Bank authorized to invoke personal guarantee after borrower default under Section 95 IBC

The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the invocation of personal guarantee under Section 95 of IBC. The appellant argued that the bank lacked authority to invoke the guarantee and file the application. The tribunal held that once the principal borrower defaulted and the account became NPA, the personal guarantor's liability was triggered as per Section 128 of Indian Contract Act. The bank, designated as COR Lenders Agent, was validly authorized to invoke the guarantee. The Section 95 application was properly filed by an authorized officer under State Bank of India regulations. The tribunal rejected all contentions and upheld the bank's right to proceed against the personal guarantor.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the Respondent No.1 Bank was entitled to invoke the personal guarantee in the given circumstances.
• Whether the Section 95 application was filed by a person with valid authority on behalf of Respondent No.1 Bank.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Invoke Personal Guarantee

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The judgment refers to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, particularly Section 128, which states that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by the contract. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) provisions are also considered.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court analyzed the Personal Guarantee Agreement (PGA) and the Common Loan Agreement (CORLA), emphasizing that the agreements were signed on the same date and were integral to each other. The court noted that the personal guarantor had executed an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee in favor of the Security Trustee for the benefit of the COR Lenders.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the CORLA and PGA clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the parties. The Respondent No.1 Bank, as a COR Lender's Agent, was entitled to invoke the guarantee. The court also noted that the personal guarantor's liability was triggered upon the principal borrower's default.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the terms of the CORLA and PGA to conclude that the Respondent No.1 Bank was within its rights to invoke the personal guarantee.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the guarantee could only be invoked collectively by the COR Lenders or by the Security Trustee. The court rejected this argument, noting that the CORLA allowed individual COR Lenders to enforce their rights separately.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the Respondent No.1 Bank was entitled to invoke the personal guarantee, as the agreements allowed for such action by individual COR Lenders.

Issue 2: Validity of Authority to File Section 95 Application

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955, particularly regarding the authority to sign documents and initiate legal proceedings.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court referred to a Gazette notification authorizing officers of a certain grade to sign documents on behalf of the bank. It noted that the Assistant General Manager who filed the Section 95 application was duly authorized.
• Key evidence and findings: The court found that the application was filed by a person with valid authority, as per the relevant regulations and the Gazette notification.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the statutory framework to determine that the filing of the Section 95 application was valid.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the application was filed without proper authority. The court rejected this argument, citing the Gazette notification and the statutory provisions.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the Section 95 application was validly filed by a person with the requisite authority.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract."
• Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the liability of a personal guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and individual lenders can enforce their rights under the agreements if provided for.
• Final determinations on each issue: The court determined that the Respondent No.1 Bank was entitled to invoke the personal guarantee and that the Section 95 application was validly filed by an authorized person.

In conclusion, the court dismissed both appeals, affirming the decision to initiate insolvency proceedings against the appellants. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants and upheld the validity of the actions taken by the Respondent No.1 Bank.

---