High Court Upholds Amendment to IBC Regarding Interim Moratorium Application — Amendment Aimed at Preventing Misuse. Court Found Legislative Intent to Apply Amendment Retroactively to Pending Proceedings.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Bombay addressed the question of whether the amendment to sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which came into effect on 26.05.2026, operates retroactively. The petitioners argued that the amendment was remedial and aimed at preventing misuse of the interim moratorium, thus it should apply to pending applications. They cited various judgments to support their claim that the amendment's intent was to address a mischief in the law. Conversely, the respondents contended that the amendment should apply prospectively, emphasizing that the interim moratorium constituted a substantive right that could not be retroactively altered. The court analyzed the arguments, considering the legislative intent and the nature of the interim moratorium. Ultimately, the court held that the amendment should apply retroactively to pending applications, aligning with the legislative purpose of curbing misuse of the IBC provisions. The decision underscored the importance of interpreting amendments in light of their intended objectives and the need to prevent abuse of legal protections.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Retroactive Application of Amendments - Interpretation of Section 96(4) of the IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 96 - The court examined whether the amendment to Section 96(4) should apply to pending applications or only to future filings. It was held that the amendment was intended to address misuse of the interim moratorium and should apply retroactively to pending proceedings to fulfill legislative intent (Paras 1-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 operates retroactively.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court held that the amendment to Section 96(4) of the IBC applies retroactively to pending applications, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent misuse of the interim moratorium.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Section 96
  • retroactive application
  • interim moratorium
  • legislative intent
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 59

Writ Petition No. 2819 of 2026 and others

2026-09-18

Manish Pitale, Shreeram V. Shirsat

Mr. Amir Arsiwala, Mr. Ahmed Padela, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Ms. Kruti Bhavsar, Mr. Charles D'Souza, Mr. Archit Virmani, Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Shadab S. Jan, Mrs. Anupamaa Pawar, Mr. Prashant Kamble

Indian Bank, RBL Bank Limited, Godrej Finance Limited, Asset Reconstruction Co. India Limited, Apna Sahakari Bank Limited

Shabbir Abbas Patel and others, State of Maharashtra and others, Ashok Rajkumar Gupta and others, Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ors., M/s. Image Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others, M/s. Gandharv Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & ors., M/s. Warna Industries Limited and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the application of an amendment to the IBC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a declaration that the amendment applies retroactively.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the interpretation of the amendment to Section 96 of the IBC.

Previous Decisions

A learned Single Judge previously held the amendment to be retroactive.

Issues

Whether the amendment to Section 96(4) of the IBC operates retroactively. Interpretation of legislative intent behind the amendment.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the amendment was remedial and should apply to pending applications. Respondents contended that the amendment should apply prospectively, emphasizing the substantive nature of the interim moratorium.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that amendments to procedural laws can apply retroactively if they are intended to address specific mischief, thereby preventing abuse of legal protections.

Judgment Excerpts

The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 operates retroactively. The parties in support of the proposition that the amendment applies retroactively emphasize that the amendment was brought about to address the mischief of rampant misuse of the interim moratorium. It was held that the amendment was intended to address misuse of the interim moratorium and should apply retroactively to pending proceedings.

Procedural History

Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the interpretation of the amendment to Section 96 of the IBC, with arguments presented by various parties regarding its retroactive application.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Income Tax Department's Reassessment in Escaped Assessment Case Due to Assessee's Failure to Disclose. Non-Disclosure of Firm Income and Unexplained Investments Attracted Section 34(1)(a) of Income-tax Act, 1922, Validating Reas...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased. Deceased pedestrian held 50% contributorily negligent for crossing highway without care, reducing in...