ARTICLE
7 October 2024

A Corporate Guarantor Cannot Be Absolved From Its Liability Only Because The Guarantee Is Not Invoked

J
JSA

Contributor

JSA is a leading national law firm in India with over 600 professionals operating out of 7 offices located in: Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Gurugram, Hyderabad, Mumbai and New Delhi. Our practice is organised along service lines and sector specialisation that provides legal services to top Indian corporates, Fortune 500 companies, multinational banks and financial institutions, governmental and statutory authorities and multilateral and bilateral institutions.
In the case of Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited vs. Central Bank of India18, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal rejected the dissolution of a company undergoing voluntary liquidation on the ground that such a Company had extended corporate guarantees of substantial amounts for a principal borrower.
India Corporate/Commercial Law

In the case of Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited vs. Central Bank of India1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT") rejected the dissolution of a company undergoing voluntary liquidation on the ground that such a Company had extended corporate guarantees of substantial amounts for a principal borrower, and even though the guarantee is not invoked, the lenders could require a guarantor to perform its obligations.

Background

  1. M/s Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited ("Company") initiated voluntary liquidation under Section 59 of the IBC. The proceeding was at its final stage. The Company, through the liquidator filed a company petition under Section 59(7) of the IBC2 seeking dissolution of the Company before the NCLT, New Delhi Bench – VI.
  2. During the hearing of the Company Petition, NCLT issued notice to the registrar of companies ("ROC"). The report of the ROC revealed that the Company had extended corporate guarantees to one, M/s Abhinav Steels and Power Limited ("Principal Borrower") of more than INR 1,257 crore (Indian Rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty-seven crore) (approx.). The Principal Borrower had availed term loan facilities from a consortium of banks namely, Punjab National Bank ("PNB"), Oriental Bank of Commerce ("OBC") and Central Bank of India ("CBI").
  3. The ROC further revealed that this guarantee was extended from 2010 onwards and that as on date, there are 23 (twenty-three) charges against the Company and there is no satisfaction of charge by the Company or the liquidator.
  4. NCLT also issued notices to PNB, OBC and CBI. CBI also filed its objection placing on record the details of the working capital term loan by the Principal Borrower which was secured by the Company's corporate guarantee. In view of these objections, NCLT dismissed the Company's petition.
  5. The Company challenged NCLT's order before NCLAT on the grounds that the Company's corporate guarantee is not invoked by any of the financial creditors and no claim was filed before the liquidator. The liquidator argued that the liability against a corporate guarantor only arises once a guarantee is invoked.

Issue

Whether the Company can be dissolved (under voluntary liquidation) when it has extended corporate guarantees which are neither invoked, nor have any claims filed in that respect?

Findings and Rational

NCLAT dismissed the Company appeal and upheld the order of NCLT. NCLAT held that:

  1. The fact that the guarantee was not invoked does not absolve the corporate guarantor from debt. NCLAT referred to the clauses of the guarantee deed between the Principal Borrower and the corporate guarantor to conclude that the corporate guarantor has extended a corporate guarantee and undertaken to pay the debts to the lenders. Under such clause, the corporate guarantor had agreed that the "Lenders shall be at liberty to require the performance by the Guarantor of its obligations hereunder to the same extent in all respects as if the Guarantor had at all times been solely liable to perform the said obligations".
  2. The liability of a corporate guarantor is coextensive with the borrowers, and the lenders are at liberty to require the guarantor to perform its obligations.
  3. NCLAT rejected the submission that there is no debt since the guarantee was not invoked or claims have not been filed. NCLAT held that guarantee continues to bind the Corporate Guarantor to discharge its liability. If the guarantee is not invoked within a particular date, it cannot be a ground for Company to be liquidated under Section 59 of the IBC.

Conclusion

This is a significant decision on the continuing liability of corporate guarantors even in situations where neither the guarantee will be invoked, nor the creditors have filed their claims before the liquidator. Regulation 3(2) of the IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation) Regulations, 20173 requires a corporate person to declare (on affidavit) that the corporate person is not being liquidated to defraud any person. This judgement effectively expands the applicability of the existing safeguards by preventing indirect evasion of liability and serves as a deterrent for errant corporate guarantors resorting to voluntary liquidation to evade its liabilities.

Footnotes

1 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.323 of 2024, NCLAT, New Delhi

2 "Section 59 (7) - Where the affairs of the corporate person are completely wound up, and its assets completely liquidated, the

3 "Regulation 3 (2) - Where a corporate person, other than a company, intends to liquidate itself voluntarily, a majority of the- (a) designated partners, if the corporate person is a limited liability partnership, or (b) persons responsible for exercising its corporate powers, if the corporate person is not a company or a limited liability partnership shall make a declaration, verified by an affidavit stating that— (i) they have made a full inquiry into the affairs of the corporate person and they have formed an opinion that either the corporate person has no debt or that it will be able to pay its debts in full from the proceeds of assets to be sold in the voluntary liquidation; and (ii) the corporate person is not being liquidated to defraud any person."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Find out more and explore further thought leadership around Business Law and Corporate Law

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More