Public Notice Under Section 102 IBC FOR THE CREDITORS OF - 19th October 2026 - Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Read or download the official PDF of this gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 19th October 2026. Classified under Notice.

Official Gazette Notification Text

Official Transcript

Mavent Restructuring Services LLP Registered Address: S - 376, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017 Resolution Professional Yes Bank Ltd. Vs. Anil Madan Also, at: Email: pg.anilmadan@gmail.com , Floor No. 8, Flat No. 803, Chandak Cornerstone, David S caakhilahuja@gmail.com Barretto Road, Upper Worli, Worli, Mumbai City, Mobile. No: +91 9910197705 Maharashtra ,400018 Date: 19th October, 2026 To The...

Mavent Restructuring Services LLP Registered Address: S - 376, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, 110017 Resolution Professional Yes Bank Ltd. Vs. Anil Madan Also, at:

Email: pg.anilmadan@gmail.com , Floor No. 8, Flat No. 803, Chandak Cornerstone, David S caakhilahuja@gmail.com Barretto Road, Upper Worli, Worli, Mumbai City, Mobile. No: +91 9910197705 Maharashtra ,400018

Date: 19th October, 2026 To The Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Block No. 3, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

Subject:- “Affixation of Public notice on the Notice Board of Hon’ble NCLT Delhi as per

Section 102(3)(b) in the matter of Yes Bank Vs. Anil Madan [CP (IB ) NO 839(ND)2024]”.

Dear Sir, This is in reference to the Personal Resolution Insolvency Process of Mr. Anil Madan, Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtor, M/s Johnson Watch Company Private Limited. in the matter of Yes Bank Vs. Anil Madan [CP (IB) NO 839(ND)2024]”.

Undersigned hereby informs you that as per Section 102(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the undersigned is duty bound to execute several compliance post admissions of 95 application under

Section 100 of IB Code, 2016 and the above captioned task i.e., “Affixation of Public notice on the Notice board of Hon’ble NCLT Delhi” is one of the compliances to be performed on the part of Resolution Professional.

Therefore, undersigned hereby requests you to kindly display the respective Public Notice on the Notice board of Hon’ble NCLT Delhi as per law and order.

Thanking You! Akhil Ahuja Authorized Partner Mavent Restructuring Services LLP Resolution Professional In the matter of Yes Bank Ltd. vs Anil Madan (Personal Guarantor) IBBI Regn. No.: IBBI/IPE-0154/IPA-3/2023-24/50058

Address: S-376, Panchseel Park, New Delhi - 110017 Also, at: 803, 8th Floor, Chandak Cornerstone, David S Barretto Road, Upper Worli, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400018

Email: pg.anilmadan@gmail.com Mobile. No: +91 9910197705

Enclosed herewith is:

1. Copy of the order dated 12.10.2026

2. Copy of the Public Notice 15.10.2026IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH IA 865/2025 In CP No.: IB 839 (ND)/2024 (Under Section 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Yes Bank Ltd. … Petitioner Mr. Anil Madan Respondent / Personal Guarantor AND In IA-865/2025 Mavent Restructuring Services LLP … RP/Applicant

Order Pronounced on: 12.10.2026

CORAM:

JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE PRESIDENT SHRI RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present:

For the : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Ms. Nandika Kaushik, Petitioner Advs.

For the : Mr. Malak Bhatt and Mr. Anshul Rao, Advs.

Respondent

For the RP : Mr. Shivam Gautam, Adv.

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 1 of 18ORDER

1. The main petition is filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Yes Bank (“Petitioner”/”Financial Creditor”) seeking to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (“PIRP”) against Mr. Anil Madan (“Respondent” / “Personal Guarantor”/”PG”), personal guarantor of M/s Johnson Watch Company Private Limited. (“Corporate Debtor”/ “Principal Borrower”).

2. This Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 18.12.2024 appointed M/s Mavent Restructuring Services LLP, bearing registration no. IBBI/IPE-0154/IPA- 3/2023-24/50058, email id: caakhilahuja@gmail.com (“Resolution Professional”/ “RP”) as the Resolution Professional to submit a report as per

Section 99 of the Code.

3. The Resolution Professional submitted a report under section 99 of the Code through IA-865 (ND)/2025, which also forms a part of the subject matter under consideration in the present adjudication.

Brief facts of the case:

As submitted by parties in the pleadings and submissions in the court, the

following are the relevant facts of the case: -

4. M/s Johnson Watch Company Private Limited i.e. the Corporate Debtor or CD approached Yes Bank Limited, the financial creditor, seeking various credit facilities. The financial creditor sanctioned various credit facilities which were renewed from time to time. The credit facilities included Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 14,00,00,000.00/- vide Facility Letter dated 20.06.2013 and Master Facility Agreement dated 28.06.2013 (as amended, renewed and supplemented from time to time). The Cash Credit Limit was increased to Rs. 32,00,00,000/, and thereafter was dropped to Rs. 27,90,00,000/- and further reduced to Rs.

25,50,00,000/- on 2nd December, 2022.

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 2 of 185. In order to secure the above payments Mr. Anil Madan (the Personal Guarantor herein), Mr. Rajesh Madan, Mr. Anil Madan and Mr. Ankit Madan stood as guarantors and executed Deeds of Personal Guarantees dated 28.06.2013,

29.06.2016, 26.07.2017 and 26.06.2018.

Defaults pursuant to the Transaction:

6. The Corporate Debtor was required to make the payments towards the Credit Facilities upon demand by the financial creditor. Despite regular follow-ups by the financial creditor, the CD and its guarantors failed to maintain financial discipline and started committing default. The financial creditor sent repeated reminders on account of irregular and delayed payments. However, the CD made default in payment of its lawful dues towards the petitioner, and was classified as Non-Performing Asset (“NPA”) on 16.03.2023.

7. A demand cum Loan Recall Notice vide dated 15.05.2023 was issued by the Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor. Subsequently, a Demand cum Guarantee Invocation Notice was also issued by the Financial Creditor dated

24.05.2023, despite which no payment was made.

8. On 10.07.2023, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) was issued by the petitioner upon the CD and the personal guarantors for an amount of Rs 34,69,24,086/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Crores Sixty-Nine Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand and Eighty-Six) together with interest and charges, as on 05.07.2023.

9. Due to continued default by the Corporate Debtor despite the issuance of the aforementioned notices, an application u/s 9 of the Code was filed by M/s Swiss Promotions Private Limited against the Corporate Debtor bearing no CP (IB) 294/2023, which was admitted by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated

17.01.2024.

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 3 of 1810. Furthermore, a demand notice in Form B dated 04.11.2024 under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, was issued against the Personal Guarantor on 05.11.2024 through mail and on 07.11.2024 through post. The said demand notice was duly served upon the guarantor, as evidenced by Annexure A-11 of CP No. IB 839(PB)/2024.

11. In terms of Section 95(1) of the Code, the petitioner filed the present Application, which was filed on 07.12.2024, to initiate insolvency proceedings against the Personal Guarantor / Respondent for a debt due to the tune of Rs.

170,730,327.96/- (Rs. Seventeen Crores Seven Lakhs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred & Twenty-Seven and Ninety-Six Paisa) as on 30.09.2024 only.)

12. Vide order dated 18.12.2024, Mavent Restructuring Services LLP IBBI/IPE- 0154/IPA-3/2023-24/50058, email id: caakhilahuja@gmail.com (“Resolution Professional”), was appointed as the Resolution Professional under Section 97 of the Code, and directed to submit a report under Section 99 of the Code. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.12.2024 is extracted below:

13. In compliance with the order dated 18.12.2024 of the Adjudicating Authority, the Resolution Professional submitted a report under section 99 of the Code vide IA- 865/2025. The submissions of the Resolution Professional with regard to the present application, are as extracted below:

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 4 of 18IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 5 of 18The Resolution Professional has opined that, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and considering that the petition filed by the Creditor satisfies the requirements stipulated under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that the Personal Guarantor has failed to establish repayment of the debt in question, it is accordingly recommended by the RP that the petition filed by the Creditor be admitted under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code.

14. This report of the RP was listed for the first time on 24.02.2025 wherein the

following order was passed by this Adjudicating Authority:

In compliance with the same, notice was issued by the RP, and a proof of service indicating the same was uploaded on the DMS e-portal on 08.03.2025.

15. On 16.04.2025, the following order was passed by this Adjudicating Authority:

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 6 of 1816. Again on 29.05.2025, the following order was passed by this Adjudicating

Authority:

17. On 01.07.2025, the Adjudicating Authority recorded as follow:

18. Since, no reply was still visible on the DMS e-portal on the next date i.e.

30.07.2025, the Adjudicating Authority passed the following order:

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 7 of 1819. The reply to the RP’s report was finally uploaded on the DMS e-portal on

08.09.2025.

Objections raised by the PG against the admission of this petition:

20. We have considered the objections raised by the PG against the RP’s report in his reply and during the course of hearings. The objections of the PG pertain to the following 4 grounds: • Objection as to Valid Invocation and Service of Demand Notice • No Default on the Part of the Respondent • Alleged Lack of Independent Assessment by the Resolution Professional • Application under Section 95 Alleged to be Premature

21. On the first issue, it is contended by the PG that no proper notice invoking the Deeds of Guarantee was issued or served in terms of Clause 29 of the Guarantee Deeds dated 28.06.2013, 29.06.2016 and 26.07.2017. It is submitted by the PG that the issuance and proper service of a written demand notice is a condition precedent for invocation of the guarantees. According to the PG, no material has been produced to demonstrate compliance with the contractual requirements of service.

22. It is also contended that the notice dated 04.11.2024 issued in Form B under

Rule 7(1) of the Rules cannot be treated as invocation of the guarantee. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in State Bank of India v. Deepak Kumar Singhania to contend that a demand notice under Rule 7(1) does not constitute contractual invocation. Similarly, the notice dated 10.07.2023 under

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is stated not to amount to invocation of the personal guarantee as Section 13(2) only pertains to the enforcement of security interests against the borrower and does not operate as an independent demand on the Personal Guarantor. Further, the alleged notice dated

24.05.2023 is stated to have never been received, and no proof of service has been furnished.

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 8 of 1823. On the second issue, it is contended by the PG that in the absence of any valid invocation in accordance with the Deeds of Guarantee, no liability has arisen and, consequently, no default can be attributed to him. It is contended that the liability of the guarantor arises only upon proper invocation as per the contractual terms. Accordingly, the present application under Section 95 is stated to be unsustainable.

24. In his third issue it is contended by the PG that the Report under Section 99 suffers from lack of independent examination as mandated under Section 99(2) of the Code. The PG submits that the Resolution Professional has mechanically accepted the Financial Creditor’s claims without verifying whether the guarantees were properly invoked or whether demand notices were duly served.

Thus, the RP’s failure to conduct an independent examination vitiates the Report.

25. In his last issue, the PG contends that the Financial Creditor has already filed its claim in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which is still pending. It is submitted that since the liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the principal borrower, the exact liability remains uncertain until the conclusion of the CIRP and approval of a resolution plan, if any. On this basis, the present application is stated to be premature. Further, it is submitted by the PG that the Financial Creditor is stated to be negotiating the assignment of its debt to an Asset Reconstruction Company. Thus, in the event of such assignment, the Financial Creditor would cease to have locus to continue the present proceedings.

26. Further, when this matter was listed on 08.10.2025, this Adjudicating

Authority gave the following directions:

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 9 of 1827. On 14.10.2025, a short note was uploaded by the RP in the matter. Further, on

01.12.2025, the following directions were given to the RP by this Adjudicating

Authority:

28. In compliance with the order dated 01.12.2025, another short note was filed by the RP which was uploaded on the DMS e-portal on 12.12.2025, and in the hearing on 02.02.2026, it was recorded as follows:

29. In the short note uploaded by the RP on 12.12.2025, the RP has addressed the issue pertaining to Clause 29 of the Guarantee Agreement which is

extracted as below:

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 10 of 18It is stated by the RP in his note that the account of the borrower was classified as NPA on 16.03.2023, and subsequently, vide Guarantee invocation notice dated 24.05.2023, the petitioner herein has invoked the guarantee of the Personal Guarantor (Annexure 2 of the short note). Pursuant to it, only, the demand notice dated 04.11.2024 as per Form B was served upon the guarantor, and hence there was a valid invocation of the guarantee (Annexure 3 of the short note). The RP in his short note dated 09.04.2026 that the notice under

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 10.07.2023 was issued to the Corporate Debtor as well as the Personal Guarantor, calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan amount. The RP has further relied upon the judgment of the NCLAT in Ujwal Gupta v. Union Bank of India & Ors., wherein it was held that a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act can constitute a valid invocation of the personal guarantee where the notice specifically demands payment from the Personal Guarantor in terms of the guarantee.

ANALYSIS:

30. We have considered submissions and pleadings made by both the parties on record. In view of the submissions raised, the following three issues need to be

determined:

1. Whether there was a valid invocation of the guarantee, and the default on part of the PG has been established?

2. Whether the RP has performed his duties properly?

3. Whether the application is premature and the petitioner has no locus to initiate the present insolvency proceedings against the PG?

31. On the first issue that there was no valid invocation of guarantee as the notice dated 24.05.2023 was not received by the PG, and that the notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act only pertains to enforcement of security interest against the borrower, we are of the opinion that this objection of the PG doesn’t stand correct as per law.

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 11 of 1832. Even assuming that the PG was never served the notice dated 24.05.2023, it cannot be said that the notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is not a valid invocation of guarantee against the PG. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Ujwal Gupta v. Union Bank of India and Anr., (2026) ibclaw.in 18 NCLAT indicates that issuance of notice u/s 13(2) of SARFESI is a valid invocation of guarantee against the PG. The relevant portion of the same

is extracted below: “31. This Appellate Tribunal in Asha Basantilal Surana (Supra), which is a three member’s decision, after considering Amanjyot Singh (Supra) and Mavjibhai Nagarbhai Patel (Supra) clearly holds that in a case where notice under Section 13(2) makes a demand as per the guarantee agreement between the parties, the notice has to be treated as a notice for invocation of bank guarantee. This appellate Tribunal in the above case has also distinguished the law laid down by this Appellate Tribunal earlier in Amanjyot Singh

(Supra), to be a case confined to its own facts, by observing in para 12 of the judgment, that the dismissal of the appeal in Amanjyot Singh case was on the facts of the said case and has no application in the facts of the case under scrutiny and also that the invocation of personal guarantee has to be in accordance with the terms of the guarantee agreement. We reproduce the para no. 12 of the aforesaid judgment (Asha Basantilal Surana) (Supra) for

convenience herein below:- “12. Thus, the dismissal of the Appeal in the Amanjyot Singh’s case was on the facts of the said case and has no application in the facts of the present case. The invocation of personal guarantee has to be in accordance with the terms of the Guarantee Agreement which is a settled law. Clause 7 of the Guarantee Agreement does not require any particular mode and manner of the demand notice. When demand notice is issued against the personal guarantor asking the personal guarantor to discharge its liabilities, the guarantee stands invoked. Whether notice under Section 13(2) in a particular case invoked the guarantee or not depends on the words and intent of the notice. For finding out as to whether Notice under Section 13(2) invoked the personal guarantee, the IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 12 of 18letters and words of the Notice has to be looked into to come to any conclusion that whether personal guarantor has been asked to discharge its liabilities or not. In the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the Notice under Section 13(2) issued by the State Bank of India is a clear demand notice from the Appellant to pay the amount of Rs.28,56,64,336.06/-.” (Emphasis Supplied)

32. Thus, what has been highlighted by the aforesaid judgment is that it would be the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties with regard to the guarantee which would be relevant to assess as to whether the guarantee has been sufficiently invoked or not. Therefore, whether a guarantee may be invoked by giving notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act depends on the terms of the guarantee and the content of the notice. If the notice clearly demands payment from the personal guarantor in terms of the guarantee, it can be treated as an invocation of the guarantee. The facts and the wording of the notice are crucial in this determination.

33. In light of the same, it is evident here that the notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 10.07.2023 (Annexure A-7 of the application) clearly demands payment from the personal guarantors in terms of the guarantee agreements executed by them, and the same can be treated as a valid invocation of the guarantee.

34. Thus, the contention of the PG that the issuance of Form -B without any prior invocation of guarantee holds no ground now, and doesn’t warrant our consideration.

35. Further, even if the PG did not execute the guarantee deed dated 26.06.2018, his liability in respect of the credit facilities sanctioned vide the guarantee agreements dated 28.06.2013, 29.06.2016, 26.07.2017 would nevertheless subsist.

IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 13 of 1836. Consequently, the default thereof constitutes a sufficient ground for admission of this petition under Section 95 of the Code.

37. On the second issue raised by the PG that the RP has failed to perform his duties properly, we hold that the allegation is unsubstantiated and devoid of any actual merit.

38. Moving further to the third issue that since the CIRP proceedings are pending against the CD an application u/s 95 of the Code is not maintainable, we are of the opinion that it is a settled position of law that insolvency proceedings can be initiated against the PG irrespective of the status of the CD’s insolvency process. The same has been held by the Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of State Bank of India v. Mahendra Kumar Jajodia, (2022) ibclaw.in 89 NCLAT and also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the

judgement is extracted below: “11. The Adjudicating Authority erred in holding that since no CIRP or Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor are pending the application under Section 95(1) filed by the Appellant is not maintainable. The Application having been filed under Section 95(1) and the Adjudicating Authority for application under Section 95(1) as referred in Section 60(1) being the NCLT, the Application filed by the Appellant was fully maintainable and could not have been rejected only on the ground that no CIRP or Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor are pending before the NCLT. In result, we set aside the order dated 05th October, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Application filed by the Appellant under

Section 95(1) of the Code is revived before the NCLT which may be proceeded in accordance with the law.” Further, the argument of the PG that negotiation talks are underway for assigning the FC’s debt to an Asset Reconstruction Company, we observe that the same is a baseless statement without any proof or substance. In any event, the mere expectation/possibility of the future assignment of debt by the FC cannot operate as a bar or disentitle the FC from initiating insolvency IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 14 of 18proceedings against the PG in accordance with the provisions of law presently enforceable.

39. In terms of Section 100(1) of the Code, for admitting an application for insolvency resolution of a personal guarantor, the Adjudicating Authority must

be satisfied that:

(a) the application under Section 95 is complete;

(b) the debt is due and payable by the guarantor; and

40. In the present case, the petition is found to be complete in all respects. The debt arises from guarantees extended by the Respondent in respect of credit facilities availed by the Corporate Debtor. The debt has become due and remains unpaid, as evidenced by the Default Notice, Personal Guarantee Invocation Notice, and the initiation of proceedings of the Corporate Debtor & Corporate Guarantor. Thus, all conditions under Section 100(1) stand satisfied.

Accordingly, we order as under

41. The Petition filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is hereby admitted, and the Insolvency Resolution Process against the Personal Guarantor, Mr. Anil Madan, is hereby initiated. A moratorium under

Section 101 of the Code is declared from today, to remain in force for a period of 180 days or until an order under Section 114 is passed, whichever is earlier.

During the moratorium period: a. Any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed; b. The creditors of the debtor shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt;

c. The debtor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber, or dispose of any of his assets or his legal rights or beneficial interest therein; and IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 15 of 18d. The provisions of this section shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.

42. The Resolution Professional, Mavent Restructuring Services LLP, which was appointed by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 18.12.2024 is hereby directed to take all further steps in accordance with Part III, Chapter III of the Code, including publication of a public notice on behalf of the Adjudicating Authority within 7 days of uploading of this Order on the website of the NCLT, inviting claims from all Creditors, who shall register their claims as provided under Section 103 of the Code within 21 days of such notice. The notice shall contain the necessary information as provided under Section 102(2) of the Code. The publication of notice shall be made in newspapers, one in English and the other in the Vernacular Language, having wide circulation in the State where the Personal Guarantor resides.

43. The Resolution Professional, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 104 of the Code, shall prepare a list of creditors within 30 days from the date of the notice. The debtor shall prepare a Repayment Plan in consultation with the Resolution Professional as provided under Section 105 of the Code, which shall include the provisions for payment of a fee to the Resolution Professional.

The Resolution Professional shall submit the Repayment Plan along with his report on the plan to this Adjudicating Authority within a period of 21 days from the last date of submission of claims, as provided under Section 106 of the Code. In terms of the newly inserted Section 106(1A), where no Repayment Plan is submitted, the Resolution Professional shall submit a report to the Adjudicating Authority accordingly.

44. In case the Resolution Professional recommends that a meeting of the creditors is not required to be summoned, he shall record the reasons thereof. If the Resolution Professional is of the opinion that the meeting of the creditors should be summoned, he shall specify the details as provided under Section 106(3) & 106(3A) of the Code. The date of the meeting should not be less than 14 days or more than 28 days from the date of submission of the Report under Section IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 16 of 18106(1) of the Code, for which notice shall be issued to the creditors by all modes within the timeline prescribed under the law. Such notice shall contain the details as provided under Section 107 of the Code.

45. The meeting of the creditors shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 108, 109, 110 and 111 of the Code. The Resolution Professional shall prepare a report of the meeting of the creditors on the Repayment Plan with all details as provided under Section 112 of the Code and submit the same to this Adjudicating Authority, copies of which shall be provided to the debtor and the creditors. It is made clear that the Resolution Professional shall perform his functions and duties in compliance with the Code of Conduct provided under

Section 208 of the Code. Further, in terms of the newly inserted Regulation 11A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 the Resolution Professional shall coordinate with the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor in respect of transfer of assets, obtain the approval of the meeting of creditors of the Personal Guarantor for such transfer, and, where such approval is granted, ensure that the proposed transfer is duly disclosed in the reports under Sections 106 and 112 of the Code.

46. The Financial Creditor shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with the Resolution Professional to meet the expenses arising out of issuing public notice and inviting claims. This amount shall be adjusted towards the fees and expenses payable to the Resolution Professional.

47. The Resolution Professional shall submit a status report every 30 days before this Adjudicating Authority.

48. The Personal Guarantor/Respondent, Sh. Anil Madan, is directed to cooperate with the Resolution Professional and provide all requisite information for the purpose of carrying out his duties. He is further directed to submit to the Resolution Professional, within two weeks from the date of this order, complete details specifically disclosing his assets and liabilities as on the date of this

order, as well as on 31.03.2024, 31.03.2025 and 31.03.2026, duly supported by copies of the corresponding Income Tax Returns for the said years. The IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 17 of 18Personal Guarantor is also directed to furnish a copy of the latest Net Worth Certificate submitted to the Financial Creditors, along with a copy of the Net Worth Certificate submitted at the time of furnishing the Personal Guarantee.

Further, in case any assets have been sold during the last two years, complete details thereof, including the nature of the asset, date of sale, consideration received and mode of transfer, shall also be disclosed.

49. Registry shall communicate a copy of this order, the report and the petition to all concerned, including the Financial Creditor, Resolution Professional and the Personal Guarantor, within 7 working days and upload the same immediately.

50. Registry shall communicate a copy of this order, the report and the petition to all concerned, including the Financial Creditor, Resolution Professional and the Personal Guarantor, within 7 working days and upload the same immediately.

51. A copy of this order be sent to IBBI by the Registry.

52. IA No. 865/2025 is allowed and disposed of, and the Insolvency Resolution Process is hereby initiated against the Personal Guarantor/Respondent, Sh.

Anil Madan.

53. List the matter for status report by RP within four weeks on 25.11.2026.

Sd/- (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) PRESIDENT Sd/- (RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) IA-865/2025 in CP No.: IB 839/2024 Page 18 of 18PUBLIC NOTICE (Under Section 102 (1) & (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE CREDITORS OF MR. ANIL MADAN PERSONAL GUARANTOR OF M/S JOHNSON WATCH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

(U33302DL2008PTC176153) RELEVANT PARTICULARS

1. Name of Debtor/Personal Guarantor Mr. Anil Madan

2. Address of the Debtor/Personal 1. C-16, Connaught Place, New Delhi — Guarantor 110001.

2. L-21, Connaught Place, New Delhi —

110001.

3. C-21A, Connaught Place, New Delhi — 110001.

3. Details of order admitting the application Order dated – 12.10.2026 IA/865/2025 in IB-839(PB)/2024

4. Particulars of the Resolution Professional Mavent Restructuring Services LLP with whom claims are to be registered IBBI/IPE-0154/IPA-3/2023-24/50058

AFA Valid upto: 31.12.2026

5. Address and e-mail of the Resolution S-376, Panchseel Park, New Delhi - 110017 Professional, as registered with the Board

Email: caakhilahuja@gmail.com

6. Address and e-mail to be used for Mavent Restructuring Services LLP (IPE) correspondence with the Resolution S-376, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi- 110017 Professional Also, at:

803, 8th Floor, Chandak Cornerstone, David S Barretto Road, Upper Worli, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400018

Email: pg.anilmadan@gmail.com

7. Last date for submission of claims 05.11.2026

8. Relevant Forms in which claim to be “FORM B”

filed available at:

Web link:

https://www.ibbi.gov.in/home/downloads Notice is hereby given that the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has ordered the commencement of a Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against Mr. Anil Madan, Personal Guarantor of M/S Johnson Watch Company Private Limited on

12.10.2026.The creditors of Mr. Anil Madan Personal Guarantor of M/S Johnson Watch Company Private Limited are hereby called upon to submit their claims with proof on or before

05.11.2026 to the Resolution Professional at the address mentioned against entry No. 6.

The creditors shall submit their claims with proof by electronic means or by post.

Submission of false or misleading proofs of claim shall attract penalties.

SD/- Akhil Ahuja Authorized Partner Mavent Restructuring Services LLP Resolution Professional In the matter of Yes Bank Ltd. vs Anil Madan (Personal Guarantor) IBBI Regn. No.: IBBI/IPE-0154/IPA-3/2023-24/50058

Address: S-376, Panchseel Park, New Delhi - 110017 Also, at: 803, 8th Floor, Chandak Cornerstone, David S Barretto Road, Upper Worli, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400018

Email: pg.anilmadan@gmail.com Mobile. No: +91 9910197705

Place: New Delhi

Date: 15.10.2026��

Public Notice Under Section 102 IBC FOR THE CREDITORS OF MR ANIL MADAN of PERSONAL GUARANTOR OF MS JOHNSON WATCH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

Official Gazette Notification Text

Explore the policy trail

Stay updated on this topic

Get daily policy updates in your inbox

Public Notice Under Section 102 IBC FOR THE CREDITORS OF MR ANIL MADAN of PERSONAL GUARANTOR OF MS JOHNSON WATCH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

Official Gazette Notification Text

Explore the policy trail

You might also want to explore

Publication of Regulations for Licensing Places of Public Amusement and Public Amusement Performances 2023

Central Excise Notification

Amendments to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016) relating to serial number 42 and the entries relating thereto

changes in Form ITR 7

Stay updated on this topic

Get daily policy updates in your inbox