Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 441

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical), Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Member (Judicial)
Patanjali Foods Ltd – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd – Respondent
COMPANY PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2017

Advocates:
For the Applicant/Appellant:Senior Advocate Gaurav Joshi, Adv. Sanjay Datta, Adv. Kunal Vaishnav, Adv. Surekh Kant, Adv. Asher Revijab, Adv. Jasjeet Singh, Adv. Nisha Kaba
For the Respondents:Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Ld. Sr. Advocate, Adv. Siddharth Ranade, Adv. Nishi Bhankaria, Adv. Kaazvin Kapadia, Adv. Mahima Tahiliani

The court ruled that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be deemed effective without an express declaration, establishing the importance of clear procedural compliance in insolvency contexts.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 60(5) and Section 14 - Moratorium - Effective date of moratorium declared to commence from corporate insolvency commencement date of 08.12.2017, under Section 7(6), notwithstanding potential delays in formal declarations - The Tribunal found that an automatic commencement of moratorium could not be implied without express declaration, which must stem from the Order - The Tribunal emphasized that a moratorium is not effective until it is expressly declared to ensure proper protection of corporate assets. (Para 29)

(B) Resolution Plan - The parties must adhere to the provisions laid out regarding the moratorium, and the court cannot grant equitable relief if it circumvents the express legislative intentions of the IBC. A clear timeline of events leading to the moratorium was outlined to corroborate the Tribunal’s findings on the matter. (Para 35)

Facts of the case:
The present case revolves around a dispute concerning the effective date of a moratorium after a corporate insolvency was declared for Patanjali Foods Ltd under the IBC. The applicant sought reversal of transactions with ICICI Bank citing that they had contravened the moratorium provisions laid out under Section 14 of the IBC.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the moratorium date is established by legislative provisions and that any gaps in administrative declarations cannot retroactively imply a moratorium. The resolution plan was noted as valid only under specific dates outlined post review of corporate creditor obligations.

Issues: The main issues include: Determine when the moratorium began, whether it should be automatically declared, and the subsequent implications for prior transactions leading to the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal’s ruling underscored that the moratorium must be expressly declared; thus, the obligations of creditors and the entire resolution process hinge on accurate interpretations and applications of statutory provisions outlined by the IBC.

Result: The tribunal dismissed IA 1983 of 2025, thereby allowing IA 2915 of 2025 submitted by ICICI Bank Ltd.

Table of Content
1. filing of insolvency petition. (Para 1 , 3 , 10)
2. arguments regarding moratorium declaration. (Para 2 , 27 , 30)
3. court's interpretation of effective moratorium. (Para 18 , 19 , 21)
4. emphasis on express moratorium declaration. (Para 25 , 28 , 29)
5. final decision rendered on applications. (Para 36)

ORDER

1. The Interlocutory Application IA 1983 of 2025 is filed on 1.5.2025 by Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known as Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) under Section 60 (5) read with Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC/Code") along with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 ("NCLT Rules") inter alia seeking a declaration that the moratorium qua the Applicant in the captioned Company Petition is effective from the insolvency commencement date i.e. 08.12.2017, and reversal of certain transactions caused and effectuated by ICICI Bank Ltd. (‘Respondent’) consequentially becoming barred under of the Code. The Applicant has made following prayers :

a) Declare that moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code takes effect from the insolvency commencement date i.e. 08.12.2017;

b) Direct the Respondent to reverse the amount of Rs. 65,83,56,133.93/- illegally debited in contravention of the IB Code from Applicant into the current account of the Applicant herein being 09978175953 maintained with State Bank of India, Commercial Branch Indore; and

c) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts of the present case.

2. Interlocutory Application IA 2915 of 2025 is filed by ICICI Bank Limited seeking the dismissal of Interlocutory Application No. 1983 of 2025 filed by Patanjali Foods Ltd.

3. On 27.01.2017, Standard Chartered Bank and DBS Bank Limited, the financial creditors of Ruchi Soya Industries Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) had filed Company Petition Nos. 1371 and 1372 of 2017 under Section 7 of the Code before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai and this Tribunal passed two order(s) both dated 8.12.2017, which reads identically as follows :

"C.P NO. 1372/I&BP/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017 The Company Petition admitted, vide separate order."

4. On that day, the Corporate Debtor as well as Petittioners through their Counsel were in attendance. Immediately on the next date and in consonance with the requirement under Regulation 30 of the SEBI, (Listing Obligation and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, the Applicant vide letter dated 09.12.2017 bearing number 'RSIL/2017' intimated the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited of the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Applicant.

5. Thereafter, this Tribunal passed a detailed common order (stated thereon “delivered on 15.12.2017” and also “Order pronounced on 8.12.2017”) giving reasons for admission of Company Petition, declaring moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Code and appointing Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) to carry out Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Corporate Debtor.

6. Prior to initiation of CIRP, the Corporate Debtor had entered into a Working Capital Facility Agreement dated 15.05.2013 with certain lenders, including the Respondent herein, to meet the working capital requirements of the business and to ensure payment to the suppliers of the business. In terms of the said Agreement, Respondent had extended certain fund based and non-fund based working capital facilities to the Applicant, aggregating up to Rs 563 .25 Crores.

7. The Corporate Debtor maintained two current accounts with Respondent at its Mumbai and Indore branches bearing account numbers '000405023507' and '004105013333'. The said current accounts were used for majority of cash flow of the Applicant including the receipts and payments pertaining to its operations.

8. That Respondent vide sanction letter dated 04.07.2014 extended non-fund-based/ credit facility in the form of Letter of Credit ("LC") to the Applicant, and the same was renewed from time t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 441

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALPrabhat Kumar, Member (Technical), Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Member (Judicial)Patanjali Foods Ltd – AppellantVersusICICI Bank Ltd – RespondentCOMPANY PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2017

The court ruled that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be deemed effective without an express declaration, establishing the importance of clear procedural compliance in insolvency contexts.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical), Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey, Member (Judicial)
Patanjali Foods Ltd – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd – Respondent
COMPANY PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2017