TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement decision, deems petition maintainable under IBC</h1> <h3>MAITREYA DOSHI Versus ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR.</h3> MAITREYA DOSHI Versus ANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements created a financial debt owed by Doshi Holdings to the Financial Creditor under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).2. Whether Doshi Holdings can be considered a borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements.3. Whether the petition under Section 7 of the IBC against Doshi Holdings was maintainable.4. Whether the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority erred in their interpretation of the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements and related documents.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of IBC:The Appellant argued that no amount under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements was disbursed to Doshi Holdings, thus, there was no financial debt owed by Doshi Holdings to the Financial Creditor under Section 5(8) of the IBC. The Financial Creditor had granted loans to Premier, and Doshi Holdings only pledged shares as security. The Appellant cited the case of Anuj Jain, where the Court held that the essential element of disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money needs to be found in the genesis of any debt before it may be treated as 'financial debt.' The Appellate Authority, however, found that Doshi Holdings was a borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements, thus creating a financial debt.2. Doshi Holdings as a Borrower:The Appellant contended that Doshi Holdings was not a borrower but merely a pledgor. The Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements referred to Premier as the borrower and Doshi Holdings as the pledgor. The Appellant executed the agreements on behalf of both entities, which are separate. The Financial Creditor argued that Doshi Holdings was party to the agreements in a dual capacity as co-borrower and pledgor. The Appellate Authority found that Doshi Holdings was indeed a borrower, based on the interpretation of the agreements and supporting documents, which included loan receipts and demand promissory notes executed by Doshi Holdings.3. Maintainability of Petition under Section 7 of IBC:The Appellant argued that since Doshi Holdings did not receive any disbursement, the petition under Section 7 of the IBC was not maintainable against it. The Financial Creditor argued that the definition of financial debt includes disbursal against consideration for time value of money, and not necessarily to the Corporate Debtor. The Appellate Authority upheld the petition, finding Doshi Holdings to be a borrower and thus liable under the IBC. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the interpretation by the Appellate Authority was plausible and should not be interfered with.4. Interpretation of Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements:The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority misconstrued the expression 'financial debt' and failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of the expression. The Financial Creditor emphasized that Doshi Holdings had acknowledged receipt of the loan amounts and executed promissory notes. The Appellate Authority's interpretation that Doshi Holdings was a borrower was found to be a possible and plausible interpretation by the Supreme Court, which upheld the factual findings of the Appellate Authority.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority. The Court held that Doshi Holdings was a borrower under the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements, creating a financial debt owed to the Financial Creditor. The petition under Section 7 of the IBC was maintainable against Doshi Holdings, and the interpretation of the agreements by the Appellate Authority was upheld as plausible. The approval of a resolution plan in respect of one borrower does not discharge a co-borrower, and proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC can be initiated against both Corporate Debtors, provided that the same amount is not realized from both.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
