Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: A Case of Co-Borrower Liability
The case of Maitreya Doshi vs. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. focuses on the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), specifically the eligibility of Doshi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. as a corporate debtor. The appeal arises from the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) decision to admit a petition for initiating the CIRP against Doshi Holdings, which was challenged by the appellant, Maitreya Doshi. The case revolves around the interpretation of loan agreements, the role of Doshi Holdings in the transactions, and the legal liabilities of a co-borrower under the IBC.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. (ARGF), a non-banking financial company, had disbursed a loan amounting to Rs. 6 crores to Premier Ltd. under three separate Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements executed between 2015 and 2016. Doshi Holdings, a separate corporate entity, pledged its shares in Premier Ltd. as collateral for the loan extended to Premier Ltd. While Premier Ltd. was the direct borrower, Doshi Holdings was involved as a pledgor in the loan transactions. The loan repayment default by Premier Ltd. led ARGF to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the IBC against both Premier Ltd. and Doshi Holdings.
Despite the loan being disbursed solely to Premier Ltd., the Financial Creditor, ARGF, filed petitions for initiating CIRP against both Premier Ltd. and Doshi Holdings, citing the same loan documents and claiming that Doshi Holdings was liable as a co-borrower. The appellant, Maitreya Doshi, a suspended director of Doshi Holdings, contested the petition, arguing that since no funds were disbursed to Doshi Holdings, it could not be considered a borrower under the IBC, and thus, the petition against it was not maintainable.
The Legal Arguments
Appellant’s Argument: The appellant’s counsel, Senior Advocate K.V. Vishwanathan, argued that Doshi Holdings was not a borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements. He contended that while Doshi Holdings had pledged its shares as security for the loan given to Premier Ltd., it had never received any loan funds directly. Therefore, according to Section 5(8) of the IBC, Doshi Holdings did not qualify as a ‘financial debtor’ as there was no disbursement to it. Vishwanathan argued that a co-borrower could not be treated as a borrower simply because they pledged assets as security, without receiving loan proceeds. Citing precedents like *Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Limited* (2020), he emphasized that for a financial debt to exist, there must be a disbursement of funds against consideration for time value of money.
The appellant further argued that the NCLT and NCLAT had incorrectly classified Doshi Holdings as a co-borrower and erroneously initiated CIRP against it. He cited *Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Ketulbhai Ramubhai Patel* (2021), where the Supreme Court held that a pledgor who did not receive a loan could not be classified as a financial creditor. Thus, Doshi Holdings should not be treated as a corporate debtor under the IBC.
Respondent’s Argument: The respondent, ARGF, represented by counsel Mr. Prateek Sakseria, countered the appellant’s argument by asserting that Doshi Holdings was indeed a co-borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements. Sakseria pointed out that the loan documents specifically referred to Doshi Holdings as a borrower, in addition to being a pledgor. He emphasized that Doshi Holdings had signed loan receipts and promissory notes, acknowledging the receipt of funds and committing to repay the loan amount. Sakseria argued that the mere fact that Doshi Holdings was also a pledgor did not exclude it from being considered a borrower under the agreements. He maintained that the definition of ‘financial debt’ under Section 5(8) of the IBC included any debt owed to a financial creditor, regardless of whether the funds were directly disbursed to the corporate debtor.
Further, the respondent argued that under the IBC, the focus is on whether a debt is owed, not whether funds were directly received. The presence of a loan agreement, where Doshi Holdings was listed as a borrower, coupled with its acknowledgment of the loan, created sufficient grounds for initiating CIRP. The fact that the loan was not directly disbursed to Doshi Holdings was irrelevant, as the company had a contractual obligation to repay under the terms of the loan.
The Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments of both parties, upheld the NCLT’s decision to initiate CIRP against Doshi Holdings. The Court ruled that the classification of Doshi Holdings as a co-borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements was valid, as the agreements explicitly referred to Doshi Holdings as a borrower, even though the loan proceeds were disbursed to Premier Ltd. The Court emphasized that the IBC focuses on the existence of a debt owed by the corporate debtor, not the direct receipt of funds. As Doshi Holdings had signed the loan receipts and promissory notes, it had assumed responsibility for the loan repayment, thereby qualifying as a borrower under the IBC.
The Court also dismissed the appellant’s reliance on precedents like *Anuj Jain* and *Phoenix ARC*, noting that while the creation of a pledge alone does not create a financial debt, the appellant’s case involved more than just a pledge. The contractual obligations of Doshi Holdings, including the signing of loan documents and promissory notes, were sufficient to classify it as a borrower and a financial debtor.
The Court further observed that the application of Section 7 of the IBC was intended to resolve insolvency issues and facilitate the resolution of outstanding debts. As Doshi Holdings was a borrower under the loan agreements, the respondent had the right to initiate CIRP against it, even if the disbursement of funds occurred only to Premier Ltd.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of the contractual terms in determining the liability of corporate entities under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It clarifies that the definition of a financial debtor under the IBC extends beyond the direct receipt of funds and includes any entity that has an obligation to repay a loan, as outlined in the loan documents. The decision reinforces the interpretation of loan agreements and pledges in the context of insolvency proceedings, ensuring that the provisions of the IBC are applied fairly to all parties involved.
Judgment Date: September 22, 2022
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari
Petitioner Name: Maitreya Doshi
Respondent Name: Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd.
Case Outcome: Petition Dismissed
Place of Incident: Mumbai, India
Original File Name: 24777_2021_5_1505_38576_Judgement_22-Sep-2022.pdf
Total Characters in File: 36582
Petitioner Name: Maitreya Doshi.Respondent Name: Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd..Judgment By: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice J.K. Maheshwari.Place Of Incident: Mumbai, India.Judgment Date: 22-09-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: maitreya-doshi-vs-anand-rathi-global-f-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-22-09-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Company Law
See all petitions in Corporate Governance
See all petitions in Bankruptcy and Insolvency
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in Judgment by J.K. Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
