https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462285 Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was applied to give the Code primacy over inconsistent provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The interim moratorium protected only petitioner No.1, because the other petitioners had no effective moratorium order and the company petitioner could act only through its liquidator; pending or unadmitted insolvency proceedings did not bar recovery against them. A statutory penalty imposed under the SEBI Act was held not to be a fine within Section 79(15)(a) of the Code, and was treated as an excluded debt. On that basis, the recovery certificate could not be resisted by the petitioners as a group. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 11:13:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462285 Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was applied to give the Code primacy over inconsistent provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The interim moratorium protected only petitioner No.1, because the other petitioners had no effective moratorium order and the company petitioner could act only through its liquidator; pending or unadmitted insolvency proceedings did not bar recovery against them. A statutory penalty imposed under the SEBI Act was held not to be a fine within Section 79(15)(a) of the Code, and was treated as an excluded debt. On that basis, the recovery certificate could not be resisted by the petitioners as a group. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 19 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462285