Topic
The Supreme Court ruled that the IBC’s Section 14 moratorium restrains only the corporate debtor, not the promoters, directors or landowners, allowing the NCDRC to pursue the consumer complaint. This preserves homebuyers’ recourse even during insolvency proceedings.
Bombay High Court rules that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not bar the Competent Authority from granting deemed conveyance under MOFA, prioritizing welfare legislation over insolvency proceedings. The judgment ensures housing societies can secure legal title to property even when the promoter is under CIRP, safeguarding flat owners' rights.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that Section 14 of the IBC prohibits all coercive recovery actions against a corporate debtor during CIRP, including the attachment of sugar stock by state authorities. This reinforces that statutory moratoriums override even revenue recovery mechanisms, protecting corporate assets from piecemeal seizure by any creditor, including government agencies.
NCLAT reaffirms that Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) cannot press claims for damages and interest under Sections 7A, 14B, and 7Q of the EPF Act during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The ruling clarifies that moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC bars assessment proceedings, impacting creditor hierarchy and recovery priorities for statutory dues.
Supreme Court rules that security deposits made before the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) must remain part of the corporate debtor’s estate and cannot be appropriated by operational creditors against pre-CIRP dues. The adjustment of such deposits is permissible only post-adjudication of claims under the IBC, ensuring pari passu treatment of all creditors.