https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347301 The SC held that the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 is repugnant to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court found that the State law's provision allowing government takeover of relief undertaking management creates a moratorium that directly hinders the IBC's corporate insolvency resolution process. While the Maharashtra Act's moratorium is discretionary and limited, the IBC's moratorium under Section 14 is comprehensive and automatic. The State law would impede the interim resolution professional's management takeover, obstructing the insolvency resolution process. The Court applied the doctrine of repugnancy, ruling that the later Parliamentary enactment's non-obstante clause prevails over the limited non-obstante clause in the State Act. The Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal correctly admitted the financial creditor's application under Section 7 of the IBC. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347301 The SC held that the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 is repugnant to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court found that the State law's provision allowing government takeover of relief undertaking management creates a moratorium that directly hinders the IBC's corporate insolvency resolution process. While the Maharashtra Act's moratorium is discretionary and limited, the IBC's moratorium under Section 14 is comprehensive and automatic. The State law would impede the interim resolution professional's management takeover, obstructing the insolvency resolution process. The Court applied the doctrine of repugnancy, ruling that the later Parliamentary enactment's non-obstante clause prevails over the limited non-obstante clause in the State Act. The Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal correctly admitted the financial creditor's application under Section 7 of the IBC. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 31 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347301