Financial debt can arise from third-party disbursement where mortgage covenants create personal liability akin to a guarantee.

Financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not require direct disbursement to the corporate debtor if the advance is made for its benefit and in a transaction having the commercial effect of borrowing. The note further states that mortgage and debenture documents, read as a composite arrangement, may make a corporate debtor a financial creditor's secured debtor where the debtor has undertaken obligations tied to the secured debt. An express covenant to pay in the mortgage deeds may operate as a personal undertaking akin to a guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, and liability is not confined merely to the value of the mortgaged property. The arrangement is therefore described as capable of amounting to a contract of guarantee and secured financial debt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disbursement of debt to the Corporate Debtor is a prerequisite for classification of a debt as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code; (ii) Whether the Appellant qualifies as a financial creditor under Section 5(7) read with Section 5(8) of the Code and whether its claim was a secured financial debt; (iii) Whether the covenant to pay in the mortgage deeds created an enforceable guarantee or merely secured the mortgage; (iv) Whether the covenant to pay undertaken by the Corporate Debtor in respect of debt disbursed to a third party amounted to a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (v) Whether the liability of the Corporate Debtor under the covenant to pay was limited only to the extent of the mortgage provided by it.

Issue (i): Whether disbursement of debt to the Corporate Debtor is a prerequisite for classification of a debt as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.

Analysis: Financial debt under the Code requires disbursement against consideration for the time value of money, but the text of Section 5(8) does not insist that the disbursement must be made directly to the corporate debtor. The nature of the transaction, the existence of a liability, and the commercial effect of borrowing remain material. A payment routed to a third party can still satisfy the requirement where it is made for the benefit of the corporate debtor and forms part of the relevant financial arrangement.

Conclusion: Direct disbursement to the Corporate Debtor was held not to be a sine qua non for financial debt.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellant qualifies as a financial creditor under Section 5(7) read with Section 5(8) of the Code and whether its claim was a secured financial debt.

Analysis: The Debenture Trust Deed, the supplemental mortgage deeds, and the associated security documents were read together as one composite transaction. The Corporate Debtor, though not the original borrower, executed the mortgage deeds and undertook obligations in relation to the secured obligations arising from the debentures. The Court treated the covenant to pay and the joint and several liability of the security providers as bringing the Appellant within the definition of a financial creditor, and not merely an other secured creditor.

Conclusion: The Appellant was held to be a financial creditor and its claim was held to be a secured financial debt.

Issue (iii): Whether the covenant to pay in the mortgage deeds created an enforceable guarantee or merely secured the mortgage.

Analysis: The covenant to pay was not read as a bare security clause confined to the mortgaged property. The Court read Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the mortgage deeds jointly and held that the Corporate Debtor undertook to discharge the secured obligations and not merely to permit enforcement against the mortgaged assets. The covenant was treated as creating personal liability and an enforceable assurance akin to a guarantee.

Conclusion: The covenant to pay was held to create an enforceable guarantee and not merely a security interest over the mortgaged property.

Issue (iv): Whether the covenant to pay undertaken by the Corporate Debtor in respect of debt disbursed to a third party amounted to a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: Applying the ingredients of Section 126, the Court found an existing debt, a creditor, a principal debtor, and a surety-like undertaking by the Corporate Debtor to discharge the liability in case of default. The composite documentation showed that the Corporate Debtor stepped into the shoes of the obligors for the secured obligations and that the arrangement was functionally equivalent to a guarantee.

Conclusion: The covenant was held to amount to a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Issue (v): Whether the liability of the Corporate Debtor under the covenant to pay was limited only to the extent of the mortgage provided by it.

Analysis: The Court rejected the contention that liability was confined to the value or enforcement of the mortgaged assets. The covenant to pay, read with the deed as a whole, imposed an obligation to ensure discharge of the secured obligations and not merely a property-linked liability. Clause 2.2 was held not to whittle down the broader undertaking contained in Clause 2.1.

Conclusion: The liability of the Corporate Debtor was held not to be limited only to the mortgaged property.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to succeed on merits, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a corporate debtor executes mortgage or security documents containing an express covenant to pay the secured obligations, the arrangement may constitute a contract of guarantee and financial debt under the Code even if the disbursement was made to a third party rather than directly to the corporate debtor.

---