The interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not apply to corporate debtor's properties, allowing SARFAESI actions against them while protecting only the personal guarantor's assets.

ORDER

1.Aggrieved against the order dated 27.5.2025 passed in IA No.1644/2025 in SA 82/2025 on the file of DRT-III, Mumbai appellant filed this Appeal under Section 18 ofthe SARFAESI Act .

2. Respondents filed SA No.82/2025 to quash and set aside the possession notice dated 29.1.2025 issued by Tehsildar, Nasik; to quash and set aside order dated 15.1.2024 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by learned District Magistrate, Nasik; to quash and set aside order dated 8.5.2025 passed by learned District Magistrate, Nasik, the Notice issued on 13.5.2025 by advocate commissioner for taking physical possession and for other reliefs.

3.W hen the said SA was pending, respondents 1 and 2 filed IA No.1644/2025 sought an order of injunction restraining the advocate commissioner from in any manner implementing and/or executing and/or taking any steps pursuant to the order dated 8.5.2025 and order dated 13.5.2025 and from taking physical possession on 29th & 30th May, 2025 and other relief. In the said IA, learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Mumbai passed the following order.

"Interim moratorium under Section 96 is in operation as per the applicant and receipt produced by applicant.

The Respondent/bank contends that there are two mortgages. Section 94 , IBC is against the owner of the flat. The respondent can proceed against the property of the company.

It is seen that the proceedings are initiated against one and the same debt. The person involved has no relevance herein. So in view of the moratorium against the same debt, the respondent/Bank cannot proceed herein until the moratorium is lifted"

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that SARFAESI Act , 2002 deals with measures taken under the Act against the secured asset, in the event of the account becoming non performing asset. It is self contained Act and measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act can be challenged only if measures taken are not in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act . The scope of IBC is different. IBC 2016 is an "Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to re- organization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

5. On the other hand, SARFAESI Act aims to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and to provide for a Central database of security interests created on property rights, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

6. W hether moratorium under Section 96 of IBC operates on filing of an application under Section 94 and 95 of IBC is a matter to be decided by NCLT. It is not for the DRT to pass an order stopping further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act on filing an application under or 95 of the IBC. Separate procedures have been provided for initiating Corporate Insolvency Process against Corporate entities under Sections 7, 9Z 10 and 14 of IBC and against individuals and/or partnership firm under , 95 and 96 of IBC.

7. In the case on hand, the property had already been sold. Therefore, there is no question of moratorium operating against the