Topic
The Bombay High Court held IBC Section 96(4) applies retrospectively, lifting the interim moratorium on secured asset recovery from May 26, 2026. This lets banks and financial institutions enforce security interests in insolvency cases without the stay.
NCLAT rules that a personal guarantor filing a Section 94 application after a SARFAESI possession notice has been issued, and enjoying a two-year interim moratorium, constitutes abuse of process to frustrate secured creditor recovery. The ruling clarifies that the IBC moratorium for guarantors does not override SARFAESI enforcement once possession proceedings have commenced.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the 2026 amendment to Section 96 of the IBC operates retrospectively, extinguishing the interim-moratorium bar for personal guarantors. Consequently, suits against guarantors can proceed despite a pending moratorium. This decision broadens creditors' enforcement options in ongoing insolvency proceedings.
The Delhi High Court lifted a stay on a Section 138 complaint, ruling that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s moratorium does not extinguish criminal liability for cheque bounce. This ensures borrowers cannot evade prosecution by invoking insolvency protection, affecting all parties in pending IBC cases.
NCLAT rules that a petition filed during an existing interim moratorium under Section 95 IBC is non-est and incapable of initiating a fresh moratorium, reinforcing procedural safeguards against abuse of process in personal guarantor insolvency cases. The decision clarifies that only a validly admitted petition can trigger moratorium protections.