Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Date: July 23, 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice Abhay S. Oka, Honorable Justice Pankaj Mithal
Advocates: Mr. Jaideep Gupta (for the appellant) Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari (for the respondent)
Acts and Sections: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Sections 140, 126, 128, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139) Companies Act, 1956 (Section 391)
Cited Judgements: Amit Lal Goverdhan Lalan v. State Bank of Travancore & Ors, Shib Charan Das v. Muqaddam & Ors, Kadamba Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Devru Ganapathi Hegde Bhairi, Economic Transport Organization, Delhi v. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, Lala Kapurchand Godha & Ors. v. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah, Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India & Anr, Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors. v. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors, Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors, Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, State Bank of India v. Ghanshyam Surajbali Kurmi, Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union of India & Anr, Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Shri Vikram Cotton Mills & Anr.
Introduction
The case of BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr. revolved around the complexities of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The crux of the matter was whether the liability of a principal borrower (corporate debtor) is extinguished upon the settlement of dues by a corporate guarantor under a resolution plan.
Factual Background
The second respondent, Gujarat Hydrocarbon and Power SEZ Limited, a corporate debtor, approached the first respondent, SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited, for a loan of ₹100 crores. This loan was secured by a mortgage of leasehold land, a pledge of shares, and a corporate guarantee by Assam Company India Limited (ACIL). Due to defaults, the financial creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, initiating the CIRP against ACIL, leading to the approval of a resolution plan wherein the appellant, BRS Ventures Investments Ltd., was the successful resolution applicant.
Submissions by the Appellant
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, representing the appellant, contended that upon payment of ₹38.87 crores to the financial creditor, the appellant stepped into the shoes of the financial creditor under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He asserted that the rights of the financial creditor stood subrogated in favor of the appellant, granting them the right to recover the dues from the principal borrower.
Submissions by the Respondent
Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, for the financial creditor, argued that the appellant's resolution plan payment did not discharge the corporate debtor's remaining liability. He emphasized that the appellant's claim of subrogation was neither raised before the adjudicating authority nor the NCLAT and that the liability of the guarantor does not extend to discharging the principal debtor’s obligations in entirety.
Legal Framework and Key Judgements
Honorable Justice Abhay S. Oka and Honorable Justice Pankaj Mithal delved into the provisions of the IBC and the Indian Contract Act. They scrutinized the applicability of Sections 126, 128, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, and 140 of the Indian Contract Act concerning the liability of guarantors and sureties.
The bench referenced several key judgements, notably:
Amit Lal Goverdhan Lalan v. State Bank of Travancore & Ors, where it was established that subrogation rights are invoked upon payment by the guarantor.
Economic Transport Organization, Delhi v. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, reinforcing that subrogation under Section 140 is based on equitable principles.
Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors, elucidating that the approval of a resolution plan does not discharge a guarantor’s liability.
Analysis and Interpretation
The bench highlighted that subrogation rights under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act arise only upon the guarantor's complete discharge of their liability. Partial payments, even if deemed full and final by a resolution plan, do not invoke subrogation rights over the entirety of the principal debtor’s obligations.
"The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless otherwise provided by the contract," the bench reiterated, emphasizing the separate and distinct obligations of guarantors and principal borrowers under the IBC and the Contract Act.
The bench also addressed the issue of simultaneous proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC against both the corporate debtor and the guarantor. They affirmed the legislative intent allowing such concurrent proceedings, ensuring comprehensive debt recovery mechanisms.
Additional Key Points from the Judgment
Subrogation and Section 140 of the Contract Act
Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides for the rights of the surety upon payment or performance of all that he is liable for. The court elucidated that this section becomes relevant only when the guarantor has fully discharged their obligations. Partial payments, even if treated as full and final under a resolution plan, do not entitle the guarantor to subrogation rights over the principal debtor’s entire debt. The judgment states:
"The words used in Section 140 are ‘upon payment or performance of all that he is liable for.’ When the principal debtor commits a default and when the liability under the deed of guarantee of the surety is not limited to a particular amount, its liability is in respect of the entire amount repayable by the principal debtor to the creditor."
The court emphasized that the surety's right to subrogation under Section 140 is restricted to the extent of the debt discharged by the guarantor. Therefore, unless the guarantor clears the entirety of the principal debtor's debt, the right of subrogation remains partial and does not extinguish the remaining liability of the principal borrower.
Impact on Simultaneous Proceedings
The judgment also clarified the legal framework supporting simultaneous proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC against both the corporate debtor and the guarantor. The bench referred to Section 60 of the IBC, highlighting the legislative intent to allow such concurrent applications, ensuring that creditors have multiple avenues for debt recovery.
"Sub-section (2) of Section 60 contemplates separate or simultaneous insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor and guarantor. Sub-section (3) provides that if CIRP in respect of the corporate guarantor is pending before an adjudicating authority and if the CIRP against the corporate debtor is pending before another adjudicating authority, CIRP proceedings against the corporate guarantor must be transferred to the adjudicating authority before whom CIRP in respect of the corporate debtor is pending."
This provision ensures that the rights of creditors are not hindered by procedural complexities, allowing for a streamlined and efficient resolution process.
Implications for Legal Professionals
This judgement underscores the distinct and co-extensive nature of liabilities between corporate debtors and guarantors. It reinforces the principles of subrogation and the independent contractual obligations under the IBC and Indian Contract Act. Legal professionals must carefully navigate these provisions, ensuring comprehensive understanding and strategic application in CIRP proceedings.
Conclusion
The judgment solidifies the understanding that the obligations of guarantors and principal borrowers are distinct yet co-extensive, reaffirming the principle that subrogation rights under Section 140 are contingent on the complete discharge of the guarantor’s liability. It underscores the IBC's robust framework designed to facilitate comprehensive debt recovery through concurrent proceedings against corporate debtors and guarantors. This case serves as a significant precedent for legal professionals navigating the intricacies of corporate insolvency and contractual obligations in India.
Comments