38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, October 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

Creditor Can Proceed Against Corporate Guarantor Before Proceeding Against The Corporate Debtor: NCLAT [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      11 January, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Creditor Can Proceed Against Corporate Guarantor Before Proceeding Against The Corporate Debtor: NCLAT [Read Order]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on January 8, 2019, has held that financial creditor can proceed against corporate guarantor even before proceeding against the corporate debtor.

A Bench comprising of Chairperson Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Member (Judicial) Justice Bansi Lal Bhat was hearing appeals filed by two companies - Sunrise Naturopathy and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Sunsystem Institute of Information Technology Pvt. Ltd.

The companies stood as guarantors to a loan amounting to Rs. 38,00,00,000/- advanced to All India Society for Advance Education and Research (Principal Borrower) by M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Financial Creditor).

When default occurred in repayment, the financial creditor filed applications for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the two guarantors which NCLT admitted.

This action of NCLT was challenged by the two guarantors contending that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be initiated against guarantors, without proceeding against the debtor.

It was also submitted that for the same set of claim amount and debt, two Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes cannot be initiated against two different corporate guarantors.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the financial creditor controverted the argument and said that both guarantors being separate entity and both guarantors having guaranteed for the same set of amount, even in absence of initiation of CIRP against the principal borrower, two separate applications under Section 7 can be filed against respective guarantors.

The questions arisen for consideration in these appeals are:

  1. Whether the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated against a Corporate Guarantor, if the Principal Borrower is not a Corporate Debtor or Corporate Person? and;
  2. Whether the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated against two Corporate Guarantors simultaneously for the same set of debt and default?

The Bench relying on several Supreme Court precedents held that the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with the liability of principal borrower. Thus answering the first question against the appellant.

The Bench said that we hold that it is not necessary to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Principal Borrower' before initiating 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Guarantors'. Without initiating any 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Principal Borrower', it is always open to the 'Financial Creditor' to initiate 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' under Section 7 against the 'Corporate Guarantors', as the creditor is also the 'Financial Creditor' qua 'Corporate Guarantor'.

However, in regard to the second question, the Bench held that once an application under Section 7 is admitted, another application for the same debt cannot be filed. In this case, the applications under Section 7 were admitted against both the corporate guarantors. This was held to be an improper course of action by NCLT.

It was held that Once for same claim the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' is initiated against one of the 'Corporate Debtor' after such initiation, the 'Financial Creditor' cannot trigger 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the other 'Corporate Debtor(s)', for the same claim amount (debt).

In view of the above, NCLAT quashed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the second corporate guarantor.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

pmla-appellate-tribunal-orders-immediate-release-of-seized-bmw-x7-in-hemant-soren-land-scam-case
Trending Crime, Police And Law
PMLA appellate tribunal orders immediate release of seized BMW X7 in Hemant Soren land scam case [Read Order]

PMLA tribunal orders ED to release seized BMW X7 in Hemant Soren land scam case, citing lack of proof linking the luxury car to money laundering.

08 October, 2025 08:06 PM
offence-under-category-of-upholding-family-prestige-sc-orders-release-of-man-on-remission
Trending Judiciary
'Offence under category of upholding family prestige,' SC orders release of man on remission [Read Judgment]

SC orders immediate release of life convict who served 22 years for a murder committed to uphold family honour, citing Maharashtra remission guidelines.

08 October, 2025 08:19 PM

TOP STORIES

allahabad-hc-refuses-interim-protection-to-sambhal-mosque-asks-petitioners-to-approach-appellate-court
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Refuses Interim Protection to Sambhal Mosque, Asks Petitioners to Approach Appellate Court [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court refused interim protection to Sambhal mosque, directing petitioners to seek remedy before the appellate court under UP Revenue Code.

06 October, 2025 04:48 PM
calling-off-marriage-after-courtship-not-a-crime-or-breach-of-promise-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Calling Off Marriage After Courtship Not A Crime Or Breach Of Promise: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Delhi High Court grants bail, ruling that ending marriage plans after courtship is not a breach of promise or offence under false promise to marry.

06 October, 2025 05:03 PM
celebrating-bail-on-social-media-not-ground-for-cancellation-without-specific-threat-to-complainant-delhi-hc
Trending Judiciary
Celebrating Bail On Social Media Not Ground For Cancellation Without Specific Threat To Complainant: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Delhi HC rules that celebrating bail on social media isn’t grounds for cancellation unless a specific threat or intimidation is proven.

06 October, 2025 05:25 PM
woman-cannot-claim-maintenance-after-securing-rape-conviction-against-live-in-partner-jammu-and-kashmir-hc
Trending Judiciary
Woman Cannot Claim Maintenance After Securing Rape Conviction Against Live-In Partner: Jammu & Kashmir HC [Read Order]

J&K High Court held that a woman who secured a rape conviction against her live-in partner cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

06 October, 2025 06:08 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email