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

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Doha Bank Q. P. S. C. – Respondent


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

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 comprisin

    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 telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top