9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of default in terms of the guarantee agreements executed by the corporate debtor. Corporate Debtor discharged the obligation as per the terms of the Guarantee and therefore there is no debt due as claimed by the Financial Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant being failed in proving existence of a default in terms of the guarantee agreements, this application is liable to be rejected. - C.P.(IB) NO. 23/KB/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - SHRI JINAN K.R., MEMBER (J) For The Financial Creditor : Mrs. Poonam Keswani Bhattacharyya, Aritra Basu and Dwaipayan Ghosh, Advovates For The Corporate Debotr : Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Rajashree Dutta and Ms. Nikita Jhunjhunwala, Advocate ORDER 1. This is an application filed u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short I B Code) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in the matter of Visa Infrastructure Limited/Corporate Debtor alleging that Corporate Debtor has defaulted in repayment of the loan to the tune of ₹ 982,82,01,341.70 (Rupees Nine hundred Eighty Two Crores Eigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or creation of charge for Term Loan/Overall Limit (Colly). 63 to 270 5. Exhibit: E Copies of Certificate of Registration of charge issued by Registrar of Companies (RoC) along with relevant forms for creation of charge before the RoC (Colly). 271 to 278 6. Exhibit: F Sanction letter dated 18th August, 2006 for renewal of Working Capital Credit Facilities of Visa Steel Limited. 279 to 286 7. Exhibit: G Sanction letter dated 4th April, 2008 for renewal of Credit Facilities of Visa Steel Ltd. 287 to 296 8. Exhibit: H Sanction letter dated 4th April, 2008 for Sanction of Short Term Loan and Ad hoc LC limit of Visa Steel Ltd. 297 to 298 9. Exhibit: I Sanction letter dated 26th June, 2008 for Sanction of Ad hoc LC limit of Visa Steel Ltd. 299 to 300 10. Exhibit: J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19th December, 2012. 629 to 662 20. Exhibit: T Deed of Personal Guarantee by Sri Vishambhar Saran as the Guarantor in favour of the Lenders (State Bank of India 18 Ors.) dated 19th December, 2012. 663 to 678 21. Exhibit: U Deed of Personal Guarantee by Sri Vishal Agarwal as the Guarantor in favour of the Lenders (State Bank of India 18 Ors.) dated 19th December, 2012. 679 to 694 22. Exhibit: V Deed of Guarantee by Visa Infrastructure Limited as the Guarantor in favour of the Lenders (State Bank of India 18 Ors.) dated 19th December, 2012. 695 to 710 23. Exhibit: W Deed of Guarantee by Visa International Limited as the Guarantor in favour of the Lenders (State Bank of India 18 Ors.) dated 19th December, 2012. 711 to 726 24. Exhibit: X Deed of Guarantee by Ghotaringa Minerals Limited as the Guarantor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 791 to 793 36. Exhibit: JJ Schedule VI - Deed of Accession issued by Dena Bank as the Acceding Lender dated 22nd January, 2013. 794 to 796 37. Exhibit: KK Agreement for pledge of shares dated 15th June, 2013 executed between Visa International Limited and State Bank of India 17 Ors. 797 to 805 38. Exhibit: LL Agreement for pledge of shares between Visa Infrastructure Limited as the Pledgor in favour of State Bank of India 17 Ors. As Security Trustee dated 15th June, 2013. 806 to 816 39. Exhibit: MM Agreement for pledge of shares dated 15th July, 2013 executed between Visa Steel Limited and State Bank of India 17 Ors. 817 to 826 40. Exhibit: NN Agreement to Mortgage dated 28th September, 2013 executed between Visa Steel Limited as the Borrower in favour of State Bank of India 18 Ors. 827 to 839 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Limited. 947 to 955 50. Exhibit: XX Deed of Guarantee dated 3rd June, 2014 for AD HOC Working Capital credit facilities of Visa Steel Limited executed between Visa Infrastructure Limited as the Guarantor and State Bank of India as the Bank . 956 to 965 51. Exhibit: YY Deed of Guarantee dated 3rd June, 2014 for AD HOC Working Capital credit facilities of Visa Steel Limited executed between Visa International Limited as the Guarantor and State Bank of India as the Bank . 966 to 973 52. Exhibit: ZZ Sanction letter dated 7th November, 2014 issued by State Bank of India in favour of Visa Steel Limited for continuation of existing WC limit sanction of AD HOC WC limit. 974 to 983 53. Exhibit: AAA First Supplemental Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 30th January, 2015 between Visa Steel Limited as the Borrower and State Bank of India and 14 Ors. as the Lenders . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Exhibit: KKK Guarantee Agreement dated 6th April, 2015 by Shri Vishal Agarwal as the Guarantor in favour of Lenders (State Bank of India 18 Ors). 1276 to 1292 64. Exhibit: LLL Deed of Accession dated 30th July, 2016 by State Bank of Hyderabad. 1293 to 1296 65. Exhibit: MMM Deed of Hypothecation dated 14th September, 2016 between Visa Steel Limited (as one of the Borrowers and Co-obligor for other Borrower) and Visa Special Steel Limited (as one of the Borrowers and Co-Obligor for other Borrower) and Lenders (State Bank of India 15 Ors.). 1297 to 1324 66. Exhibit: NNN Deed of Accession dated 6th January, 2017 by Bank of India. 1325 to 1327 67. Exhibit: OOO Deed of Accession dated 2nd February, 2017 by UCO Bank. 1328 to 1330 68. Exhibit: PPP Deed of Accession dated 10th February, 2017 by Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India for pledge of certain dematerialized shares. 1424 to 1425 80. Exhibit: BBBB Letter dated 15th July, 2013 issued by Visa Steel Limited to State Bank of India for pledge of certain dematerialized shares. 1426 to 1427 81. Exhibit: CCCC Letter dated 18th March, 2014 issued by Visa Steel Limited to State Bank of India for pledge of certain dematerialized shares 1428 to 1429 82. Exhibit: DDDD Letter dated 24th March, 2014 issued by Visa Infrastructure Limited to State Bank of India for pledge of certain dematerialized shares in respect of total No. of equity shares 5,675.000. 1430 to 1431 83. Exhibit: EEEE Form C.5 Letter regarding the Grant of individual limits within the overall AD HOC Working Capital Credit facilities limit dated 2nd June, 2014. 1432 to 1434 84. Exhibit: FFFF Letter of Authority dated 30th January, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estructuring of the Corporate Debtor. The CDR Cell considered the request of the Visa Steel Limited as above, restructuring the proposal, thereby the existing financial assistance was to be restructured and certain additional financial assistance was to be extended. It is on the strength of the restructuring proposal that the Corporate Debtor was required to furnish a conditional corporate guarantee with a negative lien on its property being a building known as Visa House . The conditional guarantee executed by the Corporate Debtor would be valid till the principal borrower brought in additional equity of ₹ 125 Crores over and above ₹ 325 Crores in terms of the undertaking. The Corporate Debtor created negative lien in respect of its property, namely, Visa House vide Letter of Undertaking dated 01/11/2012. In continuation of the Letter of Undertaking, the Corporate Debtor has executed a Deed of Guarantee along with the principal borrower in favour of the lenders including the applicant. The Corporate Debtor as the guarantor unconditionally, absolutely and irrevocably guaranteed to the said lenders including the applicant. The performance of the various obligations me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarantee Agreement was reiterated further in the revival letter dated 29/10/2015. 13. The principal borrower as per the business re-organisation proposal filed the application before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench being C.P. No. 389 of 2017 and the Hon ble Tribunal approved the Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 thereby Visa Bao Limited was merged with the Visa Steel Limited, the principal borrower, vide order dated 12/10/2017. By reason of amalgamation, the assets and liabilities of Visa Bao Limited is taken over by the principal borrower and the assets valued for an amount of ₹ 575 Crores was infused in the principal borrower, thereby obligation of the Corporate Debtor as a guarantor created as per the Guarantee Agreement has been discharged. Upon discharging the obligation, the Corporate Debtor has issued a letter to the applicant by way of an e-mail on 18/11/2017 that the Corporate Debtor has fulfilled its obligation and therefore, the Corporate Debtor is to be discharged from its liability created out of the Guarantee Agreement. However, the applicant herein declined to accept the plea on discharge by way of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Debtor. Therefore, it is not binding on the Corporate Debtor. So, also CIBIL report has no consequence inasmuch as there is no debt due or payable by the Corporate Debtor to the applicant. Upon the said contentions, the Corporate Debtor prays for passing an order of dismissal with exemplary cost. 18. The Applicant/State Bank of India filed Rejoinder to the Affidavit in Opposition of the Corporate Debtor contending in brief is the following:- 19. The Applicant denied the contentions raised by the corporate debtor and stated that the application is very well maintainable and complete as per Section 7 of the I B Code, and that there is admittedly a debt and existence of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor. The application was filed with valid letter of authority and the objection in this regard is devoid of any merit. It states that the Borrower Company/Visa Steel Ltd. was referred to the Corporate Debt Restructuring Forum wherein a CDR Empowered Group approved the restructuring package as set out in the Letter of Approval dated 27.09.2012 issued by the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell, pursuant to which the lenders granted additional financial assistance to the Bor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows the mala fide intentions of the Corporate Debtor. It denies that the Corporate Debtor is discharged from the debt, and as there is existence of debt and occurrence of default, it therefore submits that the application should be admitted. 22. Heard Ld. Counsel Mr. Aritra Basu on the side of the Financial Creditor and Ld. Counsel Mr. Sabyasachi Chaudhuri on the side of the Corporate Debtor. Perused the records and citations referred to on both sides. 23. Upon perusal of the records and upon hearing the argument advanced on the side of the Financial Creditor as well as on the side of the Corporate Debtor, the point that arises for determination are ;- (i) Whether the corporate debtor committed default in making the payment of the amount mentioned in the demand notice in terms of the guarantee executed by the corporate debtor? (ii) Whether the debt to be repaid/obligation to be performed as per the terms of the guarantee executed by the corporate debtor has been discharged as alleged by the Corporate Debtor? 24. The Point Nos. (i) and (ii). 25. Both points are taken together for convenience and for avoiding repetition of facts. The State Bank of India/Financial Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set out in the CDR Package and the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 12-12-2012. The Master Restructuring Agreement dated 12-12-2012 is marked as Exhibit M in the Application. 30. As per the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 12-12-2012, the Corporate Debtor has executed irrevocable and unconditional Corporate Guarantee of VISA Infrastructures Limited with negative lien on the immovable property known as VISA House situated at 8/10, Alipore Road, Kolkata - 700 027, till the Promoters of the Borrower bring in additional equity of ₹ 125 crores over and above the Promoters contribution of ₹ 325 crores in the Borrower Company as envisaged in the CDR Package. 31. This is one among the clause in the Master Restructuring Agreement (Clause (i) of Exhibit M ). The very same clause has been incorporated in the Corporate Guarantee executed by the Corporate Debtor dated 12-12-2012 (Exhibit B ). The above referred Clause (i) in the Master Restructuring Agreement has been reiterated as per the deed of Guarantee, the Exhibit B , the Corporate Debtor agrees to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the Guarantee Agreement. 32. The Ld. Counsel for the Financial Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated the very same clause of irrevocable, unconditional Corporate Guarantee admittedly executed by the Corporate Debtor. It is good to read Clause (i). It reads as follows : Irrevocable, unconditional Corporate Guarantee of VISA Infrastructure Limited with negative lien on the immovable property known as VISA House situated at 8/10, Alipore Road, Kolkata - 700 027, till the Promoters of the Borrower bring in additional equity of ₹ 125 crores over and above the Promoters contribution of ₹ 325 crores in the Borrower Company as envisaged in the CDR Package. 35. The Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor submits that the Corporate Guarantee executed by the Corporate Debtor is conditional. According to him, the obligation on the side of the Corporate Debtor is to see that the Promoters of the Borrower have to bring in additional equity of ₹ 125 crores over and above Promoters contribution of ₹ 325 crores. According to him, the Guarantee is valid or is in force till the above said two conditions are fulfilled by the Promoters of the Borrower. According to him, the Promoters of Borrower fulfilled both these conditions. So, upon fulfilment of these cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s juncture, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on the side of the Corporate Debtor referred to Clause 37 of the Deed of Guarantee which reads as follows : Notwithstanding anything contained herein above, this Guarantee shall be valid and subsisting till the Promoters of the Borrower bring in additional equity of ₹ 125 crores over and above, the Promoters contribution of ₹ 325 crores in the Borrower Company as envisaged in the CDR Package. 39. When Clause 37 was stressed upon by the Corporate Debtor, the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that Clause 37 has no overriding effect on clauses 19, 20 and 21 in the Deed of Guarantee highlighted on the side of the Applicant. As per clause 37 of the Guarantee Agreement, no doubt the Guarantee executed by the Corporate Debtor shall be valid and subsisting until the Promoters of the Borrower satisfied the terms stipulated in Clause 32 in the Corporate Guarantee as well as Clause (i) in the Master Restructuring Agreement. So, it appears to me that if the Promoters of the Borrower bring in additional equity and contribute ₹ 325 crores as stipulated in Clause 32, the Guarantor herein, in the case in hand, has no fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fulfilled in the case in hand and therefore, the Corporate Guarantor is absolved from its liability and therefore, no action can be initiated against the Corporate Debtor in the case in hand. He reiterated that fulfilment of the above said terms envisaged in the CDR Package as well as in the Corporate Guarantee absolves the Guarantee given by the Corporate Debtor. It would not continue as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant. 43. I find some force in the argument put forward on the side of the Corporate Debtor in the case in hand. To substantiate the said contention that of Clause 24 of the Guarantee Agreement dated 28-03-2015 has been complied with, the Ld. Counsel referred to the copy of the order of sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation between VISA Steel Limited and Visa Bao Limited in CP(CAA) No. 389/KB/2017 dated 12-10-2017 and the letter dated 30-11-2017 issued by the State Bank of India wherein the Applicant Bank admitted infusion of ₹ 325 crores in the form of cash by the Borrower but the Borrower disagreed to accept the additional infusion of ₹ 125 crores which was brought in by way of merger of VISA Bao Limited with VISA Steel limited. 44. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter, failing which the Bank will be constrained to take legal recourse including initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Deputy General Manager 47. So no doubt the Corporate Debtor was directed to repay the amount mentioned in the demand notice in terms of the Guarantee Agreement. So the liability, if any, to repay the amount from the Corporate Debtor is limited to the extent of liability stipulated as per the Deed of Guarantee. For avoiding repetition of facts, I am not repeating the clauses referred to in the Deed of Agreement. In detail, I have dealt with the terms to be fulfilled by the guarantor in case borrower failed in discharging its liabilities to the extent referred to in clause 32 of the Deed of Agreement. Truly the infusion of ₹ 125 Crores allegedly made by the borrower consequent to the merger of Visa Bao Limited with Visa Steel Ltd. through the approved Scheme of Amalgamation vide order in C.P. No. 389/KB/2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench is not accepted by the financier. Thus, the question is non-acceptance of the merger in terms of the guarantee agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Crores and what is left was infusion of ₹ 125 Crores. In the revival letter also, there are no terms stipulated that the guarantor or the borrower has to infuse ₹ 125 Crores as stipulated in the Deed of Agreement by way of cash. It was agreed by the guarantor to bringing adequate quantity of ₹ 125 Crores which may be brought in the form of unsecured loans/preference shares or by issuing fresh shares through QIP/FPO/PE/Strategic Investment etc. or by merging/demerging some business divisions into separate Companies/SPV s through scheme/slump sale and inviting strategic investor. So fulfilment of the above said terms can be done through different forms. None of the terms reveals that ₹ 125 Crores has to be paid or to be brought by the borrower to the company by way of cash. So one of the terms of discharge of the liability is merging/demerging some business division into separate company. 50. Vide Order dated 12/10/2017 this bench has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation of Visa Bao Limited and Visa Steel Limited. The assets valuation report is annexed with the order of merger. The above said term to bring additional equity of ₹ 125 Crores has been br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a demand notice dated 30/11/2017 to VSL. A copy of the demand notice was produced by the respondent at page 539. It is good to read the demand notice in its entirety:- Dear Sir, Visa Steel Limited Your letter dated 26.10.2017 and email dated 24.11.2017 The conditions stipulated in CDR approval included inter alia infusion of fresh/additional equity/fund of ₹ 125 crores over and above ₹ 325 crores. 2. The amount of ₹ 325 cr. was brought in the form of cash and routed through the TRA. Needless to add, this additional inclusion of ₹ 125 crore was also required to be brought in the form of cash infusion and to be put in/invalidate in accordance with decision of the lenders of the company. 3. The merger of Visa Bao Limited with Visa Steel Limited has not resulted in any additional cash infusion and any accounting entry leading to such inflation in any figure in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cash infusion. More so when the Company and its Promoters have repeatedly pleaded that they do not have any fund to infusion in the business. 4. Such accounting treatment was neither advised by the company nor taken into cognizance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 crore in the borrower company as envisaged in the CDR package. Clause 37 in the Deed of Agreement is a notwithstanding clause overriding the clauses contrary to the terms referred to in Clause 37. Clause 37 is certain that the guarantee shall not be valid and subsisting after the promoters of the borrower fulfilled the condition. 55. At this juncture Ld. Counsel for the corporate debtor submits that the terms of the guarantee is to be read as a whole and it cannot be split up for the convenience of the financial creditor and that financial creditor could not argue that the Scheme of Amalgamation is not acceptable for want of payment of infusion of fund by way of cash. 56. Referring to in State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh [2005] 9 SCC 129 Ld.Counsel for the corporate debtor submits that even if there is conflict in between various terms stipulated in the guarantee, the non obstante clause, overriding the effect of the terms contrary to clause 37, and its effect is that the guarantee shall remain valid until such time of the performance of obligation by the promoter borrowers. It is good to read para 37 in the above said decision. It read as follows:- A non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the borrower company as envisaged in the CDR package, the liability of the corporate debtor is absolved. It has come out in evidence that the above said term has been fulfilled by the promoters of the borrower. Therefore, the guarantee as on the date of fulfilment of the terms in the guarantee cannot be held as subsisting as per the clause 37 of the Deed of Guarantee executed on 19/12/2017. 60. In view of the above said discussion, I am of the view that the contention put forward by the corporate debtor that the guarantor is not at all in default of the amount claimed by the financial creditor is liable to be accepted as true and correct. The contention on the side of the Applicant is therefore found devoid of any merit and unsustainable as per the terms of guarantee agreement. 61. Another contention put forward on the side of the corporate debtor is that the application is also not maintainable as the signatory of the application is not competent to file this application as he has no valid authorisation. To the said contention Ld. Counsel for the financial creditor submits that letter of authorisation annexed as Exhibit A in the application is a valid authorisation. It h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that no proceedings can be initiated against the guarantor without exhausting its remedy to recover the amount from the principal borrower and filing of the application for CIRP as against guarantor is premature. The above said objection of the guarantor/corporate debtor in the said case has been overruled because the objection of the corporate debtor that the claim put forward against the guarantor is premature has no legal force and because the guarantor s liability is co-existing with that of the principal debtor. The fact in issue considered in the above said application is entirely different from that of the facts in the case in hand. 64. At this juncture Ld. Counsel for the corporate debtor submits that the financial creditor is initiating proceedings against the guarantors and not against the principal borrower and the initiation of proceedings against the corporate debtor in the case in hand is with mala fide intention to grab money that is not liable to be paid by the corporate debtor. He also would submit that the financial creditor approached the AA without clean hands and by suppressing material facts. He submits that the application is liable to be dismissed by i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng due to the lenders/Financial Creditor as per its letter dated 05/07/2017 (Annexure Ex-HHHH) and therefore the contentions of the Corporate Debtor that guarantee provided by the Corporate Debtor stands discharged is unsustainable and devoid of any merit. In reply to the said submission on the side of the Financial Creditor the Ld. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has submitted that Annexure Ex-HHHH, confirmation of balance has been made by the principal borrower and not by the Corporate Debtor and before approving the Scheme of Amalgamation resulting in inflow of total assets of ₹ 575 Crores which has been approved by the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell (In short, CDR Cell) vide letter dated 27/09/2012 and therefore the balance confirmation by the principal borrower dated 05/07/2017 prior to the merger cannot be relied upon by the financial creditor for proving the existence of liability owed by the corporate debtor on account of deed of guarantee. The Scheme of Amalgamation was sanctioned on 12/10/2017. So also the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the CIBIL report, Exhibit SSS, proves default and hence plea of discharge has no consequence. Having failed in prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alment of the amount of debt has become due and payable and is not repaid by the debtor or the corporate debtor, as the case may be . It is also good to have a look into the definition of financial debt defined under section 5(8) of the Code. It reads as follows:- (8) financial debt means a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes- (a) money borrowed against the payment of interest; (b) any amount raised by acceptance under any acceptance credit facility or its de-materialised equivalent; (c) any amount raised pursuant to any note purchase facility or the issue of bonds, notes, debentures, loan stock or any similar instrument; (d) the amount of any liability in respect of any lease or hire purchase contract which is deemed as a finance or capital lease under the Indian Accounting Standards or such other accounting standards as may be prescribed; (e) receivables sold or discounted other than any receivables sold on non-recourse basis; (f) any amount raised under any other transaction, including any forward sale or purchase agreement, having the commercial effect of a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arging the obligations created as per the guarantee agreements; that the non obstante clause 37 in the guarantee agreement is valid and binding on the Applicant Bank and that the acknowledgement of liability issued by the principal borrower is not binding on the corporate debtor because on the date of issuance of acknowledgement of liability by the principal borrower, the guarantee remained not in force or subsisting on account of performance of obligations as referred to above by the principal borrower, are factors proving the contentions of the corporate debtor that the demand to make payment by the corporate debtor is against the terms of obligations liable to be performed by the corporate debtor. 70. In the light of the above said discussion, I have come to a conclusion that the Corporate Debtor discharged the obligation as per the terms of the Guarantee and therefore there is no debt due as claimed by the Financial Creditor from the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant being failed in proving existence of a default in terms of the guarantee agreements, this application is liable to be rejected. However, without any order of cost. 71. In the result, the Application is rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
