News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
Creditor Can Proceed Against Guarantor Even Without Proceeding Against Borrower - NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has held that financial creditor can proceed against corporate guarantor even before proceeding against corporate debtor.
It was held :
We hold that it is not necessary to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Principal Borrower' before initiating 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Guarantors'. Without initiating any 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Principal Borrower', it is always open to the 'Financial Creditor' to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' under Section 7 against the 'Corporate Guarantors', as the creditor is also the 'Financial Creditor' qua 'Corporate Guarantor'
The Tribunal was considering appeals filed by two companies, which had stood as guarantors to a loan advanced to another company. When default occurred in repayment, the creditor filed applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the guarantors. The applications were admitted by the NCLT.
This action of NLCT was challenged by them contending that corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be initiated against guarantors, without proceeding against the debtor.
The NCLAT bench headed by Chairperson Justice S J Mukhopadhyaya rejected the argument, by relying on several SC precedents holding that the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with the liability of principal borrower.
The bench also noted that counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee comes within the meaning of 'financial debt', as per clause (h) of Section 5 (8) of the 'I&B Code'.
However, the bench held that once an application under Section 7 is admitted, another application for the same debt cannot be filed. In this case, the applications under Section 7 were admitted against both the corporate guarantors. This was held to be an improper course of action by the NCLAT. It was held :
Once for same claim the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' is initiated against one of the 'Corporate Debtor' after such initiation, the 'Financial Creditor' cannot trigger 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the other 'Corporate Debtor(s)', for the same claim amount (debt).
Hence, the CIRP against the second corporate debtor was quashed by the NCLAT. #casansaar (Source - LiveLaw)
It was held :
We hold that it is not necessary to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Principal Borrower' before initiating 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Guarantors'. Without initiating any 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Principal Borrower', it is always open to the 'Financial Creditor' to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' under Section 7 against the 'Corporate Guarantors', as the creditor is also the 'Financial Creditor' qua 'Corporate Guarantor'
The Tribunal was considering appeals filed by two companies, which had stood as guarantors to a loan advanced to another company. When default occurred in repayment, the creditor filed applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the guarantors. The applications were admitted by the NCLT.
This action of NLCT was challenged by them contending that corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be initiated against guarantors, without proceeding against the debtor.
The NCLAT bench headed by Chairperson Justice S J Mukhopadhyaya rejected the argument, by relying on several SC precedents holding that the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with the liability of principal borrower.
The bench also noted that counter-indemnity obligation in respect of a guarantee comes within the meaning of 'financial debt', as per clause (h) of Section 5 (8) of the 'I&B Code'.
However, the bench held that once an application under Section 7 is admitted, another application for the same debt cannot be filed. In this case, the applications under Section 7 were admitted against both the corporate guarantors. This was held to be an improper course of action by the NCLAT. It was held :
Once for same claim the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' is initiated against one of the 'Corporate Debtor' after such initiation, the 'Financial Creditor' cannot trigger 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the other 'Corporate Debtor(s)', for the same claim amount (debt).
Hence, the CIRP against the second corporate debtor was quashed by the NCLAT. #casansaar (Source - LiveLaw)
Category : Insolvent Professional | Comments : 0 | Hits : 567
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000

Comments