Skip to main content

NCLT: Joint application by Financial Creditors to meet threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore allowed

Cause Title : Hi-tech Designs Pvt Ltd & S. K. Finserve Private Limited vs Sri Sai Car Sales Private Limited, Company Petition No. C.P. (IB)/278(KB)2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 12/07/2023

Corum : Smt. Bidisha Banerjee, Hon’ble Member (Judicial) & Shri Balraj Joshi, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Indus Biotech Private Limited v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund, (2021) 6 SCC 436
  2. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, 1 SCC 407: MANU/SC/1063/2017 (Para 27, 18, 29 and 30)
  3. Vishnu Oil Mill Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 (4) RLW 3184 (Raj.)
  4. Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd. v. Global Emerging Markets India Ltd.
  5. K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 1163

Background

Hi-tech Designs Pvt Ltd, the financial creditor no. 1 (FC1) had provided a loan of Rs. 1 cr to the Corporate Debtor (CD) against which the CD had issued a deed of guarantee and other documents confirming their liability. An amount of Rs. 87,17,049/- together with interest stands due to the FC1.

As for S. K. Finserve Private Limited, the financial creditor no. 2 (FC2), the Corporate Debtor (CD) had provided corporate guarantee to secure the dues of Union Motors, a partnership firm amounting to Rs. 73,15,327/- together with interest stands due to the FC2.

When the borrowers defaulted, the Financial Creditors after completing all formalities jointly filed application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Total Debt of the Corporate Debtor towards the Financial Creditors combined to Rs. 1,60,32,376/- together with the interest.

Judgment

The NCLT admitting the application ex-parte held that Section 7 of the IBC as amended vide Gazette Notification dated 05.06.2020, admits no other interpretation except that a group of financial creditors can converge and join hands to touch the financial limit of Rs. 1 crore stipulated under Section 7 so as to initiate a CIRP under the IBC.

The NCLT further reiterated the following points:-

1) in order to trigger an application there should be in existence four factors: (i) there should be a 'debt' (ii) 'default' should have occurred (iii) debt should be due to 'financial creditor' and (iv) such default which has occurred should be by a 'corporate debtor
2) the financial transaction ought to be in the nature of 'Debt'. An existing obligation to pay a sum of money is the sine qua non of a 'Financial Debt
3) the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the Principal Borrower. The judgment in Laxmi Pat Surana (supra), rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court is binding on this Bench. It was open to the Financial Creditor to proceed against the guarantor without first suing the Principal Borrower.

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