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
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
| 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
China Development Bank v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors.
Union of India v. M/s. Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co.
Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Company
Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Shet & Anr.
Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.
NN Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors.
SBI & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.
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 in....
The absence of a formal deed of guarantee precludes liability for financial debt under the Insolvency Code, rendering the application for insolvency resolution not maintainable.
Liability of guarantor is co-extensive with that of Principal Borrower. CIRP can be initiated against a corporate entity who has given a guarantee to secure dues of a non-corporate entity once borrow....
(1) Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding – Action under Section 7 of Code could be legitimately invoked even against a (corporate) guarantor being a corporate debtor.(2) Principal....
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.