2024 (4) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Resolution Plan in respect of which came to be approved by the National Company Law Tribunal ["NCLT"] on 06 August 2021. Ex facie, it is manifest that the notice for reassessment pertains to a period prior to the acceptance and approval of the Resolution Plan. 3. In is in the aforesaid backdrop that we take note of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [(2021) 9 SCC 657] wherein the following principles came to be laid down:- "93. As discussed hereinabove, one of the principal objects of the I&B Code is providing for revival of the corporate debtor and to make it a going concern. The I&B Code is a complete Code in itself. Upon admission of pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmits its plans would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable. 94. We have no hesitation to say that the words "other stakeholders" would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature noticing that on account of obvious omission certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of the I&B Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 Amendment so as to cure the said mischief. We therefore hold that the 2019 Amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation." 4. We also take note of the identical position which was expressed by the Supreme Court in Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Sati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rting the stand of the respondents, it is clear that in point of fact, Section 31 is one more factor in favour of a personal guarantor having to pay for debts due without any moratorium applying to save him. 106. Following this judgment in SBI v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2018) 17 SCC 394, it is difficult to accept Shri Rohatgi's argument that that part of the resolution plan which states that the claims of the guarantor on account of subrogation shall be extinguished, cannot be applied to the guarantees furnished by the erstwhile Directors of the corporate debtor. So far as the present case is concerned, we hasten to add that we are saying nothing which may affect the pending litigation on account of invocation of these guarantees. Ho....