Interim Moratorium Under Section 14 Of The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code: An Evolving Jurisprudence

One of the defining features of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") is the moratorium under Section 14, which comes into effect upon admission of an application for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) for corporate persons. The moratorium serves as a statutory calm period, protecting the corporate debtor from enforcement actions while enabling the resolution professional to preserve the debtor's assets and maximise value.

However, the IBC is conspicuously silent on the period between the filing of an insolvency application and its admission. This gap has given rise to an important question: Can the Adjudicating Authority grant any interim protection against the assets of the corporate person/s before admitting a CIRP application?

The Fourteen-Day Mandate and the Reality of Delay

The concern is particularly significant because Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the IBC contemplate a swift determination of insolvency applications. These provisions require the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the existence of ‘debt’ and ‘default’ and pass an order of admission or rejection within fourteen days of the receipt of the application. The statute further mandates that where the Adjudicating Authority is unable to do so within the prescribed period, it shall record the reasons for such delay in writing. The legislative intent is, therefore, unmistakably clear that applications for initiation of the CIRP are to be decided expeditiously.

The reality, however, is markedly different. In practice, even the first notice on an insolvency application is frequently made returnable well beyond the statutory fourteen-day period, and applications often remain pending for several months before admission is considered. It is now a known fact that such delays are caused by institutional challenges confronting the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), either due to persistent vacancies in judicial and technical member positions or limited infrastructure. Consequently, the period between the filing and admission of a CIRP application has become substantially longer than what Parliament originally envisaged.

Why Pre-Admission Protection Matters

The absence of any statutory protection during this interregnum has serious implications for the insolvency framework. The rationale underlying an interim moratorium is to preserve the integrity of the insolvency process during the period between the filing and admission of a CIRP application. As recognised by the Insolvency Law Committee in its Report published on February 2020, prolonged delays at the pre-admission stage create two significant risks: first, the existing management may dissipate or alienate the assets of the corporate debtor before control passes to the Interim Resolution Professional; and secondly, creditors may engage in a race to enforcement, resulting in fragmented recoveries that undermine the collective insolvency process and erode enterprise value. The objective of an interim moratorium, therefore would be to maintain the status quo, preserve the corporate debtor as a going concern, and ensure that, if the application is ultimately admitted, the Resolution Professional inherits a viable enterprise rather than a depleted shell. This approach is consistent with the overarching objectives of the IBC, repeatedly recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely value maximisation, preservation of the corporate debtor as a going concern, and balancing the interests of all stakeholders.

Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and the Judicial Innovation

Faced with this legislative gap and the practical realities of prolonged delays in admission, the NCLT has, in appropriate cases, invoked its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to grant limited interim protection pending admission of a CIRP application. The concept of an interim moratorium has thus emerged not from express statutory text but from judicial innovation aimed at preserving the efficacy of the insolvency process.

The earliest notable instance is F.M. Hammerle Textiles Limited, [Order dated 09.06.2017 in CP (IB) No. 30/Chd/Pb/2017] where the Chandigarh Bench of the NCLT, while directing the corporate debtor to cure defects in its Section 10 application, nevertheless granted an interim moratorium in terms of Section 14 until the application could be considered after the court vacation. The NCLT recognised that immediate protection was necessary to preserve the corporate debtor pending consideration of the insolvency application.

The jurisprudence was subsequently developed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Roxcel Trading GmbH [Order dated 17.07.2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 664 of 2019]. The NCLAT upheld an order of NCLT, Chennai restraining the corporate debtor from alienating or creating third-party interests in its assets pending admission of a Section 9 application. Rejecting the argument that such relief could be granted only after admission, the NCLAT held that Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules preserves the Tribunal's inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary "for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal." The NCLAT further observed that where there exists a genuine apprehension that the corporate debtor may dissipate its assets, the Adjudicating Authority is competent to pass an ad interim order even before admission of an application under Sections 7, 9 or 10.

The significance of NUI Pulp was reinforced when the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.09.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6697/2019 dismissed the appeal against the NCLAT's judgment, thereby declining to interfere with the recognition of the Adjudicating Authority's power to grant interim protective orders in appropriate cases. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court's order is brief, it lends considerable precedential value to the principle evolved by the Appellate Tribunal.

More recently, in Central Bank of India v. SEL Textiles Ltd. [Order dated 04.08.2024 in CP (IB) No. 149/Chd/Pb/2022], the Chandigarh Bench of the NCLT relied upon NUI Pulp and F.M. Hammerle to grant a pre-admission interim moratorium under Section 14 in an application filed under Section 7 of the IBC.

The doctrine has recently received further affirmation in Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Sanghvi Beauty & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [09.09.2025 in C.P. (IB)/797(MB)2025], where the Mumbai Bench of the NCLT granted an interim order directing the corporate debtor to maintain status quo over all its assets pending adjudication of a Section 7 application.

The Legislative Contrast

Section 96 of the IBC expressly provides for an automatic interim moratorium upon the filing of an application for initiation of the insolvency resolution process for individuals and partnership firms. Similarly, the Financial Service Provider Rules, 2019 also expressly provide for an automatic interim moratorium i.e. from the date of filing of the application till its admission or rejection, for insolvency of Financial Service Providers. 

Thus, Parliament has expressly provided for an automatic pre-admission moratorium in certain insolvency proceedings, but its silence in the case of corporate persons cannot be construed as a prohibition against discretionary, case-specific interim protection. Thus, while an automatic moratorium may require express statutory sanction, the NCLT may, in appropriate cases, grant limited interim protection under Rule 11 to preserve the insolvency process.

Comparative Insolvency Law

Comparative insolvency regimes recognise the importance of protecting the debtor's assets at the earliest stage of insolvency proceedings. In the United States, Section 362 of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) provides for an automatic stay immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

In the United Kingdom, paragraph 44 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 provides for an automatic interim moratorium pending determination of an administration application.

The UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (Part Two, Recommendations 39-51) also recommends that insolvency laws should provide protective measures to preserve the insolvency estate between the time an application to commence insolvency proceedings is made and commencement of the proceedings.

The Way Forward

While judicial innovation has sufficiently addressed a legislative gap, the issue ultimately calls for statutory intervention. A narrowly drafted provision empowering the Adjudicating Authority to grant interim protection in deserving cases would ensure uniformity, and better align the procedural framework with the overarching objective of value maximisation under the IBC.

This was examined by the Insolvency Law Committee in its Report published in February 2020. The Committee recommended that the IBC be amended to empower the Adjudicating Authority to grant an interim moratorium after the filing of a CIRP application but before its admission.

It however, recommended that such protection should not be automatic. Instead, the Adjudicating Authority should exercise its discretion based on the facts of each case, balancing the need to preserve the corporate debtor's assets against the potential prejudice to creditors. The Committee further suggested that any interim moratorium should be limited in duration, not exceeding sixty days, and should broadly mirror the protections available under Section 14.

As insolvency jurisprudence continues to evolve, the concept of an interim moratorium exemplifies how courts have balanced legislative silence with commercial necessity. If the assets of a corporate debtor are dissipated before admission, the insolvency process itself risks becoming futile. Whether this innovation ultimately finds statutory recognition remains a question for Parliament, but its significance in preserving the efficacy of the insolvency regime is undeniable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.