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

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