As per case facts, ICICI Bank initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Era Infrastructure (India) Limited after having its claim admitted against the parent company, Era Infra Engineering Private ... Limited, a corporate guarantor. The NCLT rejected this subsequent application. The appeals arose due to conflicting interpretations by the NCLT/NCLAT regarding the maintainability of simultaneous CIRP against both principal debtor and guarantor for the same debt, often relying on or distinguishing the `Vishnu Kumar Agarwal` Judgment. The question arose whether simultaneous proceedings for CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, are maintainable against the principal debtor as well as its corporate guarantor, or vice-versa. Finally, the Supreme Court, affirming earlier precedents, held that the IBC permits separate or simultaneous CIRP against the corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor. It rejected arguments on the doctrine of election and double enrichment, citing existing safeguards in the regulations, and declined to issue new guidelines.