CASE NAME	Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union Of India & Ors
CITATION	2023 SCC OnLine SC 1530
COURT	In the Supreme Court of India.
Bench	CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
Date of Decision	9 November, 2023

Introduction

The case of Dilip B. Jiwrajka vs. Union of India and Ors. Stands as a crucial legal challenge in India’s evolving insolvency framework. Decided by the Supreme Court of India, this case scrutinizes the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, particularly concerning the rights and procedural safeguards of personal guarantors.

The dispute arose from the automatic application of an interim moratorium upon the filing of an insolvency application under Section 95 of the IBC, triggering significant consequences for personal guarantors without prior judicial determination. The petitioners contended that these provisions disproportionately infringe upon their rights by enabling insolvency resolution professionals to assume investigative roles without sufficient judicial oversight. The challenge, thus, questioned whether such a framework aligns with principles of natural justice and constitutional due process.

By addressing the systemic implications of these provisions, the Supreme Court’s analysis in this case highlights critical aspects of procedural fairness, the role of adjudicatory authorities, and the balancing of creditor-debtor rights. This ruling is poised to influence the interpretation of personal guarantor liabilities, further refining the scope and application of India’s insolvency laws.

FACTS

The petitioner, Dilip B. Jiwrajka, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, before the Supreme Court of India. The dispute arises from the procedural framework governing insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, particularly the automatic imposition of an interim moratorium upon the filing of an application under Section 95. The petitioners contended that these provisions infringe upon fundamental rights by allowing insolvency proceedings to progress without prior judicial determination of debt existence or liability.

Under the IBC framework, insolvency proceedings may be initiated against a personal guarantor by a creditor through an application before the adjudicating authority, which in this case is the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Upon such filing, Section 96 mandates an interim moratorium, effectively staying all legal proceedings against the personal guarantor and restricting any creditor action. The provisions further empower a Resolution Professional (RP) to investigate the financial affairs of the guarantor and submit a report recommending either admission or rejection of the insolvency application. The adjudicating authority is then required to decide on the application based on the RP’s report.

The petitioners argued that this process unfairly prejudices personal guarantors by subjecting them to an immediate moratorium without judicial scrutiny, significantly impacting their financial and reputational standing. They contended that the appointment of an RP, the collection of financial information, and the submission of a report—all before a formal hearing—violate principles of natural justice. Additionally, they emphasized that the statutory scheme does not provide an opportunity for the guarantor to challenge the proceedings until the final adjudication under Section 100, by which time substantial procedural steps have already been undertaken.

The Union of India and financial institutions, including the State Bank of India (SBI), defended the provisions, asserting that the IBC was designed to ensure swift insolvency resolution. They argued that the interim moratorium benefits the guarantor by preventing multiple legal actions and that the RP merely acts as a facilitator without adjudicatory powers. The respondents maintained that procedural safeguards exist at later stages, ensuring fairness in the resolution process.

The case thus raised pivotal questions about the balance between efficiency in insolvency proceedings and the protection of guarantors’ rights. The Supreme Court’s decision would significantly impact the interpretation and application of insolvency provisions concerning personal guarantors under the IBC.

ISSUES

1. Whether the automatic imposition of an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, without prior judicial determination, violates the principles of natural justice and due process.
2. Whether the role and powers assigned to the Resolution Professional (RP) under Sections 95 to 99, particularly the ability to collect financial information and make recommendations without adversarial proceedings, amount to an unconstitutional encroachment on personal guarantors’ rights.
3. Whether the absence of a pre-adjudication hearing before the appointment of a Resolution Professional and the initiation of insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors under Section 100 results in arbitrary and unfair treatment, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES

Arguments by the petitioners

• The petitioners argued that the automatic imposition of an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, without any prior judicial determination, violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. They contended that this provision deprives personal guarantors of a fair opportunity to be heard before their financial rights are restricted.
• It was submitted that the role assigned to the Resolution Professional (RP) under Sections 95 to 99 is excessive and unconstitutional. The petitioners contended that allowing the RP to collect financial information, conduct inquiries, and make recommendations on the admission or rejection of an application—without adversarial proceedings—amounts to an unjust encroachment on the rights of the guarantors.
• The petitioners asserted that personal guarantors are subjected to intrusive financial scrutiny and restrictions before the adjudicating authority (Debt Recovery Tribunal) examines the validity of the claim. The absence of a pre-adjudication hearing before the appointment of an RP renders the process arbitrary and unfair.
• The petitioners claimed that the provisions of Sections 95 to 100 create an arbitrary classification between corporate debtors and personal guarantors, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued that there is no reasonable justification for denying personal guarantors a pre-adjudication hearing when similar safeguards exist for corporate entities.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents defended the interim moratorium, asserting that it is an essential tool to prevent parallel legal proceedings that could disrupt the insolvency resolution process. They contended that the moratorium benefits the guarantor by providing temporary relief from creditors’ actions.
• The respondents argued that the RP’s role is purely administrative and does not involve any binding decision-making. They emphasized that the RP merely compiles information and submits a report to the adjudicating authority, which retains full discretion in admitting or rejecting the insolvency application.
• The respondents maintained that Section 100 of the IBC ensures due process, as the adjudicating authority provides an opportunity for a hearing before admitting the insolvency application. They argued that procedural fairness is upheld within the existing framework.

DECISION

In Dilip B. Jiwrajka vs. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court addressed fundamental issues concerning the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The Court examined whether the provisions governing insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors adhered to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Court ruled that the automatic imposition of an interim moratorium under Section 96, without prior judicial determination, does not violate constitutional rights. It held that the moratorium serves to maintain the integrity of insolvency proceedings by preventing parallel legal actions against personal guarantors. The Court further determined that the role of the Resolution Professional (RP) under Sections 95 to 99 is limited to administrative functions and does not amount to an adjudicatory process, thereby not infringing upon the guarantor’s rights.

However, the Court recognized concerns regarding the absence of a pre-adjudication hearing before the appointment of an RP. While upholding the overall framework, it emphasized the need for procedural safeguards to ensure fairness. It directed that adjudicating authorities must provide an opportunity for representation at an early stage, particularly before acting on the RP’s recommendations.

By balancing efficiency with due process, this decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights while maintaining the effectiveness of India’s insolvency regime. The ruling clarified the procedural framework applicable to personal guarantors, shaping the future interpretation of IBC provisions.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dilip B. Jiwrajka vs. Union of India and Ors. Underscores the balance between procedural efficiency and constitutional safeguards under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The ruling examined the impact of Sections 95 to 100, particularly in the context of personal guarantors, and reinforced the importance of due process in insolvency proceedings.

A key aspect of the judgment was the Court’s acknowledgment of concerns regarding the automatic imposition of an interim moratorium under Section 96. While upholding the provision’s validity, the Court stressed that such measures must not lead to arbitrary restrictions without sufficient procedural checks. The ruling clarified that the role of the Resolution Professional (RP) is primarily administrative and does not replace judicial oversight, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between fact-finding and adjudication.

By emphasizing the necessity of an early-stage hearing before the adjudicating authority, the Court reinforced the principles of natural justice, ensuring that personal guarantors are not subjected to insolvency proceedings without an opportunity to present their case. This decision establishes a crucial precedent, affirming that while insolvency laws aim for swift resolution, they must not compromise fairness.

The judgment serves as a reminder that legislative intent and procedural integrity must align to uphold creditor rights while preventing undue hardship to personal guarantors. It refines the scope of IBC provisions and reinforces the judiciary’s role in maintaining equilibrium between statutory objectives and constitutional protections.