Skip to main content

IBC : Creditor Can Proceed Against Guarantor Even Without Proceeding Against Borrower

In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2018, Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal vs M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., the borrowing by All India Society for Advance Education and Research was guaranteed by 2 corporate guarantors. On default, the lender raised notice on both the guarantors for exactly the same amount, then went to NCLT by filling 2 separate applications against the guarantors .The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application against both the guarantors. The Appellants raised questions on maintainability on two important issues:-

1) Whether the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ can be initiated against a ‘Corporate Guarantor’, if the ‘Principal Borrower’ is not a ‘Corporate Debtor’ or ‘Corporate Person’?

2)  Whether the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ can be initiated against two ‘Corporate Guarantors’ simultaneously for the same set of debt and default?

The NCLAT, referring to the judgements of the Supreme Court in Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad and Anr., Ram Bahadur Thakur vs. Sabu Jain Limited, State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered and Ors., held that it is not necessary to initiate ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against the ‘Principal Borrower’ before initiating ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against the ‘Corporate Guarantors’. Without initiating any ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against the ‘Principal Borrower’, it is always open to the ‘Financial Creditor’ to initiate ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ under Section 7 against the ‘Corporate Guarantors’, as the creditor is also the ‘Financial Creditor’ qua ‘Corporate Guarantor’.

For the second question, the NCLAT referring to the judgements of the Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Ors., decided that the moment the Adjudicating Authority admits an application against one guarantor, it is open to the other guarantor to say that the debt in question is not due as it is not payable in law, having shown the same debt payable by the another guarantor and ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ having already been initiated against the said guarantor.

The NCLAT went on the opine that for same set of debt, claim cannot be filed by same ‘Financial Creditor’ in two separate ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes’. If same claim cannot be claimed from ‘Resolution Professionals’ of separate ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes’, for same claim amount and default, two applications under Section 7 cannot be admitted simultaneously. Once for same claim the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ is initiated against one of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ after such initiation, the ‘Financial Creditor’ cannot trigger ‘Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process’ against the other ‘Corporate Debtor(s)’, for the same claim amount (debt). There is no bar in the ‘I&B Code’ for filing simultaneously two applications under Section 7 against the ‘Principal Borrower’ as well as the ‘Corporate Guarantor(s)’ or against both the ‘Guarantors’. However, once for same set of claim application under Section 7 filed by the ‘Financial Creditor’ is admitted against one of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (‘Principal Borrower’ or ‘Corporate Guarantor(s)’), second application by the same ‘Financial Creditor’ for same set of claim and default cannot be admitted against the other ‘Corporate Debtor’ (the ‘Corporate Guarantor(s)’ or the ‘Principal Borrower’). Further, though there is a provision to file joint application under Section 7 by the ‘Financial Creditors’, no application can be filed by the ‘Financial Creditor’ against two or more ‘Corporate Debtors’ on the ground of joint liability (‘Principal Borrower’ and one ‘Corporate Guarantor’, or ‘Principal Borrower’ or two ‘Corporate Guarantors’ or one ‘Corporate Guarantor’ and other ‘Corporate Guarantor’), till it is shown that the ‘Corporate Debtors’ combinedly are joint venture company.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more