Prospective operation of insolvency amendment: new pre-filing special-resolution could not defeat an earlier section 10 petition.

An amendment introducing a special-resolution requirement under section 10(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as a new pre-filing condition that imposed a fresh burden and therefore operated prospectively. It was held not to apply to a section 10 petition filed before the amendment commenced. On the facts, the petition showed financial debt and default, was otherwise complete, and pending SARFAESI proceedings did not bar initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings because the Code prevails. With the special-resolution objection rejected, the petition was admitted, an interim resolution professional was appointed, and moratorium followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended requirement of a special resolution under section 10(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applied retrospectively to a petition filed before the amendment came into force. (ii) Whether the petition was liable to be admitted and moratorium ordered on the facts found.

Issue (i): Whether the amended requirement of a special resolution under section 10(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applied retrospectively to a petition filed before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The amendment introducing the special-resolution requirement was treated as a new condition for filing a section 10 application and not as a mere clarificatory change. The Court held that a procedural label did not make the amendment retrospective where it imposed a new obligation and burden on applications already filed. It distinguished authorities dealing with arbitration law amendments and applied the principle that a statute creating new disabilities or duties in respect of completed transactions is prospective unless retrospective intent is .

Conclusion: The amended section 10(3)(c) did not apply to the petition filed before 06.06.2018.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was liable to be admitted and moratorium ordered on the facts found.

Analysis: The record showed existence of financial debt and default, and the petition was otherwise complete. Pendency of SARFAESI proceedings was held not to bar initiation of corporate insolvency resolution, and the Code was given overriding effect. As the special-resolution objection failed, there was no ground to reject the petition.

Conclusion: The petition was admitted, an interim resolution professional was appointed, and moratorium was ordered.

Final Conclusion: The application under section 10 succeeded, the insolvency process was set in motion, and the statutory moratorium took effect.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment introducing a new pre-filing condition that creates a fresh obligation and burden is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to a section 10 application filed before the amendment's commencement.

---