Section 10-A insolvency bar does not apply to continuing default beyond the protected period; writ remedy also declined.

Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not bar initiation of CIRP where the default is shown to have continued beyond the protected period; the earlier Supreme Court ruling was distinguished because it concerned a default arising within that period. The Court also held that a writ petition under Article 226 will ordinarily not be entertained where an effective statutory appeal is available, absent exceptional circumstances. Applying those principles, the challenge to the NCLT's admission order failed, and the interim protection could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the NCLT order admitting the insolvency application was maintainable in view of Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the availability of an effective alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: Section 10-A bars initiation of CIRP for defaults arising during the protected period, but the prohibition cannot be extended beyond its terms where the default is shown to have continued after the moratorium period. The earlier Supreme Court decision on Section 10-A was distinguished on the ground that it dealt with a default occurring within the protected period. The Court also held that where a statutory appeal exists, a writ petition under Article 226 will not ordinarily be entertained absent exceptional circumstances, and no such exceptional situation was made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to the NCLT order failed. The writ petition was not maintainable and the interim protection could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10-A does not bar initiation of CIRP where the default continues beyond the statutory moratorium period, and the existence of an effective alternative statutory remedy ordinarily precludes writ interference under Article 226.

---