Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Vs State Bank of India (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that trusteeship deeds are generally signed between the trust on behalf of the lenders and the personal/ corporate guarantor of the principal borrower and Creditors are the true beneficiaries of such deed of guarantee. Thus, creditor cannot be restricted to enforce personal guarantee signed on behalf of trust.
Facts- The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e., Shantanu Jagdish Prakash u/s. 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Impugned Order 31.05.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal.
Notably, State Bank of India is the Respondent No. 1 herein. Mr. Kanti Mohan Rastogi is the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and Respondent No. 2 herein.
The Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order has led to a gross miscarriage of justice, as it failed to recognize that the Petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 u/s. 95 of the Code was barred by limitation. Furthermore, there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and State Bank of India, since the Personal Guarantee dated 03.06.2015 was executed solely between the Appellant and SBICAP. Additionally, the Appellant asserted that the Impugned Order disregarded the critical fact that if the auction of the shares of The com had been conducted in a fair, transparent, and unbiased manner, the principal borrower, Educomp Solution Limited being the major shareholder of Educomp Asia would have generated substantial revenues. This revenue could have satisfied the claims of all lenders including Respondent No. 1/SBI, thereby rendering the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority unnecessary.
