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

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