Personal Guarantors Under IBC: Legal Framework and Recent Judicial Pronouncements

Introduction:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) represents a transformative development in Indian insolvency law. Enacted to consolidate and amend laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals, IBC has introduced a more efficient and time-bound insolvency resolution process. However, despite its innovative framework, certain aspects of the IBC, particularly those relating to personal guarantors, have been shrouded in ambiguity. Recent judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Surendra B. Jiwrajika v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited[1], have clarified the legal position on the liability of personal guarantors in cases of corporate insolvency.

The Role of Personal Guarantors in Corporate Insolvency:

A personal guarantee is a legal commitment by an individual (the guarantor) to repay a debt in the event that the primary borrower (corporate debtor) defaults. Under Indian law, the liability of a personal guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, as articulated in Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA”). This provision implies that a creditor may initiate proceedings against both the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor simultaneously, or in any sequence deemed appropriate, to recover the outstanding debt.

Prior to recent judicial clarifications, the legal landscape regarding personal guarantor liability under the IBC was fraught with uncertainty. The confusion stemmed largely from the overlap between the provisions of the ICA and the IBC, particularly regarding the discharge of guarantor liability once a resolution plan for the corporate debtor was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The ambiguity regarding the liability of personal guarantors was addressed by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment Surendra B. Jiwrajika v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited. This ruling clarified that the liability of personal guarantors under the IBC remains intact even if the corporate debtor is discharged from its debts through an approved resolution plan. The Court held that a resolution plan sanctioned under Section 31(1) of the IBC is binding on all stakeholders, including guarantors, but does not ipso facto discharge the personal guarantor from liability.

This ruling aligns with earlier judgments, such as State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan[2], where the Supreme Court reiterated that the liability of a guarantor does not automatically extinguish upon the approval of a corporate resolution plan. The Court emphasized that Section 133 of the ICA, which provides for the discharge of a guarantor when the terms of the debt are altered without the guarantor’s consent, does not apply in the context of the IBC. The IBC overrides the ICA to the extent that it permits creditors to continue pursuing guarantors for any shortfall in recoveries from the corporate debtor.

The “Dual Safety Net” for Creditors:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Omkara Assets further consolidates the position that creditors have a “dual safety net” under the IBC. This safety net allows creditors to pursue their claims against both the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor independently. The implication of this judgment is profound: even after the conclusion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), creditors retain the right to initiate or continue proceedings against personal guarantors to recover any remaining dues.

The Court also addressed the constitutional validity of provisions introduced by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, and the subsequent Notification No. S.O. 4126 dated 15 November 2019, which subjected personal guarantors to insolvency proceedings independently of the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these provisions, affirming that personal guarantors could be pursued directly by creditors without the prerequisite of initiating insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor. This legislative change significantly empowers creditors by allowing them to maximize their recoveries through simultaneous insolvency proceedings against both the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor.

Liability of Personal Guarantors:

Under Section 128 of the ICA, a personal guarantor’s liability is co-extensive with that of the corporate debtor. However, the courts have clarified that this does not mean the discharge of the corporate debtor automatically leads to the discharge of the personal guarantor. This principle was upheld in Maharashtra State Electricity Board Bombay v. Official Liquidator, where the Supreme Court held that the discharge of the corporate debtor due to an involuntary operation of law (insolvency) does not release the guarantor from liability. The Court observed that the obligation of a guarantor persists as long as the debt remains unpaid, irrespective of the discharge of the corporate debtor’s liability.

Additionally, in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta[3], the Supreme Court highlighted that a resolution plan’s approval does not extinguish the creditors’ rights to enforce guarantees, whether corporate or personal. This position reinforces the notion that personal guarantors remain liable even after the corporate debtor’s obligations have been settled through a resolution plan.

Insolvency Proceedings Against Personal Guarantors:

The IBC provides a distinct insolvency resolution framework for personal guarantors under Part III of the Code. As per Section 95 of the IBC, a creditor can initiate insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor by filing an application with the NCLT, accompanied by relevant evidence of debt. Upon admission of such an application, an interim moratorium under Section 96 is triggered, restricting legal proceedings against the personal guarantor. The NCLT then appoints a resolution professional, who is tasked with examining the application and submitting a report recommending its approval or rejection.

If the NCLT admits the application under Section 100, a moratorium under Section 101 is imposed, preventing the transfer, alienation, or disposal of any assets by the personal guarantor. This procedural framework ensures a structured and time-bound insolvency resolution process for personal guarantors, paralleling the corporate insolvency framework.

Constitutionality of the Code’s Provisions

The constitutionality of the IBC provisions relating to personal guarantors was challenged on several grounds, including alleged violations of natural justice. Petitioners argued that personal guarantors were subjected to insolvency proceedings without adequate opportunity to present their case. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these petitions, upholding the legislative intent and framework of the IBC. The Court clarified that the role of a resolution professional is limited to facilitating the insolvency process and does not encompass adjudicatory powers.

The Court also emphasized that the inclusion of an additional adjudicatory stage would contradict the IBC’s objective of a swift resolution process and undermine the legislative intent of the Code. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Sections 95 to 100 of the IBC, reinforcing the legislative framework for insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors.

Implications for Personal Guarantors:

The Supreme Court’s recent rulings underscore a pro-creditor stance, emphasizing the enforceability of personal guarantees even after the resolution of corporate debts. This judicial interpretation has significant implications for individuals who provide personal guarantees, as they may face insolvency proceedings independent of the corporate debtor’s insolvency status. Personal guarantors risk losing their assets and facing potential financial ruin if they are unable to fulfil their obligations under the guarantee.

For creditors, these rulings offer enhanced avenues for debt recovery, allowing them to target multiple sources for repayment. The “dual safety net” provided by the IBC ensures that creditors can maximize recoveries through simultaneous insolvency proceedings against both corporate debtors and personal guarantors.

Conclusion:

The legal framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, concerning personal guarantors has been significantly clarified by recent judicial pronouncements. The Supreme Court’s rulings have reinforced the liability of personal guarantors, providing creditors with greater leverage in recovering debts. While this development strengthens the position of creditors, it also highlights the need for personal guarantors to carefully assess their financial commitments and understand the potential risks associated with providing personal guarantees. As the IBC continues to evolve, further clarity and refinement of these provisions may emerge, balancing the interests of creditors and guarantors within India’s insolvency regime.

[1] Surendra B. Jiwrajika v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 16464 of 2021.

[2] State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2018.

[3] Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 8766-67 of 2019.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com