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

April 8, 2026 : The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has admitted a personal insolvency application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) against Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot, promoter of the Videocon Group, in his capacity as a personal guarantor to loans extended to Videocon Industries Limited (VIL) and Videocon Telecommunications Limited (VTL).

The application, filed under Sections 95 and 97 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, sought initiation of insolvency resolution proceedings for a total outstanding debt of ₹61,57,57,79,505.96 as on May 14, 2020 . The Tribunal, comprising Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma and Member (Technical) Charanjeet Singh Gulati, pronounced the order on April 8, 2026.

SBI, acting through Resolution Professional Asish Narayan, contended that multiple credit facilities had been extended to VIL and VTL under various agreements, including rupee term loans and working capital facilities. To secure these facilities, Dhoot had executed several deeds of personal guarantee, undertaking unconditional and irrevocable liability akin to that of a principal debtor.

The record shows that defaults occurred in early 2018, following which demand notices were issued to the borrower companies in January 2018 and to the personal guarantor in February 2018. Subsequently, a demand notice under the personal guarantor insolvency framework was issued on July 23, 2020. Upon failure to repay within the statutory 14-day period, SBI filed the present application on September 1, 2020 .

The Resolution Professional, in his report under Section 99 of the Code, recommended admission of the application, noting that all statutory requirements had been satisfied.

Dhoot opposed the plea on grounds of maintainability and limitation. It was argued that certain guarantees were executed in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Limited rather than SBI directly, and that the application was time-barred as the default arose earlier in relation to the principal borrower.

Rejecting these objections, the Tribunal held that the guarantees were executed for the benefit of lenders including SBI, with the security trustee acting on their behalf. On limitation, it clarified that for personal guarantors, the cause of action arises upon failure to honour the guarantee after its invocation, not from the date of default by the principal borrower. Since the insolvency demand notice was issued in July 2020 and the application was filed in September 2020, the petition was held to be within limitation.

The Tribunal observed that both the corporate debtors and the personal guarantor had committed defaults in repayment of the loan facilities. It concluded that the application met the requirements under Section 95 of the Code and warranted admission.

Accordingly, the Tribunal admitted the petition and initiated insolvency resolution proceedings against Dhoot. A moratorium under Section 101 was declared, staying all ongoing and future legal proceedings in respect of the debts and restraining the debtor from transferring or disposing of assets during the process .

The Resolution Professional has been directed to issue a public notice inviting claims from creditors and to proceed with preparation of a repayment plan in accordance with the statutory framework.

Case Details:
Case Title: State Bank of India v. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot
Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 1197/MB/2020
Coram: Nilesh Sharma (Member Judicial), Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Member Technical)