Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) has an overriding effect over other
enactments, recently the news of superiority of IBC over SEBI was an
interpretation before the Supreme Court bench in July. It will be an
evolutionary step of the scope of application IBC. Hence it is the overview of
judgments of IBC having overriding effect over different enactments.
Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), still in a transitory phase and remains hot
potato for media and corporate world in these days. Since the code was
implemented it was flavoured partly through the constructive interpretation of
judiciary and partly by amendments. Recently on June 13, 2019, overriding
effects of IBC again came to the discussion with referencing with the SEBI Act.
NCLT order barring the SEBI from recovering money from firm against which
insolvency petition was admitted. The matter went up to the Supreme Court
considering the scope of application of IBC over SEBI.
Overriding Provision of IBC –Section 238
Section 238: Provisions of this Code to override other laws:
The provisions of this Code shall have an effect, notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or
any an instrument having an effect by virtue of any such law.
Section 238 stands as a non-obstante clause. It means clause or provision in the
act empowers to override any other provision or clause contrary under this law
or different law.
Judicial interpretation of the effect of section 238:
The question of overriding effect was first in question in the
case innovative industries[i] which is the first case in IBC itself. Where it
was discussed whether corporate debtor enjoying the benefits/exemption from
repayment and of the specified period provided by the government under the
Maharashtra relief undertaking (special provisions) act 1958.
Application filed by ICICI as financial creditors against the innovative
industries ltd. On account of a default of payments due on credit availed by
innovative industries.it is argued that pursuant to relief order passed by the
Government of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special
Provisions Act) 1958 (MRUA).they are not liable to pay any due to ICICI. On the
basis of the overriding effects of IBC over MRUA, National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT) declared a moratorium and appointed Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).
In the appeal, NCLAT held that there is no repugnancy between MRUA and IBC as
they are enactments of two diverse fields. IBC has an overriding effect over the
provisions of MRUA.
Finally, in an appeal against NCLAT order, The Supreme Court confirms the
interpretation by holding that the non-obstante clause of IBC will prevail over
the non-obstante clause in the MRUA. On the issue of suspension of debt on
account of the relief order under the MRUA, it held that on account of the non-obstante
clause in the IBC, any right of the corporate debtor under any other law cannot
come in the way of the IBC.
In case of Sterling SEZ Infrastructure Ltd, Again the overriding effect of IBC
was under issue with Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002(PMLA).In this case,
SREI Infrastructure financial ltd initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process (CIRP) against Sterling SEZ and its holding co Sterling Biotech Limited
(SBL). The credit facilities availed by the SBL group from the various bank and
financial institution to the extent of Rs.8100 Crores were further declared as
fraud account by the concerned Banks. In the fear of arrest, promoters of the
SBL Group left the country under suspicious circumstances. In result,
proceedings were initiated against the Corporate Debtor by the office of the
Enforcement Directorate and attachment of the assets belonging to the corporate
debtor vide order dated 29.05.2018 under Section 2(1) (u) of the PMLA Act was
Whereas Petition by creditors for initiate CIRP was admitted by the tribunal in
July 2018 and moratorium declared and IRP was appointed accordingly. In the
proceeds Resolution Professional intimate directorate of enforcement about CIRP
and requested for withdrawal of order of attachment of assets order for smooth
conduct of his functioning for charge and custody over it. The matter was
discussed on the initiation of CIRP u/s 7 of IBC prevail over the provisional
attachment of assets order under PMLA 2002. It is contended that during the
Moratorium period, the institution of suits or proceedings against the Corporate
Debtor including the execution of any judgment, decree or order of any court of
law, tribunal or any other authority is prohibited. Hence, the order of the
Enforcement Directorate cannot be executed and section 238 has a non-obstante
clause which has an overriding effect on any law contrary whereas in defense it
is stated that IBC is civil legislation and cannot be given precedence over the
PMLA, Act. Thus the NCLT lacks jurisdiction in the matter.
The moratorium declared by the NCLT shall not be applicable to the attachment
order passed by the Enforcement Directorate or to the Criminal proceedings
initiated against the Corporate Debtor. With the help of amicus curie honorable
tribunal comes to the conclusion that IBC has an overriding impact over PMLA on
the basis of objects of IBC maximization of value of an asset, quicker
resolution, faster recovery and economic interest of beneficiaries.[ii]
In another case of Leo edibles &fats ltd vs Income tax department [iii] where
the court dealt with the issue of the overriding effect of IBC over Income tax
act in the issue of setting the dues of Income-tax authority during liquidation.
Court held that in the event that Assessee Company is undergoing liquidation
under IBC and the Income Tax authority can no longer claim a priority in respect
of clearance of tax dues under the Income Tax Act. The High Court further held
that assets that are under attachment (though encumbered) will not create any
interest in favor of the Income Tax authority as a secured creditor under the
IBC. Additionally, the High Court further set out that the moratorium in terms
of proceedings as set out under the IBC ensures that any pending litigation
initiated prior to commencement of the insolvency proceeding is
suspended. Accordingly, assets under an order of attachment issued prior to the
liquidation, commencement shall be sold along with the other unencumbered assets
of the assessee company.
In another case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Monnet Ispat and Energy
Ltd. [iv] Supreme Court confirms that section 238 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will override anything inconsistent contained in any other
enactment, including the income tax act.
# In the one of the case Jag Mohan Bajaj v. Shivam Fragrances Pvt. Ltd &
Another, [v] NCLAT held that as IBC is a special law with overriding effect
on other laws contrary. Commencement of CIRP cannot be defeated by taking resort
of pendency of internal dispute between Directors of Corporate Debtor on
allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The statutory rights of financial
creditors cannot be step down due to pending proceedings under Oppression and
Mismanagement cases under section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The present issue before the court:
The legal tussle is that, whether IBC overrides all major acts pertaining to
recovery proceeding including SEBI. SEBI being the market regulator of the
schemes like the collective investment scheme (CIS) have absolute control
supervision on all it's working and recovery as well. The point of discussion is
that by Section 28 (A) of SEBI Act deals with the recovery of money from a
company, by selling its movable or immovable properties, among others and
section 14 of IBC regarding moratorium which shall have a prevailing effect on
others. It shall be considered to be an evolutionary step in extending the scope
The fact of the present case is that HBN Diaries was running a Collective
Investment Scheme and collected approximately Rs 1,136 Crores from investors. In
the recovery of the same, SEBI takes action of attachment of properties
belonging to HBN Dairies in order to return the dues to the depositors. Due to
delays in recovery, some investors approached NCLT for initiation of insolvency
proceedings against HBN Dairies. NCLT admitted the Application and after
appointing Resolution Professional directed SEBI to de-attach the properties of
HBN and hand them over to the RP.
SEBI challenged the order of NCLT directing the market regulator to de-attach
properties of HBN Dairies and allies Ltd. and hand over to a resolution
professional for functioning under proceedings. The arguments are such that
section 238 comes to effect when inconsistency between IBC provisions and SEBI
and herein the case Collective investment scheme has no conflict or
inconsistency between IBC and SEBI so investors are just holders of their
units and not to be considered to be lenders and fit in the term of financial
creditors. While opposing the contention, Resolution Professional puts the light
on the object of code and stated that it is an attempt not only to save the
interest of stakeholders but also the resolution of the company as well.
In result, NCLT held Sections 11 & 11B of SEBI read with Regulation 65 of (CIS)
Regulations, 1999, to be in direct conflict with many IBC sections and IBC
overrides the provision of SEBI act and which was further upheld by NCLAT. The
fact that CIS is not registered with SEBI and application of depositors admitted
by NCLT is halfway done for the confirmation of the overriding effect of IBC on
SEBI as well but it is a mistake to ignore the fact that the code governs the
resolution of lawful activity and herein there is a complete violation of law
The decision of Supreme a court in July confirms the solution on it. It is
interesting to watch how Supreme Court experts look and interpret at the issue.
The view of the Supreme Court decides future track of the scope of overriding
effect of section 238 but from the past cases of the overriding effect it can be
weighted more towards IBC so it is easily inferred that Supreme court by looking
at the object points like faster recovery, quicker resolution, and maximization
of value of the asset with benefits of all likely come at the conclusion that
IBC prevails over SEBI as well pertaining to recovery proceedings.
Written by: Bhushan Kulkarni – Student, CS Professional - Email Id-
Banking Laws Articles
Invocation of Bank Guarantee
The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018
How to Start a Legal Process Outsourcing Business?
SC Quashes RBI Circular Asking Banks To Take Defaulting Companies To Insolvency
Bombay HC Imposes Cost of Rs 50K On Petitioner Firm For Abuse of Law By Filing
Multiple Proceedings On Similar Grounds
How To Register a Company
Limited Liability Partnership In India
Money Laundering in India
Corporate Social Responsibility
Franchise laws in India