The financial creditor appeared to have considered it fit to file two separate petitions under Sec.7 IBC for each of the two loans it had advanced. 1.2 Before the Adjudicating Authority, the CD neither denied nor disputed either the debt or default, but defended the action on the ground that the debts were time barred. This defence was negatived by the Adjudicating Authority. 3 Facts: 2.1 Except for the two separate loans advanced to the CD, rest of the facts, more particularly that which are relevant in the context of the line of defence adopted by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, are identical. 2.2 Two loans were advanced by M/s Diwan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) to the CD, and the details are: a) On 10.09.2014, a loan of Rs.12.0 crores was sanctioned as against which Rs.11.50 crores was advanced on various dates to the CD. (Ref: C.A.293 of 2025). This loan was to be repaid in 24 EMI and the first instalment was to commence on the expiry of 24 months from the date of disbursements. b) On 25.09.2014, the second loan of Rs. 11.0 crores was sanctioned out of which Rs.9.50 crores was disbursed. This loan was to be repaid in 36 EMI and as in the earlier loan, the first instalment fell due for payment after 24 months from the date of payment of loan amount to the CD. 2.3 As stated earlier, other facts in both the cases are identical, and they are stated below: (Note: The paper book containing copies of the petition filed before the Adjudicating Authority under Sec.7 IBC visàvis the appeal in C.A.293 of 2025 was of least assistance to this tribunal and hence dates as given in the pleadings are relied on for factual narration) a) The CD defaulted in repaying both the loans. This prompted DHFL to issue separate notices, one dated 16.11.2016 (relevant to C.A.93 of 4 2016) and 15.11.2016 (related to C.A.94 of 2016) and recalled the loans and required the borrower to repay the loan dues within 7 days. b) The CD did not repay the loan and the default continued. Eventually on 06.12.2016 DHFL classified both the loans as NPA. This was followed by issuance of notices dated 08.12.2016 under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on the CD. c) While things stood thus, DHFL, the creditor, itself was sucked into a CIRP proceedings when the same was admitted vide the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 03.12.2019. The resolution process of the DHFL was successful with the resolution plan of certain Piramal Capital