Simultaneous CIRP proceedings against debtor and guarantor permissible; regulatory safeguards and claim revision prevent double recovery.

Whether simultaneous initiation of CIRP against a corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor is maintainable is addressed by reference to the code's provision permitting separate or concurrent proceedings and the co-extensive liability of guarantors, supporting parallel remedies; regulators' safeguards against double recovery include creditor obligations to update claims and the resolution professional's duty to determine and revise admitted claims, while the Section 7 admission threshold and adjudicating authority's discretion to test admissibility remain applicable and must be exercised reasonably; consequently simultaneous CIRPs are held permissible with statutory and regulatory safeguards preventing double recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether simultaneous initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a principal debtor and its corporate guarantor (or vice-versa) is maintainable.

Analysis: Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 contemplates proceedings relating to insolvency or liquidation of a corporate guarantor being filed before the National Company Law Tribunal and permits separate or simultaneous proceedings against a corporate debtor and its guarantor. The liability of a guarantor being co extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 supports the permissibility of parallel remedies. Regulatory safeguards addressing potential double recovery include Regulation 12A (obligation on a creditor to update its claim when satisfied from any source) and Regulation 14 (duties of the resolution professional to determine and revise admitted claims). The admission threshold under Section 7 (existence of financial debt and default) remains applicable and the adjudicating authority retains discretion to examine admissibility and decline initiation where appropriate; such discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. The doctrine of election is not attracted in the absence of statutory mandate requiring an election between alternative remedies, and imposing an election would undermine the contractual right of a creditor and the operation of guarantees. Concerns of unjust enrichment are addressed by the code and regulations which require updation and adjustment of claims once recovery is effected, and by the resolution professional's duty to revise admitted claims.

Conclusion: Simultaneous CIRP proceedings against a corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor are maintainable; the doctrine of election does not bar filing claims in separate CIRPs for the same debt and existing statutory and regulatory mechanisms (including Regulation 12A and Regulation 14 of the 2016 Regulations) provide safeguards against double recovery. This conclusion is in favour of the appellants who sought initiation of CIRP.

---