2025 (5) TMI 941 - AT - IBC

Admission of application under Section 7 of IBC - financial debt due from the Corporate Debtor to initiate proceedings under Section 7 or not - HELD THAT - It is noted that there has been financial arrangement among the Respondent No. 1 and the Appellants along with other borrowers like Prateek Sancheti and the Corporate Debtor who were all classified as borrowers. It is noted that total Rs. 5.85 Crores loans were sanctioned through three loan agreements of Rs. 1.5 Crores dated 19.04.2021 Rs. 1.5 Crores dated 19.04.2021 and Rs. 2.85 Crores dated 15.04.2021. The disbursement of money is not a disputed fact and is taken as such. It is also noted that various properties were mortgaged in favour of the Financial Creditors. It is clear that at all places in the loan agreements the Appellants have been categorically stated to be borrowers and have signed accordingly. It is also noted that for Sancheti Buildtech Pvt. Ltd./ Corporate Debtor the Director has signed the agreement and similarly for M/s Sancheti s Traders it has been signed by partner. It is also noted that this was the standard loan agreement used by the Respondent No. 1 and the printed term the guarantor was struck off as there was no guarantors. Thus the contention of the Appellants that they were guarantors and not borrowers cannot be accepted. It is observed that all the three loan agreements contained the similar clauses and categorically states that the Appellants and the Corporate Debtor as borrowers and not a guarantors. Thus the argument of the Appellants on this account stands rejected. As regards the allegation that the Appellants they were being in financial distress and were lured by the Respondent No. 1 to take excess loan of Rs. 5.85 Crores rather than the requirements of Rs. 4.25 Crores. We do not find any merit in such allegations of the Appellants without any substance. It is illogical to accept that for such substantial loan the borrowers (Sancheti s Family) and the Corporate Debtor will sign under alleged force of the Respondent No. 1 - It is already noted the allegation that Rs. 1.60 Crores was transferred by the Sancheti s family members in the accounts of Mr. Rounak Ranka and also noted the statement of the Respondents that this money was transferred in the name of Scribbling Shipping Pvt. Ltd. which has nothing to do with the case. Conclusion - The Adjudicating Authority has examined all the facts and the law and came to correct conclusion of passing the necessary order to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:

- Whether the Appellants (Suspended Directors) and the Corporate Debtor were borrowers or merely guarantors under the loan agreements executed with the Financial Creditor;

- Whether the Financial Creditor had a valid financial debt due from the Corporate Debtor to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code);

- Whether the loan agreements were valid and enforceable, considering allegations of fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation by the Financial Creditor;

- Whether the Appellants' contention that the loan amounts were disbursed to individual accounts and not to the Corporate Debtor negates the existence of financial debt against the Corporate Debtor;

- The impact of criminal proceedings (FIRs) filed by and against the parties on the insolvency application;

- Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in admitting the application under Section 7 of the Code and initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Borrower vs. Guarantor Status of Appellants and Corporate Debtor

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the Code, the existence of a financial debt owed by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor is a prerequisite for initiating insolvency proceedings. The contractual terms defining parties' roles as borrowers or guarantors are critical. The Supreme Court has held that the terms of loan agreements and the conduct of parties are determinative.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the three loan agreements and accompanying schedules. The agreements explicitly state in their opening clauses that the "Borrowers" approached the lender for loans, and the loan amount was granted to the "Borrowers." The names of the Appellants, Corporate Debtor, and other family members appear jointly as borrowers in Schedule 1. The Appellants and Corporate Debtor signed the agreements as borrowers, with respective seals and signatures.

The Tribunal noted that the printed term "guarantor" was struck off from the agreements, indicating no guarantors were involved. The Appellants' claim that they were only guarantors was rejected because the agreements consistently and unequivocally identified them as borrowers.

Key Evidence and Findings: The signed loan agreements, mortgage application forms, and the fact that the Corporate Debtor's director signed on its behalf as borrower all support the classification as borrowers. The Tribunal also highlighted that the loan agreements were standard forms used by the Financial Creditor, with the guarantor clause removed by mutual arrangement.

Application of Law to Facts: The contractual language and parties' conduct establish borrower status, which is legally binding. The Appellants' attempt to recast themselves as guarantors was unsupported by documentary evidence.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellants' argument that the term "guarantor" was struck off and that they were misled was considered but found unsubstantiated. The Tribunal found no credible evidence of coercion or misrepresentation affecting the borrowers' status.

Conclusion: The Appellants and Corporate Debtor are borrowers under the loan agreements, not guarantors.

Issue 2: Existence of Financial Debt and Validity of Loan Agreements

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 7 of the Code allows a financial creditor to initiate insolvency proceedings if there is a default in repayment of financial debt. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the debt and default must be established on record.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the total loan amount of Rs. 5.85 Crores was disbursed to the borrowers as per the loan agreements. The Corporate Debtor and other borrowers mortgaged properties as security. The repayment schedule was breached, and the loans were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 19.04.2022. The Financial Creditor issued a demand notice dated 10.11.2022, which remained unpaid.

The Appellants contended that the loan amounts were disbursed to individual accounts and not to the Corporate Debtor, and that no financial debt existed between the Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor. The Tribunal rejected this contention, noting that the borrowers had authorized disbursal into individual accounts and that the Corporate Debtor was an explicit borrower under the loan agreements.

Key Evidence and Findings: The loan agreements, demand notices, mortgaged properties, and classification of loans as NPA demonstrate the existence of financial debt and default. The Tribunal also observed that the Appellants' claim of siphoning off Rs. 1.60 Crores to a third party's account was denied by the Financial Creditor and not substantiated with credible proof.

Application of Law to Facts: The admitted disbursal of loans and default on repayment satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 7 of the Code for initiating insolvency proceedings.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellants' allegations of fraud, coercion, and misappropriation were considered but found lacking in evidentiary support. The Tribunal also held that the FIRs filed by and against the parties do not affect the validity of the insolvency application.

Conclusion: A valid financial debt and default exist between the Corporate Debtor and Financial Creditor, justifying initiation of CIRP under Section 7.

Issue 3: Impact of FIRs and Criminal Proceedings on Insolvency Application

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Criminal proceedings and insolvency proceedings are independent. The existence of FIRs or criminal complaints does not preclude the Financial Creditor from initiating insolvency proceedings if statutory conditions are met.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that FIR No. 125/2022 was filed by the Financial Creditor against the Appellants for offenses under Sections 420 and 406 IPC related to non-payment of dues. The Appellants filed a counter FIR against the Financial Creditor's representatives. The Tribunal held that these FIRs have no bearing on the application under Section 7 of the Code.

Key Evidence and Findings: The FIRs and related criminal proceedings are separate legal processes and do not affect the contractual and financial relationship under the loan agreements.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied settled principles distinguishing criminal liability from insolvency proceedings.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellants argued that the FIRs demonstrate malafide conduct by the Financial Creditor. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the independence of insolvency jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings do not impact the maintainability of the insolvency application.

Issue 4: Allegation of Coercion and Excess Loan Amount

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Allegations of coercion or misrepresentation must be supported by cogent evidence to invalidate loan agreements.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Appellants alleged that they were coerced to accept loans amounting to Rs. 5.85 Crores instead of Rs. 4.25 Crores, and that part of the loan was siphoned off to the Financial Creditor's director's son. The Tribunal found no credible evidence to support these allegations. It was held illogical that the borrowers would sign multiple loan agreements under coercion for such substantial amounts.

Key Evidence and Findings: The loan agreements, application forms, and conduct of the parties indicate voluntary execution. The alleged siphoning of Rs. 1.60 Crores was denied by the Financial Creditor and not substantiated.

Application of Law to Facts: Without credible evidence, allegations of coercion and misappropriation cannot invalidate the loan agreements.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal gave due consideration to the Appellants' allegations but found them speculative and unsubstantiated.

Conclusion: The allegations of coercion and excess loan amount lack merit and do not vitiate the loan agreements.

Issue 5: Validity of Demand Notices and Mortgage Security

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Demand notices under Section 7 must be properly addressed and served. Security interests such as mortgages support the creditor's claim.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the demand notices dated 10.11.2022 were addressed to all borrowers including the Corporate Debtor and Appellants as co-borrowers. The mortgage deeds were executed with the names of all borrowers, including the Corporate Debtor, securing the loans.

Key Evidence and Findings: The demand notices and mortgage documents corroborate the Financial Creditor's claim and the borrowers' liability.

Application of Law to Facts: Proper issuance of demand notices and existence of mortgage security fulfill the procedural and substantive requirements under the Code.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellants' claim that the demand notices were illegally issued and that no mortgage existed with respect to the Corporate Debtor was rejected based on documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The demand notices and mortgage securities are valid and enforceable.

Issue 6: Maintainability of Insolvency Application Against Corporate Debtor

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Code permits insolvency proceedings against a Corporate Debtor if a financial debt is due and defaulted. Co-borrowers are jointly and severally liable.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Corporate Debtor was a party to the loan agreements as borrower, had mortgaged properties as security, and defaulted on repayment. The Financial Creditor is entitled to proceed against the Corporate Debtor and co-borrowers jointly.

Key Evidence and Findings: Loan agreements, mortgage deeds, demand notices, and default status establish the Corporate Debtor's liability.

Application of Law to Facts: The application under Section 7 is maintainable against the Corporate Debtor.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Appellants' contention that no money was disbursed to the Corporate Debtor and therefore no debt exists was rejected.

Conclusion: The insolvency application against the Corporate Debtor is maintainable and valid.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "The Appellants and Corporate Debtor jointly approached the Respondent No.1 seeking financial loan facilities in the form of secure term loans, and also offered for mortgaging their personal properties and submitted three Mortgage Loan Application Forms to the Respondent No.1 seeking loans."

- "At all places in the loan agreements, the Appellants have been categorically stated to be borrowers and have signed accordingly. The printed term 'guarantor' was struck off as there was no guarantors."

- "The admitted disbursal of loans and default on repayment satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 7 of the Code for initiating insolvency proceedings."

- "The FIRs filed by and against the parties do not have any bearing on the application initiated by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 7 of the Code."

- "The demand notices dated 10.11.2022 were addressed to all borrowers including the Corporate Debtor and Appellants as co-borrowers and are valid."

- "The application under Section 7 of the Code is maintainable against the Corporate Debtor and co-borrowers jointly and the Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted the application and initiated CIRP."

- "The allegations of coercion, misappropriation, and siphoning off funds are unsubstantiated and rejected."

The Tribunal concluded that the Impugned Order admitting the application under Section 7 of the Code and initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor was correct and did not suffer from any error warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.