Sunday 13 February 2022

Madhya Gujarat VIJ Company Ltd. Vs. CMA George Samuel, RP - Bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period. issued under section 14 of the IBC, in view of the amended provision under section 14 (3)(b) of the IBC.

NCLAT (03.02.2022) in Madhya Gujarat VIJ Company Ltd.  Vs. CMA George Samuel, RP [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 887 of 2021] held that; 

  • The assets of the surety are separate from those of the corporate debtor, and proceedings against the corporate debtor may not be seriously impacted by the actions against assets of third party like surety. Bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period. issued under section 14 of the IBC, in view of the amended provision under section 14 (3)(b) of the IBC.

 

Excerpts of the order;

03.02.2022: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 – Shri Rajendra Beniwal and none has appeared for Respondent No. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Ahmedabad Court-2 by which Interlocutory Application No. 486 of 2020 of the Appellant has been rejected.

 

# 2. Appellant has filed IA for directing the Resolution Professional and the Bank to make payment of the Bank Guarantee of Rs.19 Lakhs. The Bank Guarantee was given by the Corporate Debtor on 03.08.2017 for a period of two years to secure the electricity dues payable to the Appellant. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 19.12.2019. Immediately after the initiation of proceedings, on 03.01.2020, the Appellant wrote to the Bank – Respondent No. 2 for invocation of the Bank Guarantee. Bank on 08.01.2020 replied to the Appellant in following words:

  • “Sir,

  • With reference to the trail mail we have to advise that the Corporate Debtor has been admitted for CIRP by the NCLT. And the RP has informed that the moratorium is in operation. Hence, the bank has been restrained from doing any transaction in this account without the knowledge or consent of Resolution Professional.”

 

# 3. After refusal of the Bank to invoke the Bank Guarantee, application was filed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. Adjudicating Authority has taken the view that since CIRP proceedings were continuing the Bank Guarantee cannot be invoked and the application is not maintainable. The reason given by the Adjudicating Authority is only to the following effect:

  • “IA No. 486 of 2020 is filed by Madhya Gujrat Vij Company Ltd. directing the RP and Bank to allow them to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.19 lakhs. However, moratorium is in existence. In such situation, Bank Guarantee cannot be invoked. Moreover, the Applicant has already submitted its claim to RP. Hence, the application is not maintainable and stands rejected.”

 

# 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has right to invoke Bank Guarantee which is now settled by this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 26.02.2021 in Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. Vs. J. P. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.’ reported in (2021) SCC Online NCLAT 57. This Appellate Tribunal was considering the same issue in aforesaid case and by the above judgment laid down following in paragraph 37:-

  • “37. With the aforesaid, we hold that the Corporate Debtor has issued bank guarantee for ensuring the price of goods. The bank guarantee is irrevocable and unconditional and payable on demand without demur. The assets of the surety are separate from those of the corporate debtor, and proceedings against the corporate debtor may not be seriously impacted by the actions against assets of third party like surety. Bank guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period issued under section 14 of the IBC in view of the amended provision under section 14 (3)(b) of the IBC.

 

# 5. Submission of learned counsel for the Appellant is that the order of the Adjudicating Authority is unsustainable in view of the law laid down in the above judgment. We are of the view that above judgment of this Tribunal fully covers the issue and the order of the Adjudicating Authority deserves to the set aside in view of the law laid down by this Tribunal in the matter of ‘Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd.’ (supra).

 

# 6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also referred to clause 11 of the Bank Guarantee where he was entitled to claim within 12 months from the expiry date. Admittedly, the application for invocation of Bank Guarantee was made immediately after initiation of CIRP proceeding. We, thus, set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 06.09.2021.

 

# 7. Counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the approval of the Resolution Plan is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. We are of the view that the Appellant was clearly entitled for invocation of Bank Guarantee, hence, we remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass appropriate orders with regard to claim of the Appellant to the amount to Rs.19 Lakhs as included in the Bank Guarantee. Appropriate orders be passed by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. Appeal is allowed accordingly.


------------------------------------------------------------


No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer:

The sole purpose of this post is to create awareness on the "IBC - Case Law" and to provide synopsis of the concerned case law, must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must refer to the full citation of the order & do one's own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this post.