The case involves a batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). These sections pertain to the insolvency resolution process for individuals and partnership firms, specifically addressing personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The petitioners argue that these sections violate principles of natural justice and are arbitrary. The court examines the scheme of the IBC, particularly Part II (corporate insolvency) and Part III (individual insolvency), to determine the validity of the challenged provisions.
The petitioners, in a batch of 384 petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). These sections relate to the insolvency resolution process for personal guarantors to corporate debtors under Part III of the IBC. The petitioners argued that the provisions violate principles of natural justice by allowing for an interim moratorium and appointment of a resolution professional without a prior hearing. They also contended that the powers granted to the resolution professional are excessive and infringe on the right to privacy. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State Bank of India, argued that the provisions are necessary for the efficient
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is…
The Union Government issues a notification…
The case involves a batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). These sections pertain to the insolvency resolution process for individuals and partnership firms, specifically addressing personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The petitioners argue that these sections violate principles of natural justice and are arbitrary. The court examines the scheme of the IBC, particularly Part II (corporate insolvency) and Part III (individual insolvency), to determine the validity of the challenged provisions.
The petitioners, in a batch of 384 petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). These sections relate to the insolvency resolution process for personal guarantors to corporate debtors under Part III of the IBC. The petitioners argued that the provisions violate principles of natural justice by allowing for an interim moratorium and appointment of a resolution professional without a prior hearing. They also contended that the powers granted to the resolution professional are excessive and infringe on the right to privacy. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State Bank of India, argued that the provisions are necessary for the efficient
…The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is…
The Union Government issues a notification…