Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – ss. 7, 62 – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Respondent No. 1, a NBFC Financial Creditor disbursed loan to the tune of Rs.6 Crores to M/ s Premier Ltd. – Doshi Holdings pledged shares held by it in Premier, in favour of the Financial Creditor, by way of security for the loan – Premier failed to make repayments – Financial Creditor called upon Premier and Doshi Holdings, to pay the entire outstanding loan amount – Premier admitted and acknowledged its liability to pay its outstanding dues, but stated that it could not pay the same on account of genuine difficulty – Financial Creditor filed petition u/s. 7 for initiation of CIRP against Premier for default in repayment – On the same day, the Financial Creditor also filed a petition against Doshi Holdings u/s. 7 in respect of the same claim, based on the same loan documents – NCLT admitted the petitions – NCLAT dismissed the appeal against the admission of petitions by NCLT – On appeal, held: Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements were executed by both Premier and Doshi Holdings and Doshi Holdings has been referred to in the agreement as borrower and pledgor – The interpretation given by NCLAT that Doshi Holdings is a borrower is definitely a plausible interpretation which cannot be interfered with in an appeal under s. 62 of the IBC – A pledgor per se may not be a Financial Debtor but NCLAT arrived at a factual finding that Disha Holdings was a borrower – The approval of a resolution in respect of one borrower cannot certainly discharge a co-borrower – If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under s. 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors – The same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate Debtors – If the dues are realised in part from one Corporate Debtor, the balance may be realised from the other Corporate Debtor being the co-borrower – Once the claim of the Financial Creditor is discharged, there can be no question of recovery of the claim twice over.