Interim moratorium under the IBC was held to commence by...

Interim moratorium under the IBC was held to commence by operation of law once the Section 95 petition was registered, and not to depend on prior intimation to the secured creditor. The DRT therefore erred in refusing relief merely because the bank had not been notified on the correct email address, and its orders were set aside. The Court also found procedural irregularities in NCLT scrutiny and refiling, but held that those errors did not displace the moratorium already triggered on registration. Questions of alleged connivance and the moratorium's effect on the bank and auction purchasers were left open for the NCLT, while the Registry was directed to follow the prescribed scrutiny procedure strictly.