• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
search-icon

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
18 Jan 2021 11:30 AM GMT

Challenge to Section 10A of IBC: Centre's response sought by Delhi High Court

By Legal Era
Challenge to Section 10A of IBC: Centres response sought by Delhi High Court

Challenge to Section 10A of IBC: Centre's response sought by Delhi High Court A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh sought response from Central Government and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) after a petition was filed challenging Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as it allows insolvency proceedings against...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Challenge to Section 10A of IBC: Centre's response sought by Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh sought response from Central Government and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) after a petition was filed challenging Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as it allows insolvency proceedings against persons and personal guarantors.

The petition was filed by Getamber Anand – the CMD of a leading real estate group ATS Infrastructure after he received a notice from Xander Finance Pvt. Ltd. seeking to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against the former as he was the personal guarantor to a loan provided by Xander Finance to ATS Infrastructure.

The notice was sent to the petitioner by Xander Finance under Rule 7 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019.

The petitioner contended that the demand is incorrect and untenable, and challenged the constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Second Amendment) Act 2020 which introduced Section 10A.

According to the plea, "The Amendment is wholly ultravires and unconstitutional insofar as it violates Article 14, 21 of the Constitution by discriminating between the corporate debtors and the personal guarantors without any reasonable justification and intelligible differentia."

The petitioner contended that although the intention behind the Amendment was to provide relief to entities affected by the COVID-19, Section 10A failed to consider that individuals persons/personal guarantors have also been equally affected by the pandemic. He further asserted that Section 10A leads to an absurd consequence that while the corporate creditors remain free, personal guarantors are made liable for the same alleged debt/defaults.

According to the petitioner, a personal guarantor cannot be held liable for any debt/default in the absence of the principal liability and therefore proceedings cannot be initiated against a personal guarantor under the IBC if the principal debtor i.e. the corporate debtor is protected against the insolvency proceedings for any default.

The Delhi High Court has sought response from the Centre and the IBBI on the same.

The matter will be heard next on February 18.

Next Story
TAGS:
  • #Delhi High Court
  • #Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India
  • #Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016
  • #COVID-19
  • #Justice DN Patel
  • #Justice Jyoti Singh
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X