MAITREYA DOSHI Versus ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR

MAITREYA DOSHI Versus ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6613 OF 2021
MAITREYA DOSHI ....Appellant (s)
Versus
ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR. ...Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
Indira Banerjee, J.
This appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
2016, hereinafter referred to as the ‘IBC’, is against a Judgement and Order
dated 25th August 2021, passed by the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal (NCLAT), dismissing the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 191 of
2021 filed by the Appellant, against an order dated 19th February 2021, passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), NCLT, Mumbai
Bench admitting a Company Petition C.P. (IB) No. 1220/MB/2020 filed by the
Respondent No. 1 - Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited as Financial Creditor,
for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s Doshi
2
Holdings Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “Doshi Holdings”, under Section 7
of the IBC. The Appellant is a suspended Director of Doshi Holdings.
2. The Respondent No 1, a Non-banking Financial Company, hereinafter
referred to as the “Financial Creditor” disbursed loan to the tune of Rs.6 Crores
to M/s Premier Limited, hereinafter referred to as “Premier” under three
separate Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements, dated 29th June 2015, 4th May 2016
and 5th October 2016, respectively. According to the Appellant, Doshi Holdings
pledged shares held by it in Premier, in favour of the Financial Creditor, by way
of security for the loan.
3. According to the Appellant, the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements
contemplated two distinct transactions under one document, that is, grant of
loan to Premier, and creation of pledge by Doshi Holdings of securities held by
the Doshi Holdings in Premier.
4. Premier failed to make repayments in terms of the Loan-cum-Pledge
Agreements. The Financial Creditor, therefore, called upon Premier to repay its
outstanding dues of Rs.7,64,60,360/- on diverse dates between 28th June 2019
and 10th February 2020.
5. By a communication dated 14th February 2020, the Financial Creditor
called upon Premier and Doshi Holdings, also described as the borrower under
the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements, to pay the entire outstanding loan amount.
6. By a letter dated 19th February 2020, Premier admitted and
acknowledged its liability to pay its outstanding dues to the Financial Creditor
3
under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements, but stated that it could not pay the
same on account of genuine difficulty.
7. On 21st September 2020, the Financial Creditor filed a petition under
Section 7 of the IBC being C.P.(IB) No.1224/MB/2020 for initiation of CIRP
against Premier for default in repayment of Rs. 8,35,25,398/-.
8. On the same day, the Financial Creditor also filed a petition against Doshi
Holdings, under Section 7 of the IBC, for initiation of CIRP in respect of the
same claim of Rs. 8,35,25,398/-, based on the same loan documents.
9. Both the petitions filed by the Financial Creditor were heard together by
the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). By an order dated 29th January 2021, the
Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the petition for initiation of CIRP against
Premier. By another Order passed on 19th February 2021, the Adjudicating
Authority (NCLT) admitted the petition for initiation of CIRP against Doshi
Holdings for the same set of loans arising out of the same loan documents, in
respect of which the Financial Creditor had initiated CIRP against Premier.
10. The Appellant filed an appeal in the National Company Law Appellate
Authority (NCLAT) under Section 61 of the IBC. By the impugned judgment and
order dated 25th August 2021, the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) dismissed the
appeal and upheld the order of admission of the petition under Section 7 of the
IBC.
11. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant submitted that no amount under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements
4
was disbursed by the Financial Creditor to Doshi Holdings. The Financial
Creditor granted loans to Premier. The loans were disbursed to Premier. Doshi
Holdings did not utilize any part of the money disbursed by the Financial
Creditor under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement.
12. According to Mr. Vishwanathan, the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements were
standard form agreements in which Premier was the borrower and Doshi
Holdings the pledgor. For convenience, the borrower and the pledgor have
collectively been referred to as borrowers and individually referred to as
borrower or pledgor. The Appellant executed the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement
and other related documents on behalf of Premier and Doshi Holdings, because
the Appellant had independently and separately been authorised by Premier
and Doshi Holdings to execute the documents. The fact remains that Doshi
Holdings and Premier are separate entities.
13. Mr. Vishwanathan argued that since no disbursement has been made to
Doshi Holdings against consideration for the time value of money, there was no
obligation on the part of Doshi Holdings to make any repayment to the
Financial Creditor. There was, therefore, no financial debt owed by Doshi
Holdings to the Financial Creditor under Section 5(8) of the IBC. Insofar as
Doshi Holdings is concerned, the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements only created a
pledge of the shares of Doshi Holdings in Premier in favour of the Financial
Creditor. The petition under Section 7 of the IBC against the Corporate Debtor
was clearly not maintainable.
5
14. In support of his argument, Mr. Vishwanathan, cited Anuj Jain, Interim
Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited v. Axis Bank
Limited and Others
1
, where this Court held :-
“46. ...essential element of disbursal, and that too against the
consideration for time value of money, needs to be found in the
genesis of any debt before it may be treated as “financial debt”
within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Code....”
15. Mr. Vishwanathan next argued that the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate
Authority erred in arriving at the finding that Doshi Holdings was a borrower
and hence liable to make repayment in respect of the loan disbursement to
Premier. He submitted that the loan was never utilised by Doshi Holdings.
16. Mr. Vishwanathan argued that it was not in dispute that no amount was
disbursed to Doshi Holdings. Having accepted the factual position, that no
amount had been disbursed to Doshi Holdings, the Adjudicating
Authority/Appellate Authority erred in arriving at the finding that Doshi
Holdings was a borrower. The petition under Section 7 of the IBC was not
maintainable against Doshi Holdings.
17. Mr. Vishwanathan argued that the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate
Authority misconstrued the expression “financial debt” in Section 5(8) of the
IBC and/or failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of the said expression. The
definition of ‘financial debt’ in Section 5(8) of the IBC does not include a
pledge.
1(2020) 8 SCC 401
6
18. Mr. Vishwanathan submitted that “Contract of Indemnity”, “Contract of
Guarantee” and “Pledge” have been defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The expressions are different from one and another in terms of their
ramification and implication and they cannot be equated. Distinguishing
between the expressions, contract of indemnity, contract of guarantee and
pledge, Mr. Vishwanathan argued that creation of pledge of shares of the
Corporate Debtor did not and cannot amount to a guarantee and/or indemnity
under Section 5(8) of the IBC.
19. Mr. Vishwanathan cited Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketulbhai
Ramubhai Patel
2
, where this Court, relying upon Anuj Jain (supra) held that
where a Corporate Debtor had only extended security by pledging shares, the
applicant (Respondent) would at best be the secured debtor qua the security
but, not a Financial Creditor within the meaning of Sections 5(7) and 5(8) of the
IBC.
20. Mr. Vishwanathan argued that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT)
interchangeably referred to Doshi Holdings as a co-borrower/guarantor under
the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement, losing sight of the difference in the liability of
a pledgor from that of a guarantor.
21. Mr. Vishwanathan submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to
appreciate that the execution of a promissory note gives rise to a presumption
that such promissory note is supported by consideration. The presumption is,
however, rebuttable.
2 (2021) 2 SCC 799
7
22. Mr. Vishwanathan cited Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing
Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal
3
 , where this Court held :-
“12. Upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove,
the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the
promisory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a)
would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a
presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the nonexistence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the
defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof
showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or
doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff
who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its
failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the
basis of the negotiable instrument.....”
23. Mr. Vishwanathan pointed out that the interpretation clause in the
agreement stated that Premier and Doshi Holdings were collectively referred to
as the borrowers and individually as a borrower or pledgor. Mr. Vishwanathan
submitted that the expressions borrower and pledgor had to be read in the
context of the obligation of the parties under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement.
24. Mr. Vishwanathan finally argued that the Adjudicating Authority had
passed its order dated 19th February 2021, impugned in this appeal, ignoring its
earlier finding pronounced in open Court on 29th January 2021, which is as
follows :-
“25...However, under Section 7, if the claim against Premier Limited
(Corporate debtor herein) is “Admitted” then for the same set of
loans, arising under the same loan documents, the same debt/claim
against Doshi will not be permissible...”
25. Mr. Vishwanathan submitted that the order of admission was contrary to
judicial discipline. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Sub-Inspector
3 (1999) 3 SCC 35
8
Rooplal & Another v. Lieutenant Governor and Others
4
, Mr. Vishwanathan
argued that in the event, if any, Member of the Bench was of the opinion that
earlier view taken by another Member of the same Bench was incorrect, the
matter should have been referred to a larger Bench to avoid difference of
opinion.
26. Mr. Prateek Sakseria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent submitted that Doshi Holdings was party to the Loan-cum-Pledge
Agreements in its dual capacity as co-borrower and pledgor which had pledged
its shares in Premier in favour of the Financial Creditor. Mr. Sakseria
emphasised on the fact that the Appellant had signed documents on behalf of
Doshi Holdings in its capacity as co-borrower. The Appellant was Director of
both, Premier and Doshi Holdings.
27. Mr. Sakseria referred to the following documents:-
(i) Letter of Sanction dated 27th June 2015, 4th May 2016 and 5th
October 2016.
(ii) Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement dated 29th June 2015.
(iii) Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement dated 4th May 2016.
(iv) Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement dated 5th October 2016.
(v) Loan Receipts acknowledging the receipt of Rs.6,00,00,000/-.
(vi) Demand Promissory Note unconditionally promising to pay to the
Financial Creditor.
28. Mr. Sakseria pointed out that both Premier and Doshi Holdings have been
described as borrowers in the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements. Mr. Sakseria also
pointed out that Doshi Holdings had acknowledged receipt of monies disbursed
4 (2000) 1 SCC 644
9
under three loan agreements by executing loan receipts. Doshi Holdings had
also issued demand promissory note unconditionally promising repayment of
loan to the Financial Creditor. The loan agreements, receipts and demand
promissory notes have been signed by the Appellant in his capacity as the
authorised signatory/Director of Doshi Holdings and Premier. After Premier
defaulted in payment of loan, demand notice was issued to Doshi Holdings to
repay the loan in its capacity as co-borrower.
29. Mr. Sakseria argued that the definition of financial debt contemplates a
disbursal against consideration for time value of money, and not a disbursal
necessarily to the Corporate Debtor. Otherwise, an amount payable under a
guarantee could never have been included inasmuch as amounts are never
disbursed to a guarantor, but he is liable for debts of another.
30. Mr. Sakseria further argued that the definition of Corporate Debtor does
not require as a pre-condition that monies should have been disbursed to the
Corporate Debtor. The sine qua non for an entity to be considered as a
Corporate Debtor is that such person/entity should owe a debt to any person
and not that a disbursal has to be made to such a person/entity.
31. Mr. Sakseria submitted that Doshi Holdings satisfies the aforesaid criteria
inasmuch as it is a Co-Borrower in terms of the Loan Agreement under which
monies have been borrowed by both Premier and Doshi Holdings. Both Premier
and Doshi Holdings have executed loan receipts admitting receipt of loan
amounts and demand promissory notes unconditionally promising to pay the
monies borrowed to the Financial Creditor for value received.
10
32. The mere fact of it also being a pledgor is wholly irrelevant and does not
in any manner disentitle the Respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings under
Section 7 of the IBC against such a co-borrower.
33. It is not in dispute that the Financial Creditor disbursed loan to the tune of
Rs.6,00,00,000/- to Premier pursuant to the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements
referred to above, executed both by Premier and by Doshi Holdings. Doshi
Holdings has been referred to in the agreement as borrower and pledgor.
Prima facie, it appears that Doshi Holdings was a party to the Loan-cum-Pledge
Agreement in its dual capacity of borrower and pledgor of shares. The
Appellate Authority has arrived at the factual finding that Doshi Holdings is also
a borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement. The factual finding of the
Appellate Authority which was the final fact finding authority ought not to be
interfered in this appeal.
34. The finding of the Appellate Authority that Doshi Holdings is a borrower,
is based on its interpretation of the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements and
supporting documents. The interpretation given by the Appellate Authority is
definitely a possible interpretation. In our view, the interpretation is a plausible
interpretation which cannot be interfered with in an appeal under Section 62 of
the IBC.
35. It is true, as argued by Mr. Vishwanathan that contract of indemnity,
contract of guarantee and pledge are not one and the same. The contract of
indemnity is a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss
11
caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any
other person. In a contract of indemnity, a promisee acting within the scope of
his authority is entitled to recover from the promisor all damages and all costs
which he may incur. A contract of guarantee, on the other hand, is a promise
whereby the promisor promises to discharge the liability of a third person in
case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the surety.
The person in respect of whose default, the guarantee is given is the principal
debtor and the person to whom the guarantee is given is the creditor. Anything
done or any promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor may be a
sufficient consideration to the surety for giving the guarantee. On the other
hand, the bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance
of a promise is a pledge.
36. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgment is that a
pledgor per se may not be a Financial Debtor. However, in this case, as
observed above, the Appellate Authority arrived at a factual finding that Disha
Holdings was a borrower. In Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India
5
, this Court
held that the approval of a resolution plan in relation to a Corporate Debtor
does not discharge the guarantor of the Corporate Debtor. On a parity of
reasoning, the approval of a resolution in respect of one borrower cannot
certainly discharge a co-borrower.
37. If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit
of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of
the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors. Needless to
5 (2021) 9 SCC 321
12
mention, the same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate
Debtors. If the dues are realised in part from one Corporate Debtor, the balance
may be realised from the other Corporate Debtor being the co-borrower.
However, once the claim of the Financial Creditor is discharged, there can be
no question of recovery of the claim twice over.
38. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of
the Appellate Authority. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
.....................................,J.
 [ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
.....................................,J.
 [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर