Filing date under insolvency law runs from e-filing, and interim moratorium starts on presentation before the Registry.

For an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the filing date is the date of e-filing or presentation before the Registry, not the later date when the Registry registers and numbers it. The Tribunal treated numbering as a ministerial act and applied the procedural framework to hold that legal consequences, including the interim moratorium under Section 96, commence from filing. A complete application by one creditor was sufficient to trigger that moratorium, and a later registration of another creditor's application did not alter the earlier filing date. The contrary Kerala High Court view was not followed because it did not consider the Tribunal's earlier binding ruling.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the date of filing is the date of e-filing/presentation before the Registry or the later date on which the Registry registers and numbers the application, and whether the earlier filing by one creditor triggers the interim moratorium despite subsequent registration of another creditor's application.

Analysis: The applicable procedural framework under the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 treats an application as filed when it is presented in the Registry. The Tribunal relied on its earlier three-member decision holding that filing is complete on e-filing/presentation and that numbering by the Registry is only a ministerial act. It also noted that interim moratorium under Section 96 follows the filing of the application, and that the statutory scheme requires certainty about the date from which legal consequences begin. The application filed by IFCI was found to be a complete application, and the later registration of another creditor's application did not alter the earlier filing date. The contrary view expressed in the Kerala High Court decision was not accepted because it did not consider the Tribunal's binding earlier ruling.

Conclusion: The filing date was the date of e-filing by IFCI, not the later date of registration. The interim moratorium commenced from that filing, the impugned order was not without jurisdiction, and the appeal failed.

---