Bombay High Court
ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY AND ANRversusRAJBALA CHOUDHARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court set aside the DRT order because the moratorium ceased upon the NCLT's dismissal of the insolvency petition.
Summary
The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had stayed further proceedings in a debt recovery case because a moratorium under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was in force due to a pending petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petitioners – a secured creditor and an auction purchaser – were unable to proceed. On 6 February 2026, the NCLT dismissed the insolvency petition, thereby terminating the moratorium. The High Court held that the DRT's order was based on a moratorium that no longer existed and set aside the DRT order. Consequently, the secured creditor was free to resume proceedings, and both writ petitions were disposed.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the dismissal of an NCLT insolvency petition on the moratorium under Section 95 IBC?
- Whether the DRT can continue to stay proceedings when the moratorium has ceased?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Insolvency
- Moratorium
- Section 95 IBC
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Auction purchaser
- Secured creditor
- NCLT dismissal
Judgment
55-WP-13437-2025+.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13437 OF 2025
Mr. Kishore Ramniklal Raja …Petitioner
Versus
ICICI Home Finance Company Limited and Others …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12492 OF 2025
Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w Mr. Mehul Thakker and Mr. Palak Kasliwal
for the Petitioner in WP/13437/2025 and for Respondent No. 4 in
WP/12492/2025.
Ms. Charles De Souza a/w Mr. Nikhil Rajani, Mr. Rupak Sawangikar and
Mr. Ajay Deshpande i/b V. Deshpande & Co. for the Petitioner in
WP/12492/2025 and for Respondent No. 1 in WP/13437/2025.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.J.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
. Both the Petitions challenged order dated 30.07.2025 passed
by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (“DRT-II”). The Petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 12492 of 2025 is the Secured Creditor while the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2025 is the Auction Purchaser.
2. Impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by DRT-II records
that since a moratorium is operating in the light of a Petition pending
before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai under
Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), no
further order can be passed by the DRT-II.
1/2
55-WP-13437-2025+.doc
3. Due to the aforesaid observation in the interim order about the
moratorium operating, the Petitioners i.e. the Secured Creditor and
the Auction Purchaser are unable to proceed further in the matter.
4. It is brought to our notice that the very basis of the impugned
order is taken away by a recent development. On 06.02.2026 the
NCLT, Mumbai dismissed the pending Company Petition under
Section 95 of the IBC. It is obvious that with the dismissal of the said
Petition, the moratorium itself has ceased to operate.
5. On this short ground, we set aside the impugned order passed
by DRT-II.
6. Consequently the Petitioner, Secured Creditor (in Writ Petition
No. 12492 of 2025) is at liberty to proceed further in accordance
with law.
7. Both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of in above terms.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.04.30
20:05:17 +0530
Gitalaxmi
2/2
Checking your session…