https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445943 A mere upload of an application under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without it being duly numbered or admitted, does not by itself trigger interim moratorium under Section 96. The protection against legal proceedings therefore arose only on a valid filing of a complete application, and the strict stay provisions were not attracted on these facts. The Court also noted that Section 238 does not automatically override proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the two laws operate in different fields. As the petitioner was a guarantor, the insolvency framework could not be used to restrain securitisation recovery steps. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Nov 2023 21:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445943 A mere upload of an application under Part III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, without it being duly numbered or admitted, does not by itself trigger interim moratorium under Section 96. The protection against legal proceedings therefore arose only on a valid filing of a complete application, and the strict stay provisions were not attracted on these facts. The Court also noted that Section 238 does not automatically override proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the two laws operate in different fields. As the petitioner was a guarantor, the insolvency framework could not be used to restrain securitisation recovery steps. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 17 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445943