IBC primacy and excluded debt rules under the SEBI penalty regime shaped the recovery challenge and moratorium defence.

Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was applied to give the Code primacy over inconsistent provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The interim moratorium protected only petitioner No.1, because the other petitioners had no effective moratorium order and the company petitioner could act only through its liquidator; pending or unadmitted insolvency proceedings did not bar recovery against them. A statutory penalty imposed under the SEBI Act was held not to be a fine within Section 79(15)(a) of the Code, and was treated as an excluded debt. On that basis, the recovery certificate could not be resisted by the petitioners as a group.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; (ii) Whether the moratorium claimed by the petitioners barred recovery under the impugned certificate; (iii) Whether the penalty imposed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is a fine within the meaning of the excluded debt provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

Analysis: The overriding clause in Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 gives the Code primacy over inconsistent laws. The Court applied the settled position that the insolvency framework prevails over other enactments to the extent of inconsistency.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners, holding that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevails over the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

Issue (ii): Whether the moratorium claimed by the petitioners barred recovery under the impugned certificate.

Analysis: The Court found that only petitioner No.1 had an operative interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, while the other petitioners had no effective moratorium order. The Court also held that the company petitioner had been wound up and could be represented only through its liquidator, and that the pending or unadmitted insolvency applications of the remaining petitioners did not create a bar against recovery.

Conclusion: The moratorium operated only in respect of petitioner No.1 and did not aid the other petitioners; the challenge failed for the remaining petitioners on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is a fine within the meaning of the excluded debt provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The Court held that the adjudicating officer under Section 15I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 functions with tribunal-like powers, and that the expression fine in Section 79(15)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not wide enough to include a statutory penalty. The penalty levied under Sections 15G and 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 was therefore treated as an excluded debt for the purposes considered by the Court.

Conclusion: The penalty amount was held to fall within the excluded debt category and not to be a fine for the purposes of Section 79(15)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Final Conclusion: The impugned recovery certificate could not be successfully resisted on the facts of the case, and the writ petition was liable to fail.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory penalty imposed by an adjudicating officer exercising tribunal-like powers is not necessarily a fine, and the insolvency moratorium applies only where a valid moratorium order exists and the debt is not excluded by the Code.

---