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

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 5180

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Bidisha Banerjee, J
Refine Alloys Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited – Respondent
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process | C.P. (IB) No. 270/KB/2022 | CP (IB) 33 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Aparajita Rao

A security provider cannot be held liable for a principal borrower's debt unless explicitly stated in a guarantee. Under the IBC, financial debt requires a disbursal of funds, which was absent in this case.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Petition filed against security provider for default of principal borrower’s loan - Security provider asserted not liable under loan agreement - Court found loan agreement did not bind security provider, considering provisions of IBC, and that security interest was not registered as required - Petition dismissed. (Paras 10-14)

(B) Financial Debt - Definition under Section 5(8) - Court held that mere collateral security does not qualify as financial debt unless there is a disbursal of money by the creditor to the debtor, which was not the case here. (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)

(C) Enforcement of Security Interest - Court clarified that security interest assessment falls under SARFAESI, not IBC, thus making the petition unmaintainable under the latter. (Paras 8.3, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a financial creditor, sought to initiate CIRP against the respondent security provider due to default by the principal borrower, Balasore Alloys Ltd. The total claimed was Rs. 16,70,26,882/-; however, the security provider contended it had no liability under the loan agreement as it did not guarantee the principal borrower's repayment.

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the security provider could not be held liable for the debts of the principal borrower under the existing loan agreement, which explicitly stated it was not liable to repay.

Issues: The primary legal questions concerned whether the security provider could initiate CIRP and whether the agreement constituted a financial debt as per the IBC’s definition.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that for a party to be considered a financial creditor, there must be a direct financial relationship with the corporate debtor, including a disbursal of funds, which was absent. Additionally, loans secured by mortgages must be registered; failure to do so invalidates enforceability.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. corporate insolvency application details (Para 3 , 4)
2. arguments of financial creditor (Para 5)
3. court's analysis of legal provisions and obligations (Para 8)
4. conclusion on financial creditor status and obligations (Para 12)
5. final decision of the court (Para 13)

Per: Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial)

1. This Court congregated through a hybrid mode.

2. We have heard the Learned Counsels for both parties in full.

3. This petition has been preferred under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , for brevity “I&B Code” by Refine Alloys Private Limited hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”/ “Financial Creditor seeking to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for brevityCIRP) against Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”/ “Corporate Debtor for an alleged default of Rs. 16,70,26,882/- alongwith interest of Rs. 4,70,26,882/- on 31.02.2020.

4. The Petitioner has averred as under:

4.1 The applicant is a Financial Creditor (FC in short) who had advanced an amount of Rs. 15.00 Crores to M/s Balasore Alloys Ltd the ’Principal Borrower’. The said loan was disbursed pursuant to a Loan Agreement executed on 25.11.2019 by the Financial Creditor Refine Alloys Private Limited the Principal Borrower Balasore Alloys Ltd., and the Corporate Debtor (CD in short) Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited as theSecurity Provider who had agreed inter alia to mortgage its properties towards the security of the said Loan.

4.2 A Separate Deed of Mortgage was executed by and between the Financial Creditor Refine Alloys Private Limited and the respondent Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited the purported Corporate Debtor herein as the Mortgagor, on 25.11.2019 under which the Corporate Debtor Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited became liable to repay the debt in case of default by the Principal Borrower, Balasore Alloys Ltd.

4.3 The Principal Borrower defaulted after payment of Rs. 3.00 crore on 12.03.2021. The Principal Borrower also did not pay any interest on the said loan as agreed. In terms of the Deed of Mortgage, the Corporate Debtor Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited became liable to repay the dues of the Financial Creditor.

4.4 A Demand notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor on 30.09.2021 to repay the dues which fell due on the default of the Principal Borrower. In response to the said notice, the Corporate Debtor admitted its default to the Financial Creditor.

4.5 The Financial Creditor has already filed an application under section 7 of the Code before NCLT, Cuttack Bench against the Principal Borrower Balasore Alloys Ltd. being numbered as CP (IB) 33 of 2022 (Refine Alloy Pvt Ltd vs. Balasore Alloys Pvt ltd).

5. Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor:

At hearing Ld. Counsel Ms. Aparajita Rao would take us through the following to substantiate her contention:

5.1 The Loan agreement dated 5.11.2019 annexed to the petition entered between Refile Alloys Ltd. the Lender, Balasore Alloys Ltd. the Principal Borrower and Navdisha Real Estate Private Limited the Security Provider (or SP), as extracted hereunder to the extent relevant and germane to the lis; with supplied emphasis for clarify:

1. LOAN AGREEMENT

THIS LOAN AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made on this 25th day of November, 2019 at Kolkata BY AND BETWEEN REFINE ALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013, having its office at Trishul Apartment, 35, Rowland Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata - 700 020, herein after referred to as the "Lender"

XXX

AND

BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 having its office at Park Plaza, 71 Park Street, Kolkata - 700 016, herein after referred to as the "Borrower"

AND

NAVDISHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 having its office at Park Plaza, 71 Park Street, Kolkata-700 016, hereinafter referred to as the "Security Provider” or “SP”

XXX

WHEREAS:

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