Overriding effect of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Recovery proceedings under Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act - Liability and enforcement against directors, shareholders and key managerial personnel - Cooperation between Recovery Officer and Resolution Professional / participation of Recovery Officer as observer in CoCOverriding effect of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Recovery proceedings under Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act - Section 14 and Section 238 of the IBC have an overriding effect on Section 28A of the SEBI Act once CIRP is commenced. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the respective objects and operation of the IBC and the SEBI Act and held that the IBC is a complete, time bound code enacted after considering existing statutes, aimed at maximisation of value for all stakeholders. Reliance on the principle of primacy established in Innoventive Industries and the text of Sections 14 and 238 led to the conclusion that recovery actions under Section 28A of the SEBI Act are constrained by the moratorium and the non obstante provision of the IBC where an application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 is admitted and CIRP is on foot. Consequently, the Tribunal found that Section 14(1) and Section 238 operate to override Section 28A insofar as they are inconsistent with the Code during the CIRP. [Paras 17, 18]Section 14 and Section 238 of the IBC override Section 28A of the SEBI Act; no modification of the earlier order appointing the IRP is required.Liability and enforcement against directors, shareholders and key managerial personnel - Recovery proceedings under Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act - SEBI is not barred from initiating or continuing actions against individuals (directors, shareholders and key managerial personnel) for fraudulent acts notwithstanding the moratorium applicable to the corporate debtor. - HELD THAT: - Although recovery against the corporate debtor's assets is subject to the moratorium and the overriding effect of the IBC, the Tribunal clarified that this constraint does not preclude SEBI from taking action against individuals responsible for fraudulent conduct. The order records that SEBI may proceed, as it deems fit, against such persons for their fraudulent acts, distinguishing actions that seek recovery from the corporate debtor's estate (which are stayed by the Code) from enforcement against individuals. [Paras 18]SEBI may take action against the directors, shareholders and key management personnel of the corporate debtor for fraudulent acts.Cooperation between Recovery Officer and Resolution Professional / participation of Recovery Officer as observer in CoC - Recovery proceedings under Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act - Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - The Recovery Officer appointed under Section 28A should cooperate with the Resolution Professional and, if feasible, may participate as an observer in the Committee of Creditors to facilitate quicker resolution and maximise value. - HELD THAT: - Recognising the overlapping objectives of investor protection and maximisation of asset value under the IBC, the Tribunal recommended coordination between SEBI's Recovery Officer and the Resolution Professional. The observation stems from practical considerations that SEBI's parallel recovery efforts have not produced effective protection for investors and that cooperation-rather than contestation over statutory supremacy-would better serve rapid resolution and stakeholders' interests. The Tribunal framed this as a suggestion for SEBI's consideration while upholding the primacy of the Code in relation to recovery from the corporate debtor. [Paras 17, 18]The Recovery Officer under Section 28A is to cooperate with the Resolution Professional and may, if feasible, attend CoC meetings as an observer to assist in quicker resolution.Final Conclusion: The interlocutory applications are dismissed. The Tribunal holds that Sections 14 and 238 of the IBC override Section 28A of the SEBI Act in respect of recovery from the corporate debtor during CIRP, while leaving SEBI free to pursue actions against responsible individuals; the Tribunal recommends cooperation between SEBI's Recovery Officer and the Resolution Professional, including possible participation as an observer in the CoC.