Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) governs insolvency proceedings for individuals and partnership firms in India. This comprehensive legislation consolidates and amends laws pertaining to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals.

Introduction

On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,^[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.

A recent ruling involved the petitioner challenging an income tax reassessment notice issued after the approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.,(2024 SCC OnLine Del 5459), dated August 7, 2024, held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, income tax reassessment for periods before the plan’s approval is impermissible.

Recently, the High Court of Delhi, reinforced the application of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“). Section 32A of the IBC states that the liability of a corporate debtor (“CD“) for an offence committed prior to commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) shall cease and the CD shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan (“Plan“) has been approved by the adjudicating authority (“AA”).

A guarantor’s rights of subrogation are provided for in Sections 140 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA”). These rights allow a guarantor to step into the shoes of the creditor, upon fulfilling the debtor’s payment obligations to the creditor. This means that the guarantor assumes all the rights including the security that the creditor enjoyed against the principal debtor.

In the case of BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) held that simultaneous insolvency proceedings against a borrower and a corporate guarantor can be initiated for the same debt and default; and that assets of a subsidiary do not form part of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of its holding company.

Brief Facts