Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) has enacted significant amendments through the IBBI (Bankruptcy Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024[i], (‘2024 Regulations’). These amendments effective from 31.01.2024, amend the existing IBBI (Bankruptcy Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019[ii] (‘2019 Regulations’), marking a significant evolution in the regulatory framework governing insolvency matters.
The Eligibility Criteria of Bankruptcy Trustees Relaxed
One notable change under the 2024 Regulations is the relaxation of eligibility criteria for appointing insolvency professionals (‘IPs’) as bankruptcy trustees (‘BTs’) in bankruptcy proceedings. Previously, IPs who had served or were serving as interim resolution professionals (‘IRPs’), resolution professionals (‘RPs’), or liquidators for a corporate debtor (‘CD’) were restricted from being appointed as BTs in cases involving personal guarantors (‘PGs’) to the same CD. The removal of this restriction *vide *the 2024 Regulations facilitates the appointment of IPs across different capacities, enhancing procedural efficiency and coordination in insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings involving PGs.
Relaxation of Professional Appointment Criteria
The 2024 Regulations omit* *reg. 5(1)(c) thereby broadening the scope for IPs to be appointed as professionals by the BT. This change aligns to streamline the insolvency process, allowing for greater flexibility in the appointment of professionals who have a prior engagement with the CD, thereby potentially improving the efficiency and effectiveness of bankruptcy proceedings involving PGs.
Conclusion
The 2024 Regulations aim to foster a more cohesive and efficient framework for managing insolvency and bankruptcy cases of PGs to CDs. By relaxing the eligibility criteria for the appointment of IPs and professionals in bankruptcy proceedings, the amendments enhance the alignment and coordination between corporate insolvency processes and PG bankruptcy cases. These regulatory modifications are poised to have a significant impact on the insolvency landscape, promising improved procedural efficiency and potentially leading to quicker resolutions in cases involving PGs.
End Notes:
[i] Notification no. IBBI/2023-24/GN/REG108 dated 31.01.2024.
[ii] Notification No. IBBI/2019-20/GN/REG051 dated 20.11.2019.
For further insights and detailed information on matters related to IBBI, please explore our curated list of notifications and updates:
Ensuring Stability: Legal Perspectives on Revised IPA Regulations in India by Nitish Solanki
Flexibility for Insolvency Professionals Enhanced by IBBI by Purvi Garg
Authored by Aditya Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
25-08-2026
12
min read
A Game of Treasure Hunt: Service of GST Notices and Orders under S. 169 of the CGST Act and the Emerging Split Among High Courts
Luxmi Traders addresses a fundamental question in GST adjudication: can a notice or order be treated as duly served merely because it is uploaded on the Common Portal? The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that portal-only service, absent the requisite statutory and notified basis, cannot by itself defeat a taxpayer’s remedies. With Madras and Allahabad adopting different approaches and Delhi subsequently applying Luxmi Traders, the issue reflects a significant divergence in judicial approach awaiting authoritative resolution.
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.