Skip to main content

Corporate Debtor liability not extinguished upon Insolvency Resolution Plan Approval

 In STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, Applications are filed before the NCLT by the Financial Creditor against a Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtors seeking urgent hearing and necessary orders under section 97(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The issue under consideration is whether the liability of a guarantor of a debt of a corporate debtor stands reduced/extinguished upon an Insolvency Resolution Plan in respect of the corporate debtor, being approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016?

NCLT stated that, basing on the law decided the Hon‟ble High Court answered the question in the negative. It held that a discharge which the principal debtor may secure by operation of law in bankruptcy or in liquidation proceedings does not absolve the surety of his liability. The Hon‟ble Court have also held that the fact that the Company i.e. principal debtor has gone into liquidation would not have any effect on the liability of the guarantor. The principle thus laid down applies on all fours to the case at hand. In view of such authoritative pronouncement by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it is clear that notwithstanding pendency of the Resolution Plans, the personal guarantor can be proceeded against under section 60(2) read with sections 95 and 97(3) of the Code. A plain reading of the provision would indicate that while an Application for corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceedings of corporate debtors are pending before this Authority i.e. to say during the pendency of a process of corporate insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtors, an Application against the Personal Guarantor shall have to be filed. This itself indicates that the process of corporate insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debtors in an Application relating to insolvency resolution etc. of a personal guarantor needs to be filed and can be prosecuted. The law doesn’t envisage that the insolvency resolution of the personal guarantor should follow only when the process of corporate insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor has come to an end. Therefore, the submission that this Authority should wait till the resolution of RCOM or RITL is successfully accomplished and the debts of the corporate debtors have been satisfied, would be eristic. It is to be remembered that the present forum is not a recovery forum and has nothing to do with the satisfaction or otherwise of the debts of the corporate debtors. The submissions accordingly don‟t hold much water. It is not in dispute that the Respondent furnished his personal guarantee for the credit facilities availed by RCOM and RITL. When an Application under section 95 of the Code is filed by the Creditor, as in this case, the Adjudicating Authority shall within seven days of filing of the Application direct the Board to nominate a resolution professional for the insolvency resolution process. Section 97(3) of the Code doesn‟t provide for any alternative or any option to the Adjudicating Authority to be tardy in making the direction to the Board. The use of the word “shall” itself indicates the urgency with which the Application needs to be dealt with. The Authority accordingly has no other option than to issue the direction. The submissions made by the Respondents that this Authority could wait till the resolution of the Corporate debtors are completed accordingly cannot be accepted.

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