Moratorium under insolvency law protected deemed mining lease extension, leading to setting aside of the rejection order.

The rejection of a request for deemed extension of a mining lease was found inconsistent with the moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, because the corporate insolvency resolution process had already commenced when the rejection order was passed. The lease extension request was also considered under Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which supported continuation of the lease until 31.03.2020. The rejection order was set aside and the respondents were directed to execute supplement deeds extending the mining lease up to that date.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for deemed extension of the mining lease during the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was valid, and whether the respondents were liable to execute supplement deeds extending the lease period.

Analysis: The corporate insolvency resolution process had commenced and moratorium had been declared before the impugned rejection order. The order rejecting deemed extension of the mining lease was found to be inconsistent with the moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The request for extension was also considered in the context of Section 8A(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which supported continuation of the lease till 31.03.2020.

Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to execute supplement deeds extending the mining lease up to 31.03.2020. The application was allowed.

---