Skip to main content

Personal Guarantee Can Be Extinguished Through Resolution Plan

Cause Title : SVA Family Welfare Trust & Anr. Vs. Ujaas Energy Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 266 of 2023, NCLAT-Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 21/8/2023

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

Citied: 
  1. Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors.- (2019) 20 SCC 455
  2. Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India- (2021) 9 SCC 321
  3. State Bank of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Anr- (2018) 17 SCC 394
  4. Nitin Chandrakant Naik and Anr. vs. Sanidhya Industries LLP and Ors.- 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 302
  5. Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Swwapnil Bhingardevay and Ors.- (2020) 9 SCC 729
  6. K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank- (2019) 12 SCC 150
  7. Essar Steel (India) Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta- (2020) 8 SCC 531
  8. M.K. Rajagopalan vs. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder and Anr.- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 574
  9. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. Mr. Anuj Jain, Resolution Professional of Ballarpur, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.517 & 518 of 2023

Background

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Corporate Debtor- ‘M/s. Ujaas Energy Limited’ and after due process the Resolution Plan of the Appellant was approved by the CoC by 78.04% vote shares. Bank of Baroda, one of the members of the CoC holding 5.83% voting share, had filed an Affidavit objecting to the Resolution Plan on the basis that it provided for extinguishment of rights under personal guarantees. Adjudicating Authority took the view that CoC cannot extinguish right of the particular secured creditor to proceed against the personal guarantor of the Corporate Debtor, hence, the plan contravenes the provision of Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. It was also noticed that the Bank of Baroda has already filed Section 95 against the personal guarantor before the Adjudicating Authority. The reason provided by the AA was that the CoC can take any commercial decision relating to insolvency of the corporate debtor only, the CoC cannot extinguish right of the particular secured creditor to proceed against the personal guarantor of the corporate debtor under the garb of its commercial wisdom.
Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal was filed.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that out of the amount proposed in the Resolution Plan, Rs.45,00,00,000/- is towards the value of the Corporate Debtor and Rs.23,81,75,744/- is towards the release of personal guarantees.

The only question which arises for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether in a Resolution Plan can there be a clause which proposes to extinguish security interest of a Financial Creditor by way of personal guarantee of the Directors of the Corporate Debtor which was given for obtaining financial assistance from the Financial Creditor.

Referring to the above judgments, the NCLAT observed that the Supreme Court and other courts/tribunals in similar situation had taken the following view :-
  • Sanction of a resolution plan does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor’s liability. It was held that approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor. The NCLAT held that the use of above expressions ‘per se’ and ‘ipso facto’ conversely indicates that there may be situations and circumstances, for example, relevant clauses in the Resolution Plan by which personal guarantors may be discharged.
  • There can be no dispute that Moratorium under Section 14 is not applicable on the personal guarantors. Non-applicability of the Moratorium on personal guarantor is with different object and purpose.
  • In the Resolution Plan, property of the personal guarantor cannot be consumed without recourse to appropriate proceedings.
  • Section 31(1) of the Code, makes it clear that the guarantor cannot escape payment as the Resolution Plan, which has been approved, may well include provisions as to payments to be made by such guarantor.
The NCLAT decided that present is a case where Financial Creditors have decided to relinquish personal guarantees given to secure the financial assistance granted to the Corporate Debtor by the Financial Creditors on payment of a particular value in the Resolution Plan. CoC consciously considered the clauses in the plan for relinquishing the personal guarantees of the Financial Creditors in several meetings. There was a specific clause in the Resolution Plan pertaining to release of the personal guarantee which clause was deliberated. Even the objection raised by the Union Bank of India that personal guarantee cannot be released was noticed. Only after much deliberation, the Plan was approved. The NCLAT was thus, of the view that there is no error in the consideration of the CoC of the Resolution Plan and the commercial wisdom of the CoC by approving the Resolution Plan has to be given due weightage.

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

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more