9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 698 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - Hon ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the case of Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal Vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited 2019 (2) TMI 316 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI has held that There is no bar in the I B Code for filing simultaneously two applications under Section 7 against the Principal Borrower as well as the Corporate Guarantor(s) or against both the Guarantors . However, once for same set of claim application under Section 7 filed by the Financial Creditor is admitted against one of the Corporate Debtor (Principal Borrower or Corporate Guarantor(s)), second application by the same Financial Creditor for same set of claim and default cannot be admitted against the other Corporate Debtor (the Corporate Guarantor(s) or the Principal Borrower). In view of the judgement of the Hon ble NCLAT in the case of Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal Vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, this bench is bound by the said judgement and unable to accept the contentions of the Petitioner who relies on Section 60(2) of the Code for initiating the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. Hence, the other contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor are not dealt with. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor for default as a Corporate Guarantor. 2. Jurisdictional dispute regarding the appropriate NCLT bench. 3. Conflict between Loan Agreement and Multi-Party Agreement. 4. Admissibility of CIRP against Corporate Debtor when claim already admitted against Principal Borrower. 5. Forum Shopping allegation by Corporate Debtor. 6. Interpretation of Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Analysis: 1. The Petitioner, a Financial Creditor, sought Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, a Corporate Guarantor, for defaulting on a loan amount. The petition was based on Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, citing a default of &8377; 175,90,44,237/- as per the provisions of the Code. 2. The Corporate Debtor raised jurisdictional contentions, citing clauses in agreements specifying New Delhi as the jurisdiction for civil disputes. The Corporate Debtor argued that the appropriate NCLT bench should be where the registered office and mortgaged land are located, not where the Petitioner filed the application. 3. Another contention by the Corporate Debtor involved a conflict between the Loan Agreement and the Multi-Party Agreement. The Corporate Debtor claimed that the provisions of the Multi-Party Agreement should prevail in case of any conflict with the Loan Agreement. 4. The Corporate Debtor highlighted that a claim had already been admitted against the Principal Borrower, and the Petitioner, as a Financial Creditor with voting rights in the Committee of Creditors, could not initiate a separate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor for the same claim. 5. Allegations of "Forum Shopping" were made by the Corporate Debtor against the Petitioner, accusing them of attempting to maximize monetary gains by filing a separate petition without waiting for the resolution of the previous claim. 6. The Petitioner relied on Section 60(2) of the Code to justify initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor as a Personal Guarantor. However, the Tribunal, bound by a previous NCLAT judgment, dismissed the petition based on the interpretation of the said section, thereby not addressing other contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the petition for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor based on the interpretation of Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as per a binding NCLAT judgment, despite various contentions raised by the Corporate Debtor regarding jurisdiction, conflicting agreements, and previous claims admitted against the Principal Borrower.
|
