https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788008 The interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not stay attachment proceedings under the MPID Act because those proceedings were treated as a special public law remedy to protect depositors and secure properties alleged to have been fraudulently transferred. The Court held that the MPID mechanism was not a creditor's recovery action in a debtor-creditor relationship, and the deposits involved did not constitute "debt" for the Code. It further held that the MPID Act falls within the State legislative field, so repugnancy with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not arise. The attachment proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:42:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788008 The interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not stay attachment proceedings under the MPID Act because those proceedings were treated as a special public law remedy to protect depositors and secure properties alleged to have been fraudulently transferred. The Court held that the MPID mechanism was not a creditor's recovery action in a debtor-creditor relationship, and the deposits involved did not constitute "debt" for the Code. It further held that the MPID Act falls within the State legislative field, so repugnancy with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not arise. The attachment proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788008