National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Upholds Liquidation Order Against Corporate Debtor — Directs Return of Bank Guarantees and Remittance to Liquidation Account. Citing that Bank Guarantees and Fixed Deposits are not assets of the Corporate Debtor and thus excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4) of the IBC.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowing the liquidator to direct the return of original bonds related to Bank Guarantees and to remit amounts to the liquidation account. The Corporate Debtor, incorporated on 09.12.2010, was involved in research and development and had executed eight EPCG Bonds with the Customs Department for export obligations. The Corporate Debtor was admitted into insolvency on 14.03.2023, and a liquidation order was passed on 21.11.2023. The Appellant filed a claim for ₹ 1,81,27,632/- which was admitted in full. The liquidator sought to release expired Bank Guarantees and credit amounts to the liquidation account, but the Appellant contended that the Bank Guarantees had not expired and were secured by Fixed Deposits. The NCLT ruled in favor of the liquidator, leading to the appeal. The Appellant argued that the Bank Guarantees were performance guarantees and not part of the liquidation estate as per Sections 14, 18, and 36(4) of the IBC. The Respondent Bank contended that the guarantees were performance guarantees and sought their return. The Tribunal analyzed the claims and the legal framework, ultimately determining that the Bank Guarantees and Fixed Deposits were not assets of the Corporate Debtor and thus not part of the liquidation estate. The appeal was allowed, and the NCLT's order was set aside.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Liquidation Proceedings - Authority to Direct Return of Bank Guarantees - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 36(4) - The court held that Bank Guarantees and underlying Fixed Deposits do not form part of the liquidation estate as they are assets owned by a third party. The direction to return the original bonds and remit amounts to the liquidation account was deemed erroneous as these assets are excluded under the IBC (Paras 58-59).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Adjudicating Authority can direct the return of original bonds pertaining to Bank Guarantees and direct the Bank to remit the amount of FDRs to the Liquidation Account.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLT's order, and held that the Bank Guarantees and Fixed Deposits do not form part of the liquidation estate under Section 36(4) of the IBC.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Liquidation Process Regulations
  • Bank Guarantees
  • Performance Bonds
  • Margin Money
  • Security Interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 171

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 745 of 2025

2025-04-25

Arun Baroka

Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Mr. Ashish Bansal, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Mr. Dhananjay Parth, Mr. Anand Pandey, Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Ms. Srishti Agrawal, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Mr. Shivansh Bansal, Ms. Aayushi Kiran, Ms. Nisha Verma, Mr. Sougat Sinha, Ms. R. Gayathri Manasa, Mr. Vishal Majumdar, Mr. Anurag Singh

Assistant Commissioner (EPM), O/o The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi

Ms. Shruti Gupta, Liquidator, M/s. Metalite Eco Future Labs Private Limited, The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Metalite Eco Future Labs Private Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the order of NCLT regarding liquidation proceedings and Bank Guarantees.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to set aside the NCLT's order directing the return of Bank Guarantees and remittance to the liquidation account.

Filing Reason

The Corporate Debtor failed to fulfill export obligations under EPCG Bonds.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had admitted the Corporate Debtor into insolvency and subsequently ordered liquidation.

Issues

Whether the Bank Guarantees and Fixed Deposits are part of the liquidation estate. Whether the Appellant's claim regarding the non-expiry of Bank Guarantees is valid.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the Bank Guarantees were performance guarantees and not part of the liquidation estate. The Respondent Bank contended that the guarantees were performance guarantees and sought their return.

Ratio Decidendi

Bank Guarantees and Fixed Deposits are not assets of the Corporate Debtor and thus excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4) of the IBC.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that Bank Guarantees and underlying Fixed Deposits do not form part of the liquidation estate as they are assets owned by a third party. The direction to return the original bonds and remit amounts to the liquidation account was deemed erroneous as these assets are excluded under the IBC.

Procedural History

The Corporate Debtor was admitted into insolvency on 14.03.2023, a liquidation order was passed on 21.11.2023, and the appeal was filed against the NCLT's order dated 19.12.2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 10, Section 14, Section 18, Section 36(4), Section 53
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016: Regulation 21A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Property Dispute Case Due to Maintainability Issues. Court clarifies that no appeal is maintainable against a review order as per Order XLVII Rule 7 of CPC.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Conviction for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act. The High Court's finding of a lesser offence was erroneous as the act involved a child below twelve years.