Advocates:
Counsel for parties:Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv. For M/s. Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR M/s. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Mr. Anurag Kishore, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, AOR Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Riya Thomas, Adv. Ms. Aadya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pant, Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Nirvikar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nitin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR Mohd. Ainul Ansari, Adv. Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, AOR Mr. Sunil Khatwani, Adv. Ms. Ritu Rajkumari, Adv. Ms. Ekta Rani, Adv. Mr. Jauhar Ali, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Purti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Henna George, Adv. Ms. Shivani Sharma, Adv. Ms. Twisha Issar, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR Mrs. Malavika Jayanth, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. A.S. Vairawan, Adv. Mr. Mani Prabu, Adv. Mr. Santhosh, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Vikash, Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Mr. Hardik Gautam, Adv. Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Varun Bedi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Ms. Pritha Srikumar, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy, Adv. Mr. Karuppiah Meyyappan, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Girotra, Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Chaurasia, Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, AOR Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Mr. Harneet Singh Oberoi, Adv. Mr. Sumit Teterrwal, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Karan Chahar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Vinay Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, AOR Mr. Raveesh Thakral, Adv. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, AOR Ms. Shagun Matta, AOR Mr. Aman Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Kunnal Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Raghav Mathur, Adv. Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, AOR Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain, Adv. Mr. Ishkaran Singh, Adv. Ms. Kajal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Ms. Shivranjani Ralawata, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Anil Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Adv. Mr. Sushant Dogra, Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, AOR Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Apoorv Khator, Adv. Ms. Debolina Roy, Adv. Mr. Saurobroto Dutta, Adv.

The legal judgment clarifies that proceedings initiated under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are primarily aimed at recovering dishonored cheque amounts, are considered quasi-criminal in nature. These proceedings are described as "quasi-criminal" because they have characteristics of both civil and criminal processes, with the primary objective being the enforcement of civil liabilities through a criminal law framework (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court emphasizes that the object of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is to preserve the assets of the corporate debtor during the insolvency resolution process, thereby facilitating the ongoing business operations and maximizing value for stakeholders (!) (!) . Since proceedings under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involve legal actions related to debts and liabilities, they fall within the broad scope of "proceedings" contemplated by Section 14, given their impact on the assets and financial standing of the corporate debtor (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the wide language used in Section 14(1)(a), including terms like "institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings," indicates an inclusive approach that covers criminal proceedings that are in respect of transactions evidencing debt or liability (!) (!) . The object and setting of the statute suggest that proceedings which directly relate to the enforcement of financial obligations, even if criminal in form, should be considered within the scope of the moratorium, especially since the proceedings aim at recovering debts or assets (!) (!) (!) .

The judgment also highlights that the rules of statutory construction, such as ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, cannot be used to restrict the plain and wide meaning of the term "proceedings" in Section 14, particularly given the object of the legislation and the broad language employed (!) (!) (!) . The wide interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent depletion of assets and to provide a breathing space during the resolution process, which would be undermined if criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings were excluded from the moratorium (!) (!) .

In conclusion, proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including criminal complaints for dishonored cheques, are to be regarded as "proceedings" within the meaning of Section 14 of the IBC. These proceedings impact the assets and liabilities of the corporate debtor and are thus covered by the moratorium, unless explicitly excluded by specific provisions or objects of the legislation (!) (!) (!) .