Skip to main content

NCLAT: Personal guarantor has no right against corporate debtor

In Lalit Mishra & Ors. Vs Sharon Bio Medicine Ltd. & Ors., the Appellants/promotors challenged the approval of the Resolution Plan on the grounds that the Appellants/promoters were the shareholders and for them no amount has been provided under the ‘Resolution Plan’; and that some of the Appellants/promoters are also ‘personal guarantors’ who have been discriminated.

It was submitted by the Appellants/promotors that the lenders have not been treated similarly and restructuring for its entire claims of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ is against the provisions of the ‘I&B Code’ and that the security interest which include the personal guarantees of the Appellants have been reduced to ‘nil’ and thereby the ‘Resolution Plan’ have been submitted against the provisions of Sections 133 and 140 of the ‘Indian Contract Act’.

The NCLAT opined that it was not the intention of the legislature to benefit the ‘Personal Guarantors’ by excluding exercise of legal remedies available in law by the creditors, to recover legitimate dues by enforcing the personal guarantees, which are independent contracts. It is a settled position of law that the liabilities of guarantors is co-extensive with the borrower. The promoters, who are also among those responsible for having contributed to the insolvency of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. The ‘I&B Code’ prohibits the promoters from gaining, directly or indirectly, control of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, or benefiting from the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ or its outcome. The ‘I&B Code’ seeks to protect creditors of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ by preventing promoters from rewarding themselves at the expense of creditors and undermining the insolvency processes. The NCLAT also held that as the shareholders and promoters are not the creditors, if no amount is given to the promoters/ shareholders and the other equity shareholders who are not the promoters have been separately treated by providing certain amount in their favour, the Appellant cannot claim to have been discriminated.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more