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

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 8188

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SHRI MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL), SHRI ATUL CHATURVEDI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE BANK) – Appellant
Versus
RATTANINDIA ENTERPRISES LIMITED – Respondent
COMPANY PETITION IB 204 (ND) 2025



For the Applicant:Mr. Hitesh Sachar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Dipanshu Krishan, Ms. Tanvi Sapra, Mr. Karan Batura, Advocates

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.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against corporate debtor due to financial debt default - Creditor asserts existence of financial debt and default based on several loan agreements and corporate undertakings - Corporate Debtor disputes characterization as guarantor and absence of a formal deed of guarantee - The court finds absence of documentation constituting a binding corporate guarantee, ruling that the creditor's application is not maintainable. (Paras 6.0, 6.12, 6.13)

Facts of the case:
The creditor Canara Bank seeks insolvency resolution process against RattanIndia Enterprises alleging default on financial debts exceeding Rs. 372 Crores after multiple loans were assessed as non-performing. The respondent contends they are not a corporate guarantor.

Findings of Court:
No formal deed of guarantee was produced. Respondent did not undertake obligations as contemplated under the Insolvency Code hence default not satisfied.

Issues: The core issue was whether the respondent could be deemed a guarantor and if financial debt existed in absence of a debt confirming document.

Ratio Decidendi: The authority ruled that without a valid guarantee, insolvency application lacks foundation. A corporate guarantor's liability must arise from an explicit contract.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application filed under section 7 of ibc for insolvency. (Para 1 , 2)
2. creditors argue for default based on loan documents. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court requires formal contract for financial obligations. (Para 6)

ORDER

PER: MANNI SANKARIAH SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present Application has been filed on behalf of Canara Bank (“Applicant/Financial Creditor”) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and the Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process against Rattanlndia Enterprises Limited (“Respondent/Corporate Debtor”) on the ground that the Corporate Debtor has defaulted in the payment of financial debt amounting to Rs. 3,72,35,67,407.77 (Rupees Three Hundred Seventy-Two Crore Thirty-Five Lakh Sixty-Seven Thousand four Hundred Seven and Seventy Seven Paisa) due as on 30.12.2024 along with penalties and future interest from 01.01.2025.

2. The Corporate Debtor herein Rattanlndia Enterprises Limited having CIN L74110DL2010PLC210263, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is having its registered office at 5th Floor, Tower-B, Worldmark 1, Aerocity, South West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110037. Since the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated in New Delhi, this Tribunal having jurisdiction over the NCT of Delhi is the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Code in relation to the prayer for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor.

3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT/FINANCIAL CREDITOR:

i. In the years 2010, 2014, 2016 Principal Borrower Sinnar Thermal Power Limited approached the Consortium of seven Banks/FIs led by Power Finance Corporation (PFC) for certain credit facilities for funding coal based thermal power project located in Multi product SEZ at Sinnar, District Nasik, Maharashtra. Accordingly, the Applicant bank along with Consortium of Banks vide sanction letter dated 26.02.2010 bearing Ref. No. 9044/NP/CREDIT/INDBULLS/2010 sanctioned Credit Facility-1 of Rs.100 Crore. Further, Applicant Bank along with Consortium of Banks vide sanction letter dated 26.03.2014 bearing Ref. No. 9044/ADV/85/NP/2013 sanctioned Credit Facility-2 (COR-1) of Rs. 15.57 Crores. Further, Applicant Bank along with Consortium of Banks vide sanction letter dated 30.08.2016 bearing Ref. No. 356/9044/2016 sanctioned Credit Facility-3 (COR-2) of Rs. 28.83 Crores.

ii. The Applicant Bank along with Consortium of Banks sanctioned credit facilities to the tune of Rs.144.40 Cr to the Principal Borrower in the following manner:

iii. The Facility-1 of Rs. 100 Crores Term Loan was valid till 30.09.2023, and was for setting of Coal based Thermal Power Project in Multi Product Special economic Zone at Sinnar Village in Nasik District in the state of Maharashtra. Facility-2 of Rs.15.57 Crores Term Loan for Cost Overrun Facility, and was to be repaid starting from October 2015. Facility- 3 of Rs. 28.83 Crores Term Loan for meeting the increased cost of project, and was to be repaid starting from 31.03.2017, to be paid in 10 years.

iv. As there was default in the repayment of the said enhanced facility, the account of the Principal Borrower slipped into Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.09.2017 as per the guidelines and directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

v. In spite of repeated follow up with the Principal Borrower, no serious steps were taken by the Principal Borrower to clear the dues of Applicant Bank/Financial Creditor and as the account was still continuing as NPA, therefore Applicant Bank sent recall notice on 30.09.2020 bearing Ref. No. LN/Re-CALL/to the Principal Borrower and demanded the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 202,03,39,436.49/- (Rs. Two Hundred Two Crores Three Lakh Thirty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Six and Forty Nine Paise) which included Principal, Interest and other charges upto 31.07.2020.

vi. The Applicant Bank on 09.06.2021 also sent a Notice under Section 13(2) S

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