27/03/2023

Interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC cannot be extended to the proceedings with respect to a borrower, who has been declared as a Wilful Defaulter – Jagdish Prasad Saboo Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – Gujarat High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the intention of the moratorium, granted under Section 96 of the IBC cannot be extended to the proceedings with respect to a borrower, who has been declared as a Wilful Defaulter. The interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC can be referred only to the debt, as mentioned therein. The Apex Court in the case of P Mohanraj has not dealt with the aspect of Wilful Defaulter and has only confined its observations with regard to the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and with regard to recovery proceedings of debt, as envisaged under Section 96 of the IBC. The proceedings of declaring the borrower, as per the master circular as a Wilful Defaulter, are in absolutely different realm than the recovery proceedings of debt and hence, the provision of Section 96 of the IBC cannot be extended to the petitioner, which has been declared as Wilful Defaulter.

Interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC cannot be extended to the proceedings with respect to a borrower, who has been declared as a Wilful Defaulter – Jagdish Prasad Saboo Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. – Gujarat High Court Read Post »

Whether the principles of natural justice should be read into the provisions of the Master Directions on Frauds – State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether the principles of natural justice should be read into the provisions of the Master Directions on Frauds – State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top