SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 459

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
State Bank of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8527 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Santha Smruthi, Adv. Mr. Anuraj Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. M/S. Juris Corp., AOR Mr. Jayesh H, Adv. Ms. Jinal Shah, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Malik, Adv. Ms. Palak Nenwani, Adv. Mr. Ronit Chopra, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Chandra, Adv. Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh, Adv. Ms. Vanisha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal, Adv. Ms. Charu Bansal, Adv. Ms. Shruti Poddar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajendra Barot, Adv. Mr. Nilang Desai, Adv. Mr. Abhijnan Jha, AOR Ms. Saloni Thakker, Adv. Ms. Nafisa Khandeparkar, Adv. Mr. Bharat Makkar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Tomar, Adv. Mr. Harshil Goda, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naman Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Vikas Soni, Adv. Mr. Kanav Singhal, Adv. Ms. Kamini Sharma, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR

Corporate guarantees constitute financial debt under IBC Section 5(8); challenges on timing, non-disclosure, verification, and stamping rejected; tribunals' perverse findings warrant Supreme Court interference.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 5(7), 5(8), 62 - Financial debt - Corporate guarantees - Liability arising from guarantees for money borrowed against interest constitutes financial debt - Essential ingredients of disbursal against time value of money - Guarantor incurs co-extensive liability with principal borrower - Execution admitted by corporate debtor - Timing not questionable as guarantees executed post-restructuring of initially NPA account, classification reckoned from first NPA per RBI norms - Non-disclosure in financial statements at best a default, not depriving claim - Verification by resolution professional upon inspection proper under regulations - Insufficient stamping curable defect, not rendering instrument invalid or inadmissible - Concurrent findings of tribunals perverse warranting interference. (Paras 22-30)

(B) Claims substantiation - Resolution professional may call for evidence; documents producible at appellate stage without adverse inference - Rejection solely for non-filing with claim form unsustainable. (Paras 26,27)

(C) Stamp Act - Fiscal measure for revenue; defect curable, not affecting enforceability.

Facts of the case:
Appellant consortium extended rupee loans to group entities of corporate debtor secured by hypothecation; corporate debtor later executed corporate guarantees; accounts classified NPA, restructured; CIRP initiated; consortium filed claims as financial creditors invoking guarantees; respondent foreign lender objected on grounds of timing, non-disclosure, improper verification, insufficient stamping; tribunals rejected claims, affirmed on appeal.

Findings of Court:
Corporate guarantees constitute financial debt; appellants recognized as financial creditors; committee of creditors to be reconstituted including appellants; insolvency process to proceed.

Issues: (i) Whether corporate guarantees constitute financial debt under Section 5(8); (ii) whether claims liable for rejection due to documentation/verification; (iii) whether tribunals' findings warrant interference under Section 62.

Ratio Decidendi: Corporate guarantees are financial debt; challenges on timing, disclosure, verification, stamping fail; tribunals erred perversely in rejecting claims despite admission of execution and proper verification.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned orders quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is... How to determine whether corporate guarantees constitute financial debt under Section 5(8) of the IBC?

What is... How to assess validity of claims where guarantees were executed timing-wise, disclosed in statements, and verified by RP/IRP?

What is... How to address permutations of stamping, disclosure, and verification defects in corporate guarantees when determining financial creditor status and CIRP proceedings?


Table of Content
1. ibc appeal challenges corporate guarantee enforceability. (Para 1 , 2)
2. loans advanced, npa declared, guarantees executed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. cirp started; guarantees invoked, initially disputed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. tribunals rejected claims citing validity defects. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. appellants assert guarantees as valid financial debt. (Para 16 , 17)
6. respondents claim guarantees invalid, unstamped, undisclosed. (Para 18 , 19)
7. issues on debt status, claim rejection, interference. (Para 20 , 21)
8. guarantee liability qualifies as financial debt; admitted. (Para 22 , 23)
9. restructured npa reckoned from initial default date. (Para 24)
10. non-disclosure in statements does not bar claims. (Para 25)
11. rp verified guarantees; appellate production permissible. (Para 26 , 27)
12. stamp defect curable, does not invalidate instrument. (Para 28)
13. debt affirmed; tribunal findings perverse, interfered. (Para 29 , 30)
14. appeal allowed; appellants deemed financial creditors. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. This appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has been preferred by SBI Consortium comprising State Bank of India, Bank of India, UCO Bank, Syndicate Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Indian Overseas Bank. The appeal arises from the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), whereby the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

2. This appeal raises important question regarding validity and enforceability of corporate guarantees within the framework of the Code. The challenge mounted by respondents to the validity of the said corporate guarantees has been made on several grounds, namely, the timing and circumstances of the execution of guarantee, the alleged absence of proper disclosure in financial statements, the manner of their verification, the corporate insolvency resolution process and to their alleged insufficiency of stamping. These objections call for careful scrutiny to determine whether such grounds can legitimately defeat the recognition of a “financial debt” and status of a “financial creditor” under the Code.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The material facts giving rise to filing of this appeal, are as follows:

On 19.03.2010, a Facility Agreement was executed between Respondent No. 1, Doha Bank and Reliance Infratel Limited (RITL), namely Corporate Debtor (CD), whereby a foreign currency loan of USD 250 million was extended. Thereafter, on 04.03.2011, a Security Trustee Agreement was executed between the Consortium Lenders and Axis Trustee Services Ltd., appointing it as Security Trustee in respect of loan to Reliance Communications Ltd., (RCOM) and Reliance Telecom Ltd., (RTL).

4. The appellants, as members of a consortium of Banks, extended the rupee loan facilities of Rs.6,015 crores to Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) and Rs.735 crores to Reliance Telecom Limited (RTL). On 20.02.2015, a deed of hypothecation was executed by the CD, in the favour of Security Trustee to secure the consortium lending pursuant to which a charge was created and duly registered.

5. On 26.08.2016, the accounts of RCOM, RTL and CD were classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) indicating default in repayment obligations. Subsequently, on 05.09.2016 and 04.12.2016, Reinstatement Agreements were executed between Doha Bank and the CD, restructuring the repayment obligations and extending repayment schedule ultimately up to 05.06.2017.

6. On 03.03.2017, the CD executed Corporate guarantees in favour of consortium lenders to secure loans extended to its group entities, namely RCOM & RTL. On 22.12.2017, the account of RITL was declared as NPA with retrospective effect from 26.08.2016.

INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS

7. On 15.05.2018, NCLT Mumbai initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the CD. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) wa

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top