M/s. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd Vs M/s. Hydric Town Planners Pvt. Ltd

P.S.N Prasad, Member (Judicial)

The present application is filed by M/s Piramal Capital and  Housing  Finance  Ltd.  under  Section 7  of  the Insolvency  and  Bankruptcy  Code, 2016  (hereinafter referred  to  as  'the  Code')  read  with  Rule  4  of  the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority)   rules, 2016   for   initiation   of   Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as `CIRP') against M/s. Hydric Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. for the alleged default on the part of the Respondent in settling an amount of Rs. 53,26,52,972 (Rupees Fifety Three Crore Twenty Six Lakhs Fifety Two Thousand Nine   Hundred   and   Seventy   Two).   The   details   of transactions leading to the filing of this application as averred by the Applicant are as follows:

i.   That the Corporate Debtor, Hydric Town Planners  Private   Limited,   had   executed   the   Deed   of Guarantee  dated  29.03.2018  offering  Guarantee for   the   repayment   of   the   facility  extended   to Crystal Facilities Management Pvt Ltd.

ii. That   vide   Loan   Agreement   dated 29.03.2018 entered into between Crystal FacilitiesManagement   Pvt   Ltd ("CFMPL")   and   Dewan Housing  Finance  Corporation  Limited,  in furtherance of sanction letter dated 28.03.2018, a loan of Rs. 35 crores was approved and sanctioned to CFMPL.

iii. That pursuant to the approval of the resolution  plan  submitted  by  Piramal  Capital  &  Housing Finance   Limited   in   the   corporate   insolvency resolution   process   of   Dewan   Housing   Finance Corporation   Limited ("DHFL"),   by   the   Hon'ble National   Company   Law   Tribunal,   Mumbai   on 07.06.2021, Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited  has  been  reverse  merged  into  Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited with effect from 30.09.2021. The Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name has been issued by the   Registrar   of   Companies,   Mumbai,   dated 03.11.2021, wherein the name of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited has been changed to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited.

iv. The CFMPL's obligation to repay the loan along  with   all   the   amounts   due   under   the   Loan Agreement, was inter alia fully secured by, among other things a Corporate Guarantee deed dated March 29, 2018 executed by Hydric Town Planners Private Limited.

v.  That the said Corporate Guarantee was issued by  the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Financial Creditor, by which the Corporate Debtor issued and furnished an unconditional and irrevocable guarantee, securing CFMPL's payment obligations in terms of the Loan Agreement. In terms of the said Corporate Guarantee, the Corporate Debtor agreed that, in the event of any default on the part of CFMPL in making payments in relation to the loan availed, the Corporate Debtor shall forthwith pay to the Applicant/Financial Creditor, without protest  or  demur,  all  the  amounts  payable  by CFMPL to the Financial Creditor, under the Loan Agreement.

vi. That  notice  dated  22.02.2020  was  adressed  to CFMPL and other Guarantors, for an amount of Rs. 37,17,10,172/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Crores Seventeen Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Two) as on 22.02.2020. The said amount incorporated  the  principal  outstanding,  interest, default interest and other charges. Despite receipt of  the  said  recall  notice,  the  CFMPL  and  the Corporate Debtor and other Guarantors continued to be in default and failed to pay the outstanding amounts. The Corporate Debtor continues to be in default and miserably failed to discharge the said liability and the said amount remains to be paid and due. Thus, the Corporate Debtor is commercially insolvent and is not in a position to meet its liabilities.

Despite several notices to the Corporate Debtor, no one  was present on behalf of the Corporate Debtor on any of the dates of the hearing and hence the Corporate Debtor was set ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2022.

We have gone through the documents filed the Applicant and heard the arguments made by the counsel for the Applicant. The Applicant has claimed the default on part of the Respondent being the Guarantor for the Loan amount of Rs. 53,26,52,972 (Rupees Fifety Three Crore Twenty Six Lakhs Fifety Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Two) as on 11.05.2022.

Vide order dated 19.01.2023 paased by this Tribunal in IB-439/ND/2022   titlted   M/s.   Piramal   Capital   and Housing   Finance   Ltd.   Vs.   M/s.   Crystal   Facilites Management Pvt. Ltd., CIRP of M/s. Crystal Facilites Management Pvt. Ltd. has already been initiated for the same debt for which Corporate Guarantee was issued by the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Financial Creditor.

The Hon’ble NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 346 of 2018 in "Dr. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal vs. M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. held that:

"32. There is no bar in the 'I & B Code' for filing simultaneously   two   applications   under Section 7 against the 'Principal Borrower' as well as the 'Corporate   Guarantor(s)'   or   against   both   the 'Guarantors'. However, once for same set of claim application under Section 7 filed by the 'Financial Creditor' is admitted against one of the 'Corporate Debtor' (‘Principal  Borrower'  or  'Corporate Guarantor(s)'),  second  application  by  the  same 'Financial  Creditor'  for  same  set  of  claim  and default  cannot   be   admitted   against   the  other 'Corporate Debtor' (the 'Corporate Guarantor(s)' or the 'Principal Borrower'). Further, though there is a provision  to  file  joint  application  under Section 7 by the 'Financial Creditors', no application can be filed by the 'Financial Creditor' against two or more 'Corporate Debtors' on the ground of joint liability ('Principal Borrower' and one 'Corporate Guarantor', or 'Principal Borrower' or two 'Corporate  Guarantor's  or  one  'Corporate Guarantor' and other 'Corporate Guarantor'), till it is shown that the 'Corporate Debtors' combinedly are joint venture company.

The  above  judgement  of  Hon’ble  NCLAT  very  clearly  states   that   CIRP   cannot   be   initiated   against   the Corporate  Guarantor  for  the  same  debt  if  CIRP  has  already been  initiated  for  the same  debt  against  the Principal Borrower or vice versa.

In view of the above, we hereby dismiss the Section 7 petition filed by the Petitioner against guarantor.

Let copy of the order be served to the parties.