Parallel DRT recovery proceedings do not bar a Section 7 insolvency petition under the overriding insolvency code.

A Section 7 insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is an independent insolvency remedy and is not barred by parallel recovery proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent laws, so pendency or findings in DRT proceedings do not by themselves justify rejection or stay of the insolvency petition. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not control such proceedings, and DRT findings do not operate as res judicata or issue estoppel against the insolvency application.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be treated as barred by the pendency or outcome of recovery proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could justify staying or rejecting such a petition in view of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 7 proceedings are meant for insolvency resolution and operate in a field distinct from recovery proceedings under the 1993 Act. The Code contains an express non obstante clause in Section 238, which gives it overriding effect over inconsistent laws. On that basis, pendency of, or findings in, proceedings under Section 19 of the 1993 Act cannot bar consideration of a Section 7 application. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not control such a petition where the special statutory scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires the application to proceed on its own merits. Findings in the DRT proceedings could at best have relevance in that forum and did not operate as a bar by res judicata or issue estoppel against the insolvency petition.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Section 7 application on the ground that it was barred by the DRT proceedings was legally unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the insolvency petition was restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is an independent insolvency proceeding and cannot be rejected or stayed merely because parallel recovery proceedings under the 1993 Act are pending or have resulted in findings, since Section 238 overrides inconsistent laws and excludes such bar.

---