Skip to main content

Simultaneous application against Debtor and its Guarantor under I & B Code

IN THE MATTER OF Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Ex-Director of M/s Genegrow Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and Anr., appeal was filed by the Applicant/Appellant on the ground that the Learned Adjudicating Authority while admitting the claim had failed to appreciate that the liability of the ‘Principal Borrower’ and the ‘Guarantor’ is co-extensive for the purpose of recovery.

The NCLAT observed that it is not in dispute that the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (Being Corporate Guarantor of the Principal Borrower ‘Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd.) had executed the Guarantee Deed on 05.10.2011 in respect of overall Limit and sanctioned in favour of the ‘Financial Creditor’. Also that a supplementary Guarantee Deed was executed between ‘Corporate Guarantor’ & and the ‘Financial Creditor’.

As per Section 145 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in every ‘contract of ‘Guarantee’, there is an implied promise by the ‘Principal Debtor’ to indemnify the ‘Surety’. This court pertinently points out that a ‘Financial Debtor’ includes Debt owed to the Creditor by both the Principal and the Guarantor. Section 3(11) of ‘I&B’ Code refers to a sum that it is due from any person including ‘Corporate Debtor’. A mere failure of the Guarantor to pay the ‘Financial Creditor’ when the principal sum is demanded will come within the purview of default u/s 3(12) of the Code. A ‘Financial Creditor’ who has a ‘Guarantee’ on the Debt due can commence proceedings u/s 7 of ‘I&B’ Code against the ‘Guarantor’ for failure to repay the sum borrowed by the Principal Borrower.

It is to be remembered that if the ‘Contract of Guarantee’ itself mentions that the liability of a Guarantor will be independent and separate than that of ‘Principal Debtor’s liability, then an application against the Guarantor as per Section 7 is maintainable. The only rider will be that a Creditor is not permitted to do the same, sue the principal Debtor and claim in the Guarantor’s Insolvency at the same time.

It may not be necessary to start ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against the ‘Principal Borrower’ before initiating against the ‘Corporate Debtor’. Even without resorting to ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ against the ‘Principal Borrower’ it is always open to the ‘Financial Creditor’ to commence ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’ u/s 7 of the ‘I&B’ Code against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ / Guarantor.

There is no two opinion of a prime fact that there is no fetter in ‘I&B’ for projecting simultaneously two applications u/s 7 of IBC against (i) the Principal Borrower as well as (ii) the Corporate Guarantor(s) or against both the Guarantors but if, for the same set of claim, when an Application filed by the ‘Financial Creditor’ is admitted against one of the ‘Corporate Debtor’/’Principal Borrower’ or Corporate Guarantor, the second application filed by the same ‘Financial Creditor’ for the same set of claim and default is not to be admitted against the other ‘Corporate Debtor’ (The Corporate Guarantor(s) or the Principal Borrower.

As far as the present case is concerned, the Learned Adjudicating Authority had admitted the application u/s 7 of the ‘I&B’ filed by the Principal Borrower on 02.08.2019 in CP(IB)No.353/KB/2018. Also, on 02.08.2019 itself, the Learned Adjudicating Authority had admitted an application filed u/s 7 of the ‘I&B’ Code filed by the ‘Financial Creditor’ against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ ‘Gengrow Commercial Pvt. Ltd. being the ‘Corporate Guarantor’ of the ‘Principal Borrower’ viz. ‘Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd.’ for the very same debt/claim it is impermissible. Viewed in that perspective, this Tribunal comes to a consequent conclusion that the Application u/s 7 of the ‘I&B’ Code filed by the 1st Respondent/Bank/’Financial Creditor’ against the ‘Corporate Debtor’ Gengrow Commercial Pvt. Ltd. is not maintainable in law and the same is accordingly dismissed but without costs.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more