Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. O.S.A. Nos. 16 and 22 OF 2015 have been filed by the petitioner and the respondent in C.P. No. 169 of 2014 respectively. While the appellant in O.S.A. No. 22 of 2015 (respondent in C.P. No. 169 of 2014) is aggrieved by the order of the learned Company Judge admitting the appeal, the appellant in O.S.A. No. 16 of 2015 (the petitioner in C.P. No. 169 of 2014) is aggrieved to the limited extent that the learned Company Judge deferred advertisement, of admission of the Company Petition, for a period of six months. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in the Company Petition.

2. The Petitioner-bank, a limited Company registered under the laws of the Republic of Mauritius, has its registered office at Port Louis, Mauritius. Hestia Holdings Limited (HHL for short), a company incorporated under the Laws of Mauritius, has its registered Office in the Republic of Mauritius. HHL, a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent-company, entered into a facility agreement dated 9-11-2010 with the petitioner-bank whereby a trade finance banking facility was established in favour of HHL upto a limit of 10 million US dollars. On 9-12-2010, the respondent-company executed a deed of guarantee, guaranteeing the obligations of HHL under the facility agreement. On 12-7-2011, the facility agreement dated 09-11-2010 was amended, and the limit facility increased to 20 million US dollars. The respondent-company executed another deed of guarantee dated 3-8-2011 guaranteeing the obligations of HHL under the facility agreement.

3. Before the learned Company Judge, the petitioner contended that HHL had drawn around 19.997 Million US dollars between 13.2.2012 to 22.6.2012 which was almost the full extent of the facility amount provided under the amended facility agreement; HHL had defaulted in its repayment obligations on 11.8.2012, which constituted an event of default under Clause 2 (II) of the facility agreement; the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court was invoked, and a decree was passed directing both HHL and the respondent-company to pay the petitioner approximately 15.39 million US dollars towards the principal, and nearly 1.2 million US dollars as interest, in addition to costs; E.P. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2014 were filed by them before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of the decretal amount; they sent a statutory notice, under Section 434 of the Companies Act, to the respondent company and its Directors on 20.05.2014; the notice was served on 21.05.2014; the respondent sent their reply thereto on 20.06.2014; and the respondent company was unable to pay its debts under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act.

4. In the order under appeal dated 21-4-2015, the learned Company Judge noted various clauses of the amendment and re-statement agreement between the petitioner as the lender, HHL as the borrower and the respondent-company as the guarantor; and the contents of the letter addressed by the Director of the respondent-company on 17-11-2014, to the counsel for the petitioner, admitting their liability towards HHL. The learned Company Judge observed that the respondent-company had not pleaded that it had not stood as a guarantor for HHL, or that they did not undertake to indemnify the petitioner for the default committed by HHL; they had executed guarantee deeds at various points of time agreeing to indemnify the petitioner in respect of the obligations of HHL; the respondent went on executing indemnity bonds to indemnify the petitioner for the defaults of HHL; the respondent executed two guarantee deeds dated 09.12.2010 and 03.08.2011; since the respondent-company did not deny that HHL had defaulted in repayment of the amount to the petitioner, it could not be said that the respondent-company was not the debtor, and had no obligation to pay in case of default by HHL in repayment of the loan to the petitioner; there existed a creditor-debtor relationship; the debt came into existence when HHL defa