Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The law quite specifically, as intelligently uses the words "individual and who is surety in a contract of guarantee", meaning thereby that the provisions contained under Sub-Section (22) of Section 5 of the I & B Code, 2016, describing the personal guarantor, has confined it to an individual, only and not a group of persons who have executed a guarantee. The reason behind it is that the law has intentionally used the word "individual", here because otherwise under the I & B Code, the person had been independently defined and that is why under Sub-Section (22) of Section 5 of the I & B Code, 2016, the word "person", has not been used, which could have include the person as defined under Sub-Section (23) of Section 3 of the I & B Code, 2016, which includes apart from individual, HUF, trust, partnership, LLP and any entity established under a statute and such other hierarchy of family. Hence, from that perspective, if the proceedings under Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016, is restricted to be regulated against the personal guarantors, as defined under Sub- Section (22) of Section 5 of the I & B Code, 2016, and when Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016, in itself restricts its proceedings against the guarantors, a person claiming the coparcenary right may not be falling within the zone of consideration to be impleaded for the purposes of deciding the proceeding under Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016.