Skip to main content

Filling Under Insolvency Code Against Guarantor Without Filling Against The Corporate Debtor

In State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jajodia, Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtor, appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT, Kolkata rejecting the CIRP application filed by the Appellant under Section u/s. 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against the guarantor as premature since no CIRP or Liquidation Process is pending against the principal borrower/Corporate Debtor.

Background

The Appellants argument was that the application was fully maintainable under Section 60(1) of the Code despite there being no pendency of any Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT in short).

Section 60 of the Code has 2 parts. Subsection 1 states that the Adjudicating Authority or Tribunal in question for insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the NCLT having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate persons located.

While Section 2 states that notwithstanding whatever has been said under Section 1, an application relating to the insolvency resolution or liquidation or bankruptcy of a corporate guarantor or personal guarantor shall be filed in the same NCLT where an application for CIRP or liquidation against the Corporate Debtor is pending.

Judgment 

While agreeing with the Appellant opined that the Application filed by the Appellant was fully maintainable and could not have been rejected only on the ground that no CIRP or Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor are pending before the NCLT.

Opinion/Note

Unfortunately as a judgment goes, the NCLAT order is at little unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court has always maintained that it is imperative that the court clearly expresses its views when passing judgment. This one is neither here not there. Initiating action against guarantors independent of the borrower is allowed in DRTs which however is a recovery process while IBC is resolution. However, it should be noted that in Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank of India & Anr, while allowing an application under Section 7 of the Code, the Supreme Court held that the obligation of the guarantor is coextensive and coterminous with that of the principal borrower to defray the debt, as predicated in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872. As a consequence of such default, the status of the guarantor metamorphoses into a debtor or a corporate debtor if it happens to be a corporate person, within the definition of 'corporate debtor' under the IBC. It should however noted that in this case the guarantor was a company.

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