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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more