9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the personal guarantor of corporate debtor and they are purely recovery proceedings. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the dispute raised by the appellant would fall within the ambit of Section 60(5)(c) of I.B.C. The adjudicating authority rightly held that the application under Section 60(5) is not maintainable and even after re-appreciating the law laid down by the Courts and upon consideration of argument, there are no ground found to interfere with the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority about maintainability of the application under Section 60(5) of I.B.C. Thus, there are no ground, warranting interference with the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority as to the maintainability of the application under Section 60(5) of I.B.C. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the adjudicating authority is hereby confirmed, holding this point in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. Whether the Moratorium imposed under the provisions of IBC during liquidation process is a bar to proceed against the personal guarantor under the SARFAESI Act to recover the debt due by the Corporate Debtor? - HELD THAT:- Both the provisions under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to recover the amount under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, as if he is a creditor, but not a Secured Creditor as defined under Section 3(30) of the I.B.C, since no security interest was created in favour of the creditor - No doubt, when the assets of the corporate debtor is sold, he may not have any chance of recovery of amount proceeding against the Corporate Debtor , but, there are different modes of recovery of the debt due by the Corporate Debtor under the general law. Therefore, the appellant who stepped into the shoes of creditor in terms of Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, is entitled to recover the debt irrespective of sale of assets of corporate debtor in liquidation process in any of the recognized modes. Therefore, he cannot be included in the list of secured creditors, as no security interest was created in favour of the guarantor and he would not fall within the definition of Secured Debtor as defined under Section 3(31) of I.B.C consequently, cannot be included in the list of secured creditors in the liquidation process, so as to claim share. There are no hesitation to hold that the provisions of IBC will prevail over the provision of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant stood as a guarantor for the Corporate Debtor and the appellant s property was taken as collateral security by respondent No.1. Upon default by the Corporate Debtor in repayment of the debt, respondent No.1 declared the debt as a Non-Performing Asset (for short NPA ) on 25.01.2017, thereafter, filed application in terms of Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short CIRP ) against the Corporate Debtor. The NCLT, Kolkata Bench by its order dated 05.01.2018 admitted respondent No.1 s petition initiating the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and appointed respondent No.2 as resolution professional. During the CIRP process, respondent No.1 had submitted its claim, most of which was admitted by the resolution professional. The list of creditors and their corresponding claims admitted by the resolution professional (RP) was uploaded on the website of the Corporate Debtor on 26.09.2018. Due to unsuccessful CIRP, the Corporate Debtor was admitted into liquidation vide Liquidation Order on 06.12.2018 by the Adjudicating Authority and respondent No.2 was appointed as Liquidator. Respondent No.1 submitted its claim to the Liq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's debt, prior to the expiry of the moratorium imposed in terms of the Liquidation Order under Section 33 of the IBC, as any recovery of the Corporate Debtor's debt from the Appellant would result in a consequential violation of the moratorium imposed vide the Liquidation Order dt. 06.12.2018 b) The actions of the Respondent No.1 are in contravention of the provisions of the IBC as the Respondent No.1 has failed to follow the procedure prescribed therein for recovery of debt by a financial creditor during the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. c) In terms of section 60(2) of the IBC (as amended with effect from 06.06.2018), where a liquidation proceeding of the Corporate Debtor is pending before the Tribunal, an application relating to liquidation or bankruptcy of a personal guarantor of such Corporate Debtor shall be filed before such Tribunal. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 erroneously invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by approaching a forum other than the Tribunal. d) In view of section 60(5)(c) of the IBC, the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any question of law or fact arising out of or in relation to the liquidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or that resulted in its inability to meet loan repayment obligation towards its financial creditor, ie, the Respondent No.1. It was only when the Respondent No.1 was unable to recover its financial debt from the Corporate Debtor, respondent No.1 pursued all legal remedies available to it for the recovery of such bad debts accordingly. In addition to initiating appropriate proceedings under the IBC, respondent No.1 also sought to recover such amount from the Appellant. 5. The moratorium declared in the Liquidation Order under Section 33 of the IBC is identical to the moratorium prescribed under Section 14 read with 31 of the IBC in case of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, imposes an embargo on the institution of any suit or other legal proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, which includes prohibition in transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the Corporate Debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein. 6. As per Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where a guaranteed debt has become due, or default of the principal debtor to perform a guaranteed duty has taken place, the surety, upon payment or performance of all that he i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plications or proceedings. 9. In view of the principles laid down in the above judgment, Section 60 (2) of the IBC was amended with effect from 06.06.2018. From the reading of amended provision, it is evident that Section 60(2) which came into effect from 06.06.2018, includes liquidation and bankruptcy of a corporate debtor or personal guarantor within the fold of Section 60 of IBC. Therefore, the aforementioned observations in the Gujarat Urja Judgement have to be read in tandem with the amended Section 60(2) of IBC, whereby the logical deduction is that the Tribunal is the only forum which has the jurisdiction to entertain any application or proceeding relating to a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor. But, the Tribunal erroneously held that the IA filed by the Appellant under Section 60(5) was neither maintainable nor sustainable, dismissed the petition erroneously. 10. It is also contended that the principle laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. V.Ramakrishnan (2018) 17 SCC 394 has no application as it is prior to the amendment of Section 60 (2). But, based on the principle laid down in the above judgment, the Adjudicating Authority d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) while accepting the purpose of amending Section 60 (2) enabling the creditor to proceed against the personal guarantor of corporate debtor. 16. It is further contended that when the similar issue came up before the High Court of Delhi in Kiran Gupta Vs. State Bank of India [W.P.(C) No.7230/2020), wherein the Court held as under: The view expressed by the Supreme Court amply demonstrates that neither Section 14 nor Section 31 of the IB Code place any fetters on Banks/Financial Institutions from initiation and continuation of the proceedings against the guarantor for recovering their dues. That being the position, the plea taken by the counsel for the petitioner that all proceedings against the petitioner, who is only a guarantor, ought to be stayed under the SARFESI Act during the continuation of the Insolvency Resolution process qua the Principal Borrower, is rejected as meritless. The petitioner cannot escape her liability qua the respondent/Bank in such a manner. The liability of the principal borrower and the Guarantor remain co-extensive and the respondent/Bank is well entitled to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the SARFESI Act during the continuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the same, it is contended that the submission of the appellant that in view of the liquidation of the corporate debtor, upon auction of the property under the SARFAESI Act, he remains remediless (inspite of the rights envisaged under Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act 1872), is also wrong, illegal, untenable and deserves to be rejected. 20. Respondent No.1 denied the contention of the appellant that respondent No.1 has acted in breach of the liquidation order dated 06.12.2018. It is contended that the argument of the appellant that respondent No.1 could not proceed against the appellant/personal guarantor, in terms of Section 33 (5) of the Code is also incorrect and erroneous in view of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the Code, which is as follows: (5) Subject to Section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor, Provided that a suit or other legal proceeding may be instituted by the liquidator, on behalf of the corporate debtor, with prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority. 21. Respondent No.1 contended that the proceedings under SARFAESI Act is not barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e extent of the value of the mortgaged asset i.e. Rs.164.06 crores. 27. Respondent No.1 initiated insolvency resolution proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under Section 7 of the IBC, which culminated into passing of liquidation order by Adjudicating Authority on 06.12.2018. In terms of the liquidation order as well as provisions of the IBC, respondent No.2 is requested to proceed with the liquidation process in the manner laid down in Chapter III of the Code. As set out in this Chapter, more particularly Section 36, the liquidator is required to form a liquidation estate and hold the liquidation estate as a fiduciary for the benefit of all creditors. The liquidator has no power or authority to deal with any assets outside the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor. Section 36 stipulates that only properties belonging to, or vested in, the corporate debtor can form part of the liquidation estate. Personal assets of third parties including shareholders, members and guarantors cannot be included in the liquidation estate of a corporate debtor and the liquidator cannot deal with such assets at all. Admittedly, the property mortgaged to respondent No.1 under the deed of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t personal guarantor were now to be instituted under the IBC and not under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short PTA Act ) and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short PIA Act ). Therefore, dismissal of application filed by the appellant by applying the principle laid down in State Bank of India Vs. V.Ramakrishnan (referred supra) is an illegality. 33. Section 60 of the IBC permits the creditor to proceed against the personal guarantor, but did not look into the remedies available to the personal guarantor to proceed against the Corporate debtor and she formulated the following propositions of law. A seeks to canvass the following propositions before this Tribunal: a) A has been bereft of all remedies against CD due to the liquidation of CD by the CoC headed by R1. Such a situation renders S. 140 of the ICA meaningless and must be addressed through the residuary powers under S. 60(5) (c), IBC. b) The IBC has been used strategically by the creditor (R1) only to ensure the non inclusion of A, a personal guarantor, as a creditor. c) The scheme of the IBC cannot ignore the place of the PG as a potential guarantor, and the wide powers u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atorium protects action against the corporate debtor not against the 3rd party. Therefore, the bar under moratorium has nothing to do with the issue. Therefore, the appellant is disentitled to claim any relief on any of the grounds. 38. Yet, another contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that Section 60 (5) permits the Adjudicating Authority to decide the disputes falling within clause (a), (b), and (c) pertaining to corporate insolvency between the parties to the petition, but not between 3rd party and parties to the petition, requested to dismiss the appeal. 39. Respondent No.2 also filed written brief supporting the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority reiterating the contentions urged in the reply filed in the appeal, while referring to Section 52 of the IBC, and Regulation 37 of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016, requested to dismiss the appeal against respondent No.2. 40. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the points need be addressed by this Tribunal are as follows: (1) Whether Section 60 (5) of IBC permits 3rd party to file an application and redress the grievance in the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outcome or the result of the present appeal vide letter dated 29.01.2022 bearing No.SAMB/VI/HYD/MNK/2022-23/72 issued by the creditor/first applicant, who initiated proceedings both under Section 7 of I.B.C against the corporate debtor, so also under SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the appellant and others. The adjudicating authority concluded that the petition under Section 65(c) of I.B.C read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules is not maintainable. The same is now challenged before this Tribunal based on the principle laid down in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Amit Gupta (referred supra) and Arcelor Mittal (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta (referred supra) 42. During hearing, Smt. Menaka Guruswamy learned Senior Counsel would submit that the application under Section 60(5) of I.B.C is maintainable in view of the law declared by the Hon ble Apex Court in Arcelor Mittal(India) (P) Ltd referred in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Amit Gupta (referred supra). 43. A bare look at the order passed by the adjudicating authority, a specific point is framed for determination as to maintainability of an application under Section 60(5) of I.B.C, answerd the same against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the Hon ble Apex Court cautioned NCLT and NCALT to ensure that they do not usurp the legitimate jurisdiction of other courts, tribunals and fora when the dispute is one which does not arise solely from or relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. Applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, now we shall examine the present issue. 46. The appellant is a personal guarantor of corporate debtor for repayment of loan borrowed from first respondent herein. Creditor initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, sold the property in public auction for Rs.125.80 crores as the bid was knocked down in favour of M/s. Bagmane Developers Private Limited. The proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the personal guarantor of the corporate debtor are to realise the debt due to the creditor i.e. bank, whereas, the proceedings under I.B.C is to see that the company must continue as a going concern or to liquidate the assets and pay the debts due in proportion as per the provisions of I.B.C. The proceedings under SARFAESI Act are independent and purely for recovery of the loan amount. The personal guarantor though related to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not be continued. 50. Undoubtedly, there is a bar under Section 14 from proceeding against the corporate debtor in any suits or proceedings pending before the Court, Tribunal or any other Forum. Similarly, Sub-section (5) of Section 33 of I.B.C interdicted pending suits or proceedings before the Courts or Tribunals or other Forums during liquidation process. For better appreciation of law, it is apposite to extract Section 14 and Section 33(5) of I.B.C and they are as under: Section 14. (1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:- (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority and a surety in a contract of guarantee to the corporate debtor. 52. It is clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 14 that the Moratorium imposed under Section 14 will have no application to enforce the liability against a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. The exemption contained under Sub-section (3) is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. However, Section 33(5) of I.B.C restricts filing of suit or other legal proceeding by or against the corporate debtor . But, the rider attached to it permits the liquidator to institute a suit or other legal proceeding on behalf of the corporate debtor, with the prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, it restricts only filing of suits or other proceedings, but did not impose any restriction on the pending proceedings against corporate debtor. In any view of the matter, the language employed in both the sections is clear that, the interdict is only against institution of suits or proceedings and prosecuting those suits or proceedings in any Court or Tribunal or other Forums instituted against the corporate debtor, but not against third part,y since sub-Section 3 of Section 14 exclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )], the NCLAT held that the pending proceedings under SARFAESI Act shall not hinder the proceedings triggered by the financial creditor under the IBC. Therefore, even when proceedings under SARFAESI Act have already been initiated, fresh proceedings under IBC can still be accepted because of the non obstante Clause in Section 238 of IBC. Thus the provision of IBC will prevail over SARFAESI. 56. The effect of Moratorium was considered by the Courts in various judgments, more particularly, in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of India [1993 ] 2 SCC 144 , the Court held as follows: The State Finance Corporation Act 1951, is a special statute vis-a-vis the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985. Both are special statutes dealing with different situations notwithstanding a slight overlap here and there, for example, both of them provide for grant of financial assistance though in different situations. The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1985 being a subsequent enactment, the non-obstante clause therein would ordinarily prevail over the non-obstante clause found in Section 46 B of the State Finance Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Apex Court differentiated between moratorium mentioned u/s 14 of the code and interim moratorium and moratorium mentioned under sec 96 101 respectively (under part III) of the IBC 2016 and made following observation We are also of the opinion that Sections 96 and 101, when contrasted with Section 14, would show that Section 14 cannot possibly apply to a personal guarantor. When an application is filed under Part III, an interim-moratorium or a moratorium is applicable in respect of any debt due .. The object of the Code is not to allow such guarantors to escape from an independent and coextensive liability to pay off the entire outstanding debt, which is why Section 14 is not applied to them. 63. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court and other Courts, SARFAESI Act and I.B.C contained non-obstante clauses, in view of the principles laid down in M/s Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs ICICI Bank Another P.R. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Monnet Ispat Energy Limited , (referred supra), the provisions of I.B.C will prevail over any other statute. Consequently, we find that imposition of Moratorium either in corporate insolvency process or liquidation p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Contract Act, Smt. Menaka Gyuruswamy, learned Senior Counsel contended that, in case the entire assets of the corporate debtor are liquidated and the amount realised on sale of assets of debtor shall be distributed among the creditors of different kinds, the appellant will be denuded to realise the debt. Therefore, he shall be included in the list of secured creditors, but this was not specifically urged in the petition before the Tribunal. 69. In view of the specific contention raised for the first time before the Tribunal, it is apposite to advert to the definition of corporate guarantor and secured creditor and security interest, as defined under the I.B.C. Section 5 (5A) corporate guarantor means a corporate person who is the surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor; Section 3(30) secured creditor, means a Creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Section 3 (31) security interest means right, title or interest or a claim to property, created in favour of, or provided for a secured creditor by a transaction which secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment and encum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d through proceedings for avoidance of transactions in accordance with this Chapter; (g) any asset of the corporate debtor in respect of which a secured creditor has relinquished security interest; (h) any other property belonging to or vested in the corporate debtor at the insolvency commencement date; and (i) all proceeds of liquidation as and when they are realised. 71. But, Sub-section (4) of Section 36 exempted assets to be included in the liquidation estate i.e. assets owned by a third party which are in possession of the corporate debtor, including the assets held in trust for any third party. It is as follows:- (a) assets owned by a third party which are in possession of the corporate debtor, including- (i) assets held in trust for any third party; (ii) bailment contracts; (iii) all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund; (iv) other contractual arrangements which do not stipulate transfer of title but only use of the assets; and (v) such other assets as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator (b) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no application. This similar contention was urged before the Apex Court in Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (referred supra), which is a persuasive judgment on all issues raised by the appellant herein. In Ghanshyam Mishra Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelwiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 657 , in paragraph 95(ii) held 2019 amendment is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I B Code has come into effect . Hon ble Apex Court considered the scope of 2019 amendment to IBC discussed about Ramakrishnan Judgment regarding sureties liability and concluded that it will have retroactive effect. In view of the law laid down in above judgment, the contention of learned Sr. Advocate is rejected. But the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that, the issue relating to the liability of corporate debtor for payment of amount to the personal guarantor was not addressed. However, this contention is refuted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ramji Srinivasan drawing our attention to various paragraphs of the judgment in Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (referred supra), wherein, it is held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Code would make it clear that such members of the erstwhile Board of Directors, who are often guarantors, are vitally interested in a resolution plan as such resolution plan then binds them. Such plan may scale down the debt of the principal debtor, resulting in scaling down the debt of the guarantor as well, or it may not. The resolution plan may also scale down certain debts and not others, leaving guarantors of the latter kind of debts exposed for the entire amount of the debt. The regulations also make it clear that these persons are vitally interested in resolution plans as they affect them 106. The rationale for allowing directors to participate in meetings of the CoC is that the directors liability as personal guarantors persists against the creditors and an approved resolution plan can only lead to a revision of amount or exposure for the entire amount. Any recourse under Section 133 of the Contract Act to discharge the liability of the surety on account of variance in terms of the contract, without her or his consent, stands negated by this court, in V. Ramakrishnan where it was observed that the language of Section 31 makes it clear that the approved plan is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the guarantor s liability. As to the nature and extent of the liability, much would depend on the terms of the guarantee itself. However, this court has indicated, time and again, that an involuntary act of the principal debtor leading to loss of security, would not absolve a guarantor of its liability. In Maharashtra State Electricity Board (supra) the liability of the guarantor (in a case where liability of the principal debtor was discharged under the insolvency law or the company law), was considered. It was held that in view of the unequivocal guarantee, such liability of the guarantor continues and the creditor can realize the same from the guarantor in view of the language of Section 128 of the Contract Act as there is no discharge under Section 134 of that Act. This court observed as follows: 7. Under the bank guarantee in question the Bank has undertaken to pay the Electricity Board any sum up to Rs 50,000 and in order to realise it all that the Electricity Board has to do is to make a demand. Within forty-eight hours of such demand the Bank has to pay the amount to the Electricity Board which is not under any obliga- tion to prove any default on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t right in competition with C. S has an obligation to C to answer for PD's liability, and the secondary right of obtaining an indemnity from PD. C can (after due notice) proceed against either or both of PD and S. If both PD and S are in insolvent liquidation, C can prove against each for 100p in the pound but may not recover more than 100p in the pound in all. In view of the above discussion, it is held that approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor (of a corporate debtor) of her or his liabilities under the contract of guarantee. As held by this court, the release or discharge of a principal borrower from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law, or due to liquidation or insolvency proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract. 76. Thus, the view taken by the Hon ble Apex Court is that the approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor of her or his liabilities under the contract of guarantee and it will not discharge or release the Principal Debtor fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the laws in view of non-obstante clause contained in Section 238 of IBC, the same view is taken by full bench of Apex Court again in Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator Of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Custom Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2021 dated 26.08.2022 while considering the liability to pay Custom duty to release the imported goods held that provision of IBC will prevail over the general or special laws. Thus, it is settled that the provision of IBC will have overriding effect on the provisions of general or special laws, thereby provision of IBC overrides the provision of Indian Contract Act, more particularly, provisions relating to surety s liability and right of surety as guarantor in a contract of guarantee. 81. In Lalit Kumar Jain s case, the Hon ble Apex Court took note of the provision of Indian Contract Act relating to sureties or guarantor s liability and rights, finally concluded that the provision of IBC will override the other laws. 82. In view of law laid down by Apex Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of IBC will prevail over the provision of Indian Contract Act, thereby surety may take appropriate steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
