Interim moratorium under insolvency law stays cheque-bounce prosecutions; complainant's non-participation does not prevent the statutory stay.

Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has wide operation: once a Section 95 application is filed, the interim moratorium stays all pending legal proceedings in respect of a debt, including prosecutions under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The protection turns on the proceeding being debt-related, not on whether the complainant is a party to the insolvency application. The absence of the complainant from the Section 95 process therefore does not exclude the cheque-bounce proceedings from the moratorium. The criminal proceedings were directed to remain stayed for the duration of the interim moratorium.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stays proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether such stay can be denied on the ground that the complainant is not a party to the insolvency application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 stays proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The expression "any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt" in Section 96 is of wide import. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are legal proceedings in respect of a debt, and therefore fall within the statutory protection afforded by interim moratorium. The scheme of Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code also shows that once an application under Section 95 is filed, the interim moratorium operates in relation to all debts until the application is admitted or otherwise dealt with in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are stayed during the interim moratorium period.

Issue (ii): Whether such stay can be denied on the ground that the complainant is not a party to the insolvency application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The statutory language focuses on the debt and the legal proceeding in respect of that debt, not on whether the complainant is a party to the insolvency application. The insolvency process under Part III contemplates claims by all creditors, and the legal effect of interim moratorium is not confined to parties to the Section 95 application. The proceedings under Section 138, being relatable to the debt, are therefore covered irrespective of the complainant's non-participation in the insolvency proceeding.

Conclusion: The absence of the complainant as a party to the Section 95 application does not exclude the proceedings from the operation of Section 96.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeds, and the criminal proceedings were directed to remain stayed against the applicant for the duration of the interim moratorium.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 automatically stays all pending legal proceedings in respect of a debt, including prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its operation does not depend on the complainant being a party to the insolvency application.

---