The Delhi bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) held that a Corporate Guarantor cannot be absolved from its liability only due to non-invocation of guarantee.
Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited, the Corporate Guarantor/Company initiated voluntary liquidation under Section 59 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). On completion of the liquidation, the Liquidator applied Section 59(7) of the IBC, for the dissolution of the Company.
The RoC’s report revealed that the Company had provided corporate guarantees exceeding Rs. 1,257 crores to Abhinav Steels and Power Limited (Principal Borrower), which had obtained term loans from a consortium of banks, including Punjab National Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, and Central Bank of India. The guarantees dated back to 2010, and there were 23 charges against the Corporate Guarantor with no satisfaction of charge by either the Corporate Guarantor or the liquidator.
Central Bank of India filed an objection providing details of the working capital term loan secured by the Corporate Guarantor. NCLT Delhi, based on objections filed by the Central Bank of India dismissed the liquidator’s petition filed under Section 59(7) of IBC.
The Corporate Guarantor filed the appeal against NCLT’s decision arguing that none of the financial creditors had invoked the corporate guarantee and no claims had been filed with the liquidator. It also contended that a corporate guarantor’s liability shall only arise upon the invocation of the guarantee.
The NCLAT Delhi bench dismissed the appeal and held that a Corporate Guarantor cannot be absolved from its liability only due to non-invocation of guarantee. The Appellate Tribunal relied upon the Guarantee Deed between the Principal Borrower and the Corporate Guarantor under which it had undertaken to pay the debt.
The two bench members comprising Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) observed that the liability of a Corporate Guarantor is coextensive with the Principal Borrower and the Lenders are at liberty to require the performance by the Guarantor of its obligation.
Further, after considering RoC’s observations and Central Bank of India’s objections, NCLAT ruled that NCLT New Delhi is correct in its opinion that the company cannot proceed with the voluntary liquidation process.
The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the guarantee continues to bind the Corporate Guarantor to discharge its liability, and the fact that the guarantee has not been invoked cannot be a ground for the Company to be liquidated under Section 59 of the IBC.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
