Skip to main content

NCLT: Joint application by Financial Creditors to meet threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore allowed

Cause Title : Hi-tech Designs Pvt Ltd & S. K. Finserve Private Limited vs Sri Sai Car Sales Private Limited, Company Petition No. C.P. (IB)/278(KB)2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 12/07/2023

Corum : Smt. Bidisha Banerjee, Hon’ble Member (Judicial) & Shri Balraj Joshi, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Citied: 

  1. Indus Biotech Private Limited v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund, (2021) 6 SCC 436
  2. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, 1 SCC 407: MANU/SC/1063/2017 (Para 27, 18, 29 and 30)
  3. Vishnu Oil Mill Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 (4) RLW 3184 (Raj.)
  4. Lepakshi Knowledge Hub Pvt. Ltd. v. Global Emerging Markets India Ltd.
  5. K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 1163

Background

Hi-tech Designs Pvt Ltd, the financial creditor no. 1 (FC1) had provided a loan of Rs. 1 cr to the Corporate Debtor (CD) against which the CD had issued a deed of guarantee and other documents confirming their liability. An amount of Rs. 87,17,049/- together with interest stands due to the FC1.

As for S. K. Finserve Private Limited, the financial creditor no. 2 (FC2), the Corporate Debtor (CD) had provided corporate guarantee to secure the dues of Union Motors, a partnership firm amounting to Rs. 73,15,327/- together with interest stands due to the FC2.

When the borrowers defaulted, the Financial Creditors after completing all formalities jointly filed application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Total Debt of the Corporate Debtor towards the Financial Creditors combined to Rs. 1,60,32,376/- together with the interest.

Judgment

The NCLT admitting the application ex-parte held that Section 7 of the IBC as amended vide Gazette Notification dated 05.06.2020, admits no other interpretation except that a group of financial creditors can converge and join hands to touch the financial limit of Rs. 1 crore stipulated under Section 7 so as to initiate a CIRP under the IBC.

The NCLT further reiterated the following points:-

1) in order to trigger an application there should be in existence four factors: (i) there should be a 'debt' (ii) 'default' should have occurred (iii) debt should be due to 'financial creditor' and (iv) such default which has occurred should be by a 'corporate debtor
2) the financial transaction ought to be in the nature of 'Debt'. An existing obligation to pay a sum of money is the sine qua non of a 'Financial Debt
3) the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the Principal Borrower. The judgment in Laxmi Pat Surana (supra), rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court is binding on this Bench. It was open to the Financial Creditor to proceed against the guarantor without first suing the Principal Borrower.

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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more