TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the protection under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extends to personal guarantors so as to restrain enforcement action against their properties. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against measures taken under the SARFAESI regime.
Issue (i): Whether the protection under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extends to personal guarantors so as to restrain enforcement action against their properties.
Analysis: The protection under Section 14 was held not to extend to personal guarantors. The embargo under the insolvency moratorium is confined to the corporate debtor and does not bar a secured creditor from proceeding against properties offered by personal guarantors.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against measures taken under the SARFAESI regime.
Analysis: The proceedings complained of were measures under the SARFAESI framework. Since an efficacious statutory remedy was available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1), interference under Article 226 was declined. Liberty was left to the petitioners to avail that remedy within the time stipulated by the order.
Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not entertainable and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory forum.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bank's enforcement steps was not examined on merits, and the petitioners were directed to pursue the alternative statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy is available against SARFAESI measures, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked, and the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not protect personal guarantors.
TaxTMI 
