Tribunal confirms STCI Finance as financial creditor under IBC

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming STCI Finance Ltd. as a financial creditor under the IBC due to the corporate guarantee provided by BPPL. The COC was deemed correctly constituted, and the reliance on the Anuj Jain judgment was considered out of context. The Impugned Order was upheld without error in constitution or inclusion of STCI Finance Ltd. in the COC. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether STCI Finance Ltd. qualifies as a financial creditor under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
2. Whether the Committee of Creditors (COC) was constituted correctly in accordance with Section 21 of the IBC.
3. Applicability of judgments from previous cases to the current case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification of STCI Finance Ltd. as a Financial Creditor:
The core issue is whether STCI Finance Ltd., which provided a loan to Bohra Industries Limited (BIL) with Bohra Pratisthan Private Limited (BPPL) acting as a guarantor, qualifies as a financial creditor under Section 5(8) of the IBC. The Appellant argued that STCI Finance Ltd. does not meet the definition of a financial creditor as there was no "disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money" to BPPL. The Appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in Anuj Jain v. Axis Bank Limited, which emphasized that a financial creditor must have disbursed funds against the consideration for the time value of money. However, the Tribunal found that the corporate guarantee provided by BPPL for the loan to BIL does confer the status of a financial creditor to STCI Finance Ltd., as per Section 5(8)(i) of the IBC.

2. Constitution of the Committee of Creditors (COC):
The Appellant contended that the Resolution Professional did not constitute the COC correctly, as STCI Finance Ltd. was incorrectly included as a financial creditor. The Tribunal examined the Loan Agreement and the Deed of Guarantee, which clearly indicated that BPPL provided a corporate guarantee for the loan given by STCI Finance Ltd. to BIL. The Tribunal referred to Section 5(8) of the IBC, which includes liabilities arising from guarantees as financial debts. Therefore, the inclusion of STCI Finance Ltd. in the COC was deemed appropriate.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments:
The Appellant argued that the judgment in Anuj Jain (supra) should apply, asserting that the security interest provided by BPPL does not qualify as financial debt. However, the Tribunal found that the Anuj Jain case dealt with a mortgage and not a corporate guarantee. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment in Ascot Realty Private Limited v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, which upheld the inclusion of claims based on corporate guarantees as financial debts. The Tribunal clarified that the context and facts of each case are crucial in determining the applicability of previous judgments. It concluded that the corporate guarantee provided by BPPL for the loan to BIL qualifies STCI Finance Ltd. as a financial creditor.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that STCI Finance Ltd. is a financial creditor under the IBC due to the corporate guarantee provided by BPPL. The COC was constituted correctly, and the Appellant's reliance on the Anuj Jain judgment was found to be out of context. The Tribunal upheld the Impugned Order and found no error in its constitution or the inclusion of STCI Finance Ltd. in the COC. There was no order as to costs.

---