State Bank of India & Ors. v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. 2026 INSC 423 - IBC - Financial Debt - Corporate Guarantees
Do the Corporate Guarantees executed by the Corporate Debtor constitute “financial debt” within the meaning of Section 5(8) IBC?
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 5(8) - The corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” within the meaning of Section 5(8). (Para 31)
Practice and Procedure - An appeal is a continuation of original proceeding. The documents which are relevant to deciding the lis can be produced at the stage of appeal. The corporate guarantees were produced before the NCLAT. Therefore, merely because they were not produced before the NCLT, no adverse inference can be drawn with regard to the genuineness of the corporate guarantees. (Para 27)
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Non stamping or improper stamping does not result in the instrument becoming invalid. The Stamp Act does not render such an instrument void. The non-payment of stamp duty is accurately characterized as a curable defect. (Para 29) [Context: Supreme Court rejected the contention that the corporate guarantees were not duly stamped as Stamp Duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Act, 1958]
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name: State Bank of India & Ors. v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Anr.
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 423
Coram:Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Alok Aradhe (author of the judgment)
Judgment date: 28 April 2026 (New Delhi)
Statutes / Laws Referred
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Section 5(7) – Financial creditor
- Section 5(8) – Financial debt
- Section 43 – Preferential transactions
- Section 45 – Undervalued transactions
- Section 62 – Appeal to Supreme Court
- Section 66 – Fraudulent trading / wrongful trading
Companies Act, 2013
- Section 186 – Loan and investment by company (special resolution / guarantee limits)
Stamp laws
- Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as discussed in case-law)
Regulations
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016
- Regulation 10 – Substantiation of claims
- Regulation 13 – Verification of claims
Regulatory circular
- RBI Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 on prudential norms for income recognition, NPA classification and provisioning
- Clause 17.2.6 on restructuring and reckoning NPA classification from first date of NPA
Case Law Cited (with citations)
Supreme Court of India
- Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 401
- Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd. & Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 475
- Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 330
- NN Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 1
- Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, In Re, (2024) 6 SCC 1
- Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Shet & Anr., (2024) 1 SCC 679
- China Development Bank v. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors., (2025) 7 SCC 729
- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Company, (1969) 1 SCC 597
- Union of India v. M/s. Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co., (1976) 1 SCC 747
- Dhirajlal Girdharlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, (1954) 2 SCC 557
- Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 71
- Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. v. Ecstasy Realt (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 300
- SBI & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr., 2024 INSC 852
Other courts / tribunals
- Ram Narain v. Lt. Col. Hari Singh, 1963 SCC OnLine Raj 55 (Rajasthan High Court)
- Avantha Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Abhilash Lal, Resolution Professional for Jhabua Power Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 435
- Dr. Anupam Jain v. CS Chhaya Gupta & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1629
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court held that corporate guarantees executed by Reliance Infratel Limited in favour of the SBI-led consortium constitute “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the IBC, and that the consortium is therefore entitled to be recognised as financial creditors. It found the NCLT and NCLAT’s rejection of the consortium’s claims—on grounds of timing of the guarantees, alleged non-disclosure in financial statements, verification issues, and stamping objections—to be perverse, noting that the guarantees were admitted by the corporate debtor, duly inspected by the RP, executed before the NPA reckoning date, and that any stamping defect is curable and does not render the instrument void. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders, directed that all consequential actions be undone, and ordered reconstitution of the CoC by including the appellants and continuation of the CIRP in accordance with law.
