Moratorium under Insolvency Law barred completion of an incomplete asset sale, and the Code overrode conflicting SARFAESI enforcement.

Once CIRP commenced and moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operated, an incomplete auction sale of the corporate debtor's assets could not be perfected by receiving the balance consideration after the insolvency commencement date. Mere receipt of part of the bid amount did not complete the sale, and the assets remained within the insolvency estate when moratorium began, making continuation of the transaction impermissible. The Code also prevailed over inconsistent recovery action under the SARFAESI Act because Section 238 gives it overriding effect, so conflicting enforcement steps could not continue during CIRP. The challenge was therefore maintainable and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of the corporate debtor's assets, where only part of the auction consideration had been received before commencement of CIRP and the balance was received thereafter, could be treated as valid despite moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevails over inconsistent action taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of the corporate debtor's assets, where only part of the auction consideration had been received before commencement of CIRP and the balance was received thereafter, could be treated as valid despite moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The sale process had not culminated before the insolvency commencement date. Mere receipt of 25% of the bid amount did not complete the sale, and the balance consideration was received only after moratorium had commenced. The assets continued to stand in the corporate debtor's name in the revenue records, showing that the property remained part of the insolvency estate when moratorium took effect. Once Section 14 operated, continuation of the sale and realisation of the balance amount could not lawfully proceed.

Conclusion: The sale transaction was invalid during moratorium and the order setting it aside was in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevails over inconsistent action taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Code was treated as a complete code for insolvency resolution, and Section 238 gives it overriding effect over inconsistent laws. During CIRP, actions to enforce security interest under the SARFAESI Act could not continue where they conflicted with the moratorium and the insolvency process. The Tribunal therefore rejected the argument that the creditor should have proceeded only under SARFAESI remedies.

Conclusion: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevails over inconsistent SARFAESI action, and the respondent's challenge before the Adjudicating Authority was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the auction and receipt of sale consideration could not be completed after commencement of CIRP, and the insolvency regime had overriding effect over conflicting recovery measures.

Ratio Decidendi: Once CIRP commences and moratorium operates, any incomplete sale of a corporate debtor's assets cannot be perfected or enforced, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevails over inconsistent recovery proceedings under other laws.

---