The case involves an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, filed by M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/s. ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. The applicant claims that the respondent is liable as a corporate debtor based on a 'Comfort Letter' issued by the respondent. The applicant contends that the comfort letter constitutes a guarantee. The respondent argues that the comfort letter does not create a guarantee obligation and that the debt is not an operational debt.
M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. (SPCPL) filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, against M/s. ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (AISPL). SPCPL claimed that AISPL was liable as a corporate debtor based on a 'Comfort Letter' issued by AISPL. The 'Comfort Letter' stated that if BCSPL (another entity) did not make payments for duly certified works delivered by SPCPL, AISPL would intervene and ensure prompt payment. AISPL argued that the 'Comfort Letter' did not create a guarantee obligation. The Adjudicating Authority noted that AISPL merely indicated its intention to get involved and ensure BCSPL complied with its payment obligation in the event of default, without assuming any repayment obligation upon itself. The Adjudicating Authority also
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Corporate…
Hon'ble Bench declined…
The case involves an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, filed by M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/s. ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. The applicant claims that the respondent is liable as a corporate debtor based on a 'Comfort Letter' issued by the respondent. The applicant contends that the comfort letter constitutes a guarantee. The respondent argues that the comfort letter does not create a guarantee obligation and that the debt is not an operational debt.
M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd. (SPCPL) filed an application under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016, against M/s. ASF Insignia SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (AISPL). SPCPL claimed that AISPL was liable as a corporate debtor based on a 'Comfort Letter' issued by AISPL. The 'Comfort Letter' stated that if BCSPL (another entity) did not make payments for duly certified works delivered by SPCPL, AISPL would intervene and ensure prompt payment. AISPL argued that the 'Comfort Letter' did not create a guarantee obligation. The Adjudicating Authority noted that AISPL merely indicated its intention to get involved and ensure BCSPL complied with its payment obligation in the event of default, without assuming any repayment obligation upon itself. The Adjudicating Authority also
…The Corporate…
Hon'ble Bench declined…