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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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