SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S Oka, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
China Development Bank – Appellant
Versus
Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7298 OF 2022 Civil Appeal No.7407 of 2022 Civil Appeal No.7615 of 2022 Civil Appeal No.7328 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No.7434 of 2023
Decided On : 20-12-2024
Key Points: - The DoH clause 5(iii) can create a guarantee under Section 126 of the Contract Act, making Corporate Debtor a guarantor for shortfall obligations. (!) (!) (!) - Whether the appellants are Financial Creditors under IBC depends on treating the DoH as a guarantee and the applicability of Sections 5(7), 5(8), and 3(6)/(11) to define "financial debt" and "claim." (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The NCLAT's reversal of NCLT's classification of appellants as Financial Creditors was quashed; the appellants are to be classified as Financial Creditors, with the DoH recognized as guaranteeing obligations. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 9th September 2022 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the NCLAT’). The appellants in this batch of appeals (for short, ‘appellants’), except the appellant in Civil Appeal No.7434 of 2023, were parties to the appeals preferred by 1st to 4th respondents in Civil Appeal No. 7298 of 2022.
2. The issue involved in these appeals is whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘the IBC’). Another issue may arise in the event it is held that the appellants are not ‘Financial Creditors’. The issue will be whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Secured Creditors’ and paid commensurate to their security interest.
3. 1st respondent-Doha Bank claims to be a direct lender and secured Financial Creditor of Reliance Infratel Limited (for short, ‘RITL’ or ‘the Corporate Debtor’). A Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) in respect of RITL-Corporate Debtor at the instance of Ericsson India Private Limited, and the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. We are concerned in this case with Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (for short, ‘RCIL’), Reliance Communications Ltd. (for short, ‘RCom’), Reliance Telecom Ltd. (for short, ‘RTL’) and RITL. These companies are hereinafter collectively referred to as “RCom entities”.
4. Public announcements were made under Section 15 of the IBC inviting claims from creditors. The appellants submitted their claims as Financial Creditors of the Corporate Debtor. While admitting the claim of the appellants, the Resolution Professional classified the appellants as Financial Creditors. Accordingly, the appellants were included in the Committee of Creditors (for short, ‘the COC’). The 1st Respondent-Doha Bank, made applications before the NCLT to challenge the admission of the claims of the appellants (except the appellant in Civil Appeal No.7434 of 2023) as Financial Creditors. The contention of the 1st respondent-Doha Bank was that the said appellants were not direct lenders of the Corporate Debtor, and it was impermissible to admit them as Financial Creditors on the basis of various terms of the Deeds of Hypothecation.
5. During the pendency of 1st respondent-Doha Bank’s Application, a Resolution Applicant submitted a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, which the CoC approved in its meeting held on 2nd March 2020. After that, the 5th respondent-RP filed an application for grant of approval to the Resolution Plan. By order dated 3rd December 2020, the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan. The approval was granted without deciding the pending application made by the 1st respondent-Doha Bank, filed for objecting to the status of the appellants as Financial Creditors. The 6th Respondent preferred an appeal before the NCLAT to challenge the approval of the Resolution Plan. By the order dated 19th January 2021, the NCLAT directed the NCLT to decide the application of the 1st Respondent-Doha Bank. The NCLAT disposed of the appeal by observing that depending on the outcome of the application of the 1st Respondent, the order approving the Resolution Plan could be reconsidered.
6. The appellants have relied upon the Deeds of Hypothecation dated 4th March 2011, 9th March 2011, 12th February 2012 and 15th September 2018 (collectively referred to as “the DoH”). The DoH were executed jointly by each of the Rcom entities (described therein as Chargors), including the Corporate Debtor (RCIL), to create a charge over their property for securing the repayment of the facilities advanced by the appellants. The RCom entities agreed to provide their assets as security and further undertook to pay any shortfall of debts owed by each of the RCom entities. All the RCom entities pooled
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishnan
Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd.
Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. & Ors.
M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore (1969) 2 SCC 343 : 1969 INSC 151 [Para 16]
Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian
B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 451 : 2008 INSC 208 [Para 20]
Union of India v. D.N. Revri & Co. and Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 147 : 1976 INSC 208 [Para 20]
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketulbhai Ramubhai Patel
Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors
The court affirmed the classification of appellants as Financial Creditors under the IBC, establishing that obligations in the Deeds of Hypothecation constituted guarantees.
Mortgage covenant to pay secured obligations for third-party debentures constitutes guarantee under Section 126, qualifying as financial debt despite no direct disbursement to corporate debtor; claim....
(1) Contract of guarantee is a contract to perform promise or discharge liability, of a third person in case of his default(2) A person having only security interest over assets of corporate debtor, ....
Financial debt – While deciding issue of whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt arising out of a transaction covered by an agreement or arrangement in writing, it is necessary to a....
Mortgage deed with 'covenant to pay' constitutes guarantee and English mortgage, qualifying as financial debt under IBC Section 5(8) without direct disbursement to corporate debtor if transaction has....
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of I....
[The court established that the approval of a resolution plan for a corporate guarantor does not discharge the principal debtor's liability, and creditors retain the right to pursue both the guaranto....
Resolution plan approving sponsor's unsecured shortfall undertaking does not extinguish principal borrower's secured debt or corporate guarantee liability; lenders retain Section 7 rights against the....
RP cannot unilaterally reclassify creditor from secured financial to unsecured; creditor with corporate guarantee (financial debt) and concurrent pledge security for same debt qualifies as secured fi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.