9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim, for admission in different insolvency processes respectively. Not only there is duplication of selfsame claim, but also the applicant financial creditor, if such duplicate claims are allowed, will enjoy proportionate voting rights in both the CoCs - No doubt the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, however the applicant couldn't place any precedent in support of their contention that when a claim has been admitted in one CIRP, similar selfsame claim can also be admitted and pursued in other Insolvency Processes simultaneously. The finding of the Hon'ble NCLAT that for the same set of debt, claim cannot be filed by same 'Financial Creditor' in two separates 'Corporate Insol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed the said debt along with all right, title and interest in the underline securities and guarantees to the applicant vide assignment agreement dated 23.03.2017. Consequent upon the deed of assignment the applicant M/s. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited stepped into the shoe of the original creditor and therefore can claim the dues outstanding from the debtors pursuant to the loan agreement dated 07.10.2013. 3. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the corporate debtor for the purpose for securing the debt of Adel Landmarks Limited had executed corporate guarantee agreement dated 03.05.2018 and the deed of hypothecation dated 03.05.2018. 4. Subsequently, on the occasion of failure of Adel Landmark Limited to adhere t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Process against the Principal Borrowers i.e. Adel Landmarks Limited would not eliminate the debt payable by the guarantor as the CIR Process against Principal Borrowers does not operate as a bar on applicant in getting its claim admitted in CIR Process initiated against the corporate debtor. 9. In the reply to the application it has been stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the parties in that case to maintain status quo, however the Piramal Judgment has not been stayed and thus, it lays down the position of law to be abided by the respondent. 10. This bench in the case of M/s. IFCI Vs. Hi-Point Investment Finance Private Limited vide order dated 07.06.2019 passed in IB-478(PB)/2017 has already rejected such practice of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.05.2018 for the purpose to secure loan sanctioned to the principal borrower vide loan agreement dated 07.10.2013 and nothing more. However, M/s. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Limited has lodged the very same claim, for admission in different insolvency processes respectively. Not only there is duplication of selfsame claim, but also the applicant financial creditor, if such duplicate claims are allowed, will enjoy proportionate voting rights in both the CoCs. 15. No doubt the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, however the applicant couldn't place any precedent in support of their contention that when a claim has been admitted in one CIRP, similar selfsame claim can also be admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
