Pledgor cannot be treated as principal debtor for IBC Section 7 application despite joint liability

The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a Section 7 IBC application against a pledgor. The court held that while the respondent company had executed a pledge agreement and made itself liable to pay dues jointly and severally with other pledgors, it could not be treated as a principal debtor for recovery purposes under Section 7 of the IBC. The pledge agreement created security obligations but did not establish the respondent as the primary borrower, making the IBC application inappropriate for debt recovery against a pledgor.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Clause 5.1(g) of the Pledge Agreement.
2. Determination of whether the Pledge Agreement constitutes a guarantee.
3. Applicability of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Clause 5.1(g) of the Pledge Agreement:
The Appellant argued that Clause 5.1(g) of the Pledge Agreement implies a guarantee extended by the pledgors to the Financial Creditor, making them jointly and severally liable as principal debtors. The Adjudicating Authority, however, found that the agreement was primarily a pledge agreement, and the intention of the parties was clear in that it was meant to pledge shares as security rather than to act as a guarantee. The Authority emphasized that the agreement should not be interpreted merely for the convenience of the Financial Creditor and that there was no explicit or implicit guarantee provided by the pledgors, except for the personal guarantee of Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal.

2. Determination of whether the Pledge Agreement constitutes a guarantee:
The Appellant contended that the Pledge Agreement was a hybrid agreement, serving both as a pledge and a guarantee. The Adjudicating Authority disagreed, stating that the agreement was clearly an agreement of pledge, not a guarantee. The Authority noted that the Financial Creditor repeatedly referred to the agreement as an "Agreement of Pledge and Guarantee" without any basis for such a claim. The Authority pointed out that if there had been an intention to include the pledgor as a guarantor, a similar guarantee agreement would have been executed. The Authority concluded that the present application under Section 7 could not proceed against the Corporate Debtor, who was merely a pledgor of shares and not a guarantor.

3. Applicability of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
The Appellant filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application, stating that the Corporate Debtor, being only a pledgor of shares and not having availed any financial benefit from the Financial Creditor or signed any document as a guarantor, could not be proceeded against under Section 7. The Authority noted that the Financial Creditor had not taken any steps to recover its dues from the principal borrower or the sole principal guarantor, Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, and had only initiated action against the pledgor of shares. The Authority concluded that the pledgor could not be termed as a Corporate Debtor and did not owe any debt to the Financial Creditor under the Pledge Agreement.

Conclusion:
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, finding no error in the interpretation of the agreements or the findings that the Pledge Agreement did not constitute a guarantee. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the pledgor of shares could not be considered a Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

---