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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more