IBC moratorium cannot block disaster-management action where public safety and environmental risk require statutory intervention.

The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 did not prevent action taken under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to address a sinking floating dry dock. Measures directed by the district disaster management authority were treated as special statutory action aimed at preventing environmental harm and public danger, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction was held barred by the disaster law's framework. Because the Disaster Management Act operated as a special enactment in response to a threatening disaster situation, the section 14 moratorium could not displace those public safety and environmental protection powers. The stay application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be invoked to restrain action taken under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, including the proposed salvage and auction-related steps concerning the sinking floating dry dock.

Analysis: The action in question was found to be part of measures directed by the district disaster management authority to prevent environmental harm and public danger arising from the sinking vessel. The Disaster Management Act, 2005 was treated as a special enactment conferring powers on the district authority to respond to a threatening disaster situation, and its bar of jurisdiction was read as excluding interference by the Tribunal. The moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was held not to displace the statutory powers exercised under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, particularly where public safety and environmental protection were at stake.

Conclusion: The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had no bearing on the action taken under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the stay application was rejected.

---