https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395417 An admiralty action in rem against a vessel is not a proceeding against the corporate debtor, so its institution is not barred by the IBC moratorium; however, continuation must yield where it would frustrate CIRP, while liquidation permits the admiralty process to proceed and maritime priorities to be worked out under the Admiralty Act. Leave under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not required to commence or continue an admiralty action in rem, because that provision applies to proceedings against the company, whereas admiralty jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the designated High Court and is governed by the later, special maritime statute. en-us Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2020 11:10:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395417 An admiralty action in rem against a vessel is not a proceeding against the corporate debtor, so its institution is not barred by the IBC moratorium; however, continuation must yield where it would frustrate CIRP, while liquidation permits the admiralty process to proceed and maritime priorities to be worked out under the Admiralty Act. Leave under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not required to commence or continue an admiralty action in rem, because that provision applies to proceedings against the company, whereas admiralty jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the designated High Court and is governed by the later, special maritime statute. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395417