The top court said that considering the importance of the issues raised in the writ petitions which need finality of judicial determination at the earliest, it is just and proper that the writ petitions are transferred from the HCs to this court. “The interim orders passed by the HCs, if any, shall continue till further orders.”
The next date of hearing is scheduled for December 2. According to industry sources, there are at least 19 writ petitions invoking the personal guarantee of a corporate debtor across Delhi, Telangana, and Madhya Pradesh HCs.
The top court’s order comes in response to a transfer petition filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) in this matter. Among the personal guarantees invoked by the banks are Anil Ambani, chairman of ADA Group, for Rs 1,200 crore.
The IBBI in its petition said, “Various writ petitions have been filed in more than one HC, which raises substantial questions of the law of general importance.”
The story so far
Rules for insolvency of personal guarantors to corporate debtors came on Nov 15
Move part of first phase of individual insolvency and bankruptcy rules
While CIRP is suspended till December, lenders allowed to invoke personal guarantees
Constitutional validity of the law challenged in high courts
Petitions to be decided by the Supreme Court
Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan had presented the IBBI’s argument to the court on Wednesday.
In August this year, Ambani had appealed against State Bank of India’s (SBI’s) petition invoking his personal guarantee. The SC had rejected SBI’s pleas and directed the HC to hear Ambani’s challenge to the government’s IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019.
The rules for invoking personal guarantee of a corporate debtor were introduced in November 2019. The idea was to empower creditors to get the under-recovered amount from the corporate insolvency resolution process through a personal guarantor. The IBBI rules allowed that such cases of personal guarantee be dealt with by the National Company Law Tribunal.
However, personal guarantors have found gaps in the law which do not make it clear whether lenders have any right of recovery from them after agreeing to a resolution plan and taking a haircut in the corporate insolvency process.
Personal guarantors have also sought a declaration that Sections 95, 96, 99, 100, and 101 of the IBC, 2016, are unconstitutional insofar as they apply to them. These Sections deal with applications by creditors to initiate the insolvency resolution process, their admission, and rejection.
While the provisions of initiating corporate insolvency resolution are suspended till December, lenders are allowed to invoke insolvency of personal guarantors to corporate debtors.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.