Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + Tri Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1585 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyInitiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - default in payment of loans extended to the principal borrowers - section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Whether or not the creditor can initiate CIRP process under this Code against the guarantor company falling within the definition of company as envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013 especially when guarantee is given against the loans availed by a partnership firm and proprietary concerns and whether or not this debt is barred by limitation as stated by the Corporate Debtor counsel? HELD THAT:- It is an admitted case that the principal borrowers availed loans from the Creditor Bank against the payment of interest on the guarantee given by the debtor, it is an admitted fact that since the principal borrowers failed to repay the loans availed by them, the creditor notified this fact to the debtor/guarantor, against which the debtor has also failed to discharge the liability, it is an admitted fact that all three principal borrowers acknowledged the debt payable by the principal borrowers on 3.10.2016, likewise the debtor has not even disputed the Creditor Bank sending demand notices to the principal borrowers, the Creditor Bank sending recall notice to the principal borrowers and the guarantors. Whether or not any debt is a financial debt, it does not entail who the parties are, the only requisite to determine that it is a financial debt is as to whether or not the obligation falls within the ambit of any of the sub clauses of clause 8 of section 5 of the Code. Once it is proved that the debt falling within the ambit of debt payable along with interest which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of the money and debt falling under any of the sub-clauses mentioned in clause 8 of section 5 of the Code, then it becomes financial debt as envisaged under clause 8. In this case, the corporate debtor admittedly being corporate guarantor to the money borrowed by the principal borrowers against payment of interest, it is a financial debt falling under sub-clause (i) of Clause 8. In this case, the person in default as per sub-clause (i) of clause 8 of section 5 is a company as envisaged under clause 7 of section 3 of the Code, therefore this creditor can initiate section 7 proceedings against this corporate debtor. Indeed this corporate person in respect to this case will not be treated as corporate guarantor referred in clause (5A) of section 5 of the Code read with section 60(2)&(3) of the Code. It is a case independently filed relying on Clause 8(i) of Section 5 of the Code. This Corporate Debtor clearly falls within the definition of Corporate Person because it is a company falling within the definition of because it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Act/Companies Act, 2013 as the case may be as envisaged under Clause 20 of Section 20 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, this liability falls within the definition of Section (5)(8)(i) of the Code and since the Corporate Debtor is a Corporate Person, it makes no difference as to whether the Corporate Person stood as guarantor to an individual or a Corporate Person, and so long as the obligation in respect of a claim is due from a Corporate Person falling within the definition of Financial Debt, then it is obvious that the Creditor can proceed under section 7 of the Code against such Corporate Person, here the Corporate Debtor being a Corporate Person falling within section (5)(8)(i) of the Code, this Petition is maintainable against the Corporate Debtor. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is true that this Corporate Debtor has not executed fresh Guarantee Deed in respect to the loans availed by all three Principal Borrowers within three years before filing this Company Petition. But it is true that this Corporate Debtor executed individual Guarantee Deeds on behalf of each of the Principal Borrowers at the time these Principal Borrowers availed loans from the Creditors - It is a settled proposition of law as long as the debt has remained alive against the Principal Borrower, the liability of the Corporate Debtor need not be renewed from time to time so long as Principal Borrower keeps either acknowledging or making part payments within three years before proceeding against the Guarantor. Therefore, merely by not executing the fresh guarantee deed against each of the accounts, it cannot be said that the Creditor cannot proceed against the guarantors in respect to the loan account to which it has not executed fresh guarantee within three years before proceeding against the Corporate Debtor. Petition is admitted - Moratorium declared.
|