Skip to main content

Guarantor cannot enjoy a right of subrogation under the Insolvency code

Cause Title : State Bank of India Vs Shri Ghanshyam Surajbali Kurmi, CP(IB) 297/95/HBD/2021, National Company Law Tribunal Bench-1, Hyderabad

Date of Judgment/Order : 07.07.2022

Corum : Dr. N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath, Hon‟ble Member (Judicial), Shri Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi, Hon‟ble Member (Technical)

Citied: Lalit Kumar Jain vs Union of India, Supreme Court

            Lalit Mishra & Ors. v. Sharon Bio Medicine Ltd, NCLAT


Background

The Financial Creditor/Applicant filed a Company petition before this Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Code to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor vide CP (IB) No. 269/9/HDB/2018. The petition was admitted by this Adjudicating Authority on 06.09.2018.

With the framing of I & B (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019 which came into effect from 01.12.2019,  permitting the Financial Creditor to institute insolvency resolution process against personal guarantors, the Financial Creditor had issued demand notice in Form B dated 16.08.2021 through RPAD on 01.09.2021 to the Personal Guarantor i.e. Shri. Ghanshyam Surajbali Kurmi demanding payment of the amount in default.

The Adjudicating Authority  granted interim-moratorium and appointed a Resolution Professional. The RP stated that the Personal Guarantor confirmed that no payment had been made to the Financial Creditor towards the default committed by the Corporate Debtor and lack of resources to pay the amount. Hence the Resolution Professional recommended the admission of the petition filed under Section 95 of the Code.

Clause F of the Resolution Plan states:
“Once the consideration as envisaged in the resolution plan is paid, all rights, security and interest including but not limited to mortgage, pledge, guarantee and hypothecation created shall stand satisfied in lieu of the said payment.”

Based on the above clause, the Personal Guarantor contended that any liability of Personal Guarantor herein was discharged upon approval of Resolution Plan and more so any rights of Financial Creditor herein against Respondent have been forfeited after according its approval to the said resolution plan and therefore the application of the Financial Creditor deserves to be dismissed in limine.


Judgment

Referring to judgments of Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain vs Union of India and NCLAT in Lalit Mishra & Ors. v. Sharon Bio Medicine Ltd, the NCLT observed that :-

1) Conclusion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan does not bar Financial Creditor against Guarantor, and Financial Creditor can always approach this Adjudicating Authority as envisaged under the Code.

2) Reliefs and Concessions (if any) which are part of a resolution plan is squarely applicable to Corporate Debtor only which is very much in line with clean slate theory or in line with aims and objectives of Code. Accepting the interpretation of the Clause -F as envisaged by the Personal Guarantor would create scenario which would have adverse cascading effects and would extinguish the Personal Guarantee of Personal Guarantor is not tune with objectives of the Code and would create a scenario which would have adverse cascading effects.

3) Guarantor cannot enjoy a right of subrogation when the payment is made by the guarantor with respect to the debt for which the guarantee is provided. under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as proceedings under the Code are not recovery proceedings. The object of the proceedings under the Code is to revive the company and focus on maximization of value of its assets and not to ensure that credit is available to all stakeholders.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more