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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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