IBC moratorium is limited to the corporate debtor; personal guarantors remain outside its protection, and the clarifying amendment is retrospective.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was construed as confined to the corporate debtor and its assets, not extending the moratorium to a personal guarantor. The statutory scheme separating corporate insolvency under Part II from individual insolvency under Part III, together with Sections 60 and 31, supported continuation of guarantor liability despite the corporate debtor's moratorium. The 2018 insertion of Section 14(3)(b) was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, because it removed ambiguity and confirmed that actions against sureties fall outside the moratorium.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies to the personal guarantor of a corporate debtor. (ii) Whether the 2018 amendment inserting clause (b) in Section 14(3) is clarificatory and retrospective.

Issue (i): Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies to the personal guarantor of a corporate debtor.

Analysis: Section 14 speaks only of proceedings against the corporate debtor and its assets. The statutory scheme distinguishes between corporate insolvency under Part II and insolvency or bankruptcy of individuals under Part III, which was not yet brought into force. Section 60 only identifies the forum for proceedings relating to a personal guarantor when the corporate debtor is already before the Adjudicating Authority; it does not extend the Section 14 moratorium to the guarantor. Section 31 binds guarantors to an approved resolution plan, which reinforces the continuance of guarantor liability rather than creating a moratorium in their favour. The contrasted language of Sections 96 and 101, which apply to debts and not merely to the debtor, also confirms that Section 14 is confined to the corporate debtor. The historical background, including the absence in the Code of a provision akin to Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, supports the same construction.

Conclusion: The moratorium under Section 14 does not apply to a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2018 amendment inserting clause (b) in Section 14(3) is clarificatory and retrospective.

Analysis: The amendment was introduced to remove confusion created by an overbroad reading of Section 14 and to clarify that actions against sureties were outside the moratorium. The legislative materials relied upon by the Court showed that the amendment was intended to set at rest the controversy and not to create a new rule. A clarificatory amendment, by settled principles of interpretation, operates retrospectively because it explains what was always implicit in the principal provision.

Conclusion: The amendment is clarificatory and retrospective, and it confirms that the moratorium does not extend to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.

Final Conclusion: The impugned view that Section 14 protected personal guarantors was rejected, and the appeals were allowed by holding that proceedings against the guarantor could continue independently of the corporate debtor's moratorium.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is confined to the corporate debtor and its assets, and a personal guarantor is outside its moratorium; a later clarificatory amendment reaffirming that position operates retrospectively.

---