Krishan Kumar Jajoo Vs Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that beneficiary under the personal guarantee is fully entitled to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against personal guarantor u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Facts- Piramal Enterprises Ltd. earlier known as PHL Fininvest Pvt. Ltd. is the Respondent No.1 herein, engaged in various financial services business. Jayant Prakash who is the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor is the Respondent No.2 herein.
The facility in question was initially granted by Piramal Finance Limited (“PFL”) to Hema Engineering Industries Limited (“HEIL”) (‘Corporate Debtor’) under the Facility Agreement dated 20.07.2017. Pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation, PFL (the original lender) and Piramal Capital Limited (“PCL”) were amalgamated with Piramal Housing Finance Limited (“PHFL”). Subsequently, the name of PHFL was changed to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited (“PCHFL”), as reflected in the Certificate of Incorporation dated 12.06.2018. The Appellant contends that under the Assignment Agreement dated 22.03.2019, the Facility Agreement dated 20.07.2017, originally entered into between PFL and HEIL, was assigned to PHL Fininvest Private Limited (now Piramal Enterprises Ltd.), the Respondent No.1 herein.
As per the Facility Agreement dated 20.07.2017, the Respondent No.1 extended a term loan facility of Rs.400 cr to HEIL. HEIL’s obligation to repay the loan, along with all other amounts due under the said Facility Agreement, was secured by a Personal Guarantee dated 20.07.2017, which was executed by the Appellant in favour of Piramal Trusteeship Services Private Ltd. (“PTSPL”), the appointed Security Trustee.
