Skip to main content

Personal Guarantee Can Be Extinguished Through Resolution Plan

Cause Title : SVA Family Welfare Trust & Anr. Vs. Ujaas Energy Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 266 of 2023, NCLAT-Delhi

Date of Judgment/Order : 21/8/2023

Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

Citied: 
  1. Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors.- (2019) 20 SCC 455
  2. Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India- (2021) 9 SCC 321
  3. State Bank of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Anr- (2018) 17 SCC 394
  4. Nitin Chandrakant Naik and Anr. vs. Sanidhya Industries LLP and Ors.- 2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 302
  5. Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Swwapnil Bhingardevay and Ors.- (2020) 9 SCC 729
  6. K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank- (2019) 12 SCC 150
  7. Essar Steel (India) Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta- (2020) 8 SCC 531
  8. M.K. Rajagopalan vs. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder and Anr.- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 574
  9. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. Mr. Anuj Jain, Resolution Professional of Ballarpur, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.517 & 518 of 2023

Background

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Corporate Debtor- ‘M/s. Ujaas Energy Limited’ and after due process the Resolution Plan of the Appellant was approved by the CoC by 78.04% vote shares. Bank of Baroda, one of the members of the CoC holding 5.83% voting share, had filed an Affidavit objecting to the Resolution Plan on the basis that it provided for extinguishment of rights under personal guarantees. Adjudicating Authority took the view that CoC cannot extinguish right of the particular secured creditor to proceed against the personal guarantor of the Corporate Debtor, hence, the plan contravenes the provision of Section 30(2)(e) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. It was also noticed that the Bank of Baroda has already filed Section 95 against the personal guarantor before the Adjudicating Authority. The reason provided by the AA was that the CoC can take any commercial decision relating to insolvency of the corporate debtor only, the CoC cannot extinguish right of the particular secured creditor to proceed against the personal guarantor of the corporate debtor under the garb of its commercial wisdom.
Aggrieved by the said order, this Appeal was filed.

Judgment

The NCLAT observed that out of the amount proposed in the Resolution Plan, Rs.45,00,00,000/- is towards the value of the Corporate Debtor and Rs.23,81,75,744/- is towards the release of personal guarantees.

The only question which arises for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether in a Resolution Plan can there be a clause which proposes to extinguish security interest of a Financial Creditor by way of personal guarantee of the Directors of the Corporate Debtor which was given for obtaining financial assistance from the Financial Creditor.

Referring to the above judgments, the NCLAT observed that the Supreme Court and other courts/tribunals in similar situation had taken the following view :-
  • Sanction of a resolution plan does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor’s liability. It was held that approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor. The NCLAT held that the use of above expressions ‘per se’ and ‘ipso facto’ conversely indicates that there may be situations and circumstances, for example, relevant clauses in the Resolution Plan by which personal guarantors may be discharged.
  • There can be no dispute that Moratorium under Section 14 is not applicable on the personal guarantors. Non-applicability of the Moratorium on personal guarantor is with different object and purpose.
  • In the Resolution Plan, property of the personal guarantor cannot be consumed without recourse to appropriate proceedings.
  • Section 31(1) of the Code, makes it clear that the guarantor cannot escape payment as the Resolution Plan, which has been approved, may well include provisions as to payments to be made by such guarantor.
The NCLAT decided that present is a case where Financial Creditors have decided to relinquish personal guarantees given to secure the financial assistance granted to the Corporate Debtor by the Financial Creditors on payment of a particular value in the Resolution Plan. CoC consciously considered the clauses in the plan for relinquishing the personal guarantees of the Financial Creditors in several meetings. There was a specific clause in the Resolution Plan pertaining to release of the personal guarantee which clause was deliberated. Even the objection raised by the Union Bank of India that personal guarantee cannot be released was noticed. Only after much deliberation, the Plan was approved. The NCLAT was thus, of the view that there is no error in the consideration of the CoC of the Resolution Plan and the commercial wisdom of the CoC by approving the Resolution Plan has to be given due weightage.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more