oppn parties Supreme Court Provides No Relief For Personal Guarantors Under IBC

News Snippets

  • Maratha quota bill likely to be tabled in Maharashtra assembly today
  • Arvind Kejriwal skips ED summons for the 6th time, says the case is in court and will follow court's decision
  • PM Modi says UP has gone from 'red tape' to 'red carpet' in 7 years of 'double engine' government
  • Farm unions reject government offers, to resume Delhi march from today
  • Centre says some Aadhar cards in Bengal 'deactivated' due to technical glitz, will be activated back soon
  • Supreme Court stays LS privilege panel summons to Bengal officials over BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar injury case
  • Supreme Court junks Sandeshkhali petition, says it cannot be compared to Manipur, asks petitioner to approach Calcutta HC
  • Supreme Court gets tough on Chandigarh mayoral elections, asks for ballot papers and video footage, does not order re-election
  • Government starts withdrawing old small tax demands, up to Rs 25000 per entry till FY 2009-10 and up to Rs 10000 per entry from FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 with an overall ceiling of Rs 1 lakh per tax payer
  • Stocks remained positive on Monday: Sensex gained 281 points to 72708 and Nifty 81 points to 22122
  • Jasprit Bumrah likely to be rested for 4th Test while K L Rahul may be back
  • FIH Pro League hockey: India beat Spain 8-7 in shootout
  • SP leader Salim Sherwani, miffed at no Muslim candidate given RS ticket, quits party
  • Army going for big (Rs 57000cr) upgrade in combat vehicles to replace T-72 tanks
  • Mamata Banerjee says the BJP is doing nothing to resolve the Sandeshkhali dispute but instead fanning the fires to escalate it
History created in Supreme Court as Chandigarh mayoral poll ballots counted in court, judges declare AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar winner after taking into account the votes defaced by returning officer Anil Masih
oppn parties
Supreme Court Provides No Relief For Personal Guarantors Under IBC

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-11-10 07:43:02

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of many sections of the IBC. More than 200 petitions had been filed challenging various provisions of the law. The main challenges were to Section 95 which allows creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors and to Section 97 which defined the appointment and role of the resolution professional (RP).

Regarding Section 95, the apex court bench was of the view that the Section was neither arbitrary nor did it fall foul of the Constitution. It is strange that promoters, directors and others of companies that have become insolvent and who had provided personal guarantees against the loans or other credit availed by the said companies seek to wash their hands off the matter. What is a personal guarantee if not the promise to pay if the company fails to pay? In personal guarantees, there is no condition attached that the guarantor will not be liable to pay if the company goes insolvent. In fact, the personal guarantee is taken by creditors for the precise reason that the promoters are competent enough and have the resources to repay the amount if the company goes insolvent or otherwise defaults on the payments. Hence, if the company fails to pay and has become insolvent, obviously those who provided the personal guarantees have to honour them. The court has rightly held them accountable and upheld the said Section.

Regarding Section 97, the court was of the view that the role of the RP was that of a facilitator and "reading an adjudicatory role in Section 97 will render Section 99 and Section 100 of the IBC otiose". It said that "the role under Section 99 which is ascribed to the resolution professional is that of a facilitator who has to gather relevant information and recommend acceptance or rejection of application". It further said that there is "no manner of doubt that resolution professional is not intended to perform an adjudicatory function or arrive at binding decisions on facts and it is only a recommendation which has no binding force". This is also correct as the final say in the matter rests with the committee of creditors under the IBC which may, or may not, accept the recommendation of the RP.