PIRP moratorium under Section 101 IBC terminates automatically after 180 days, permitting continuation of execution proceedings.

The Decree Holder (DH) sought the attachment and sale of several properties of the Judgment Debtors (JD) to recover an awarded amount of approximately ₹385.40 Crores

The JDs opposed the application, arguing that since they were undergoing a Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the execution proceedings should be stayed to avoid affecting the rights of other creditors and the proposed repayment plan

The DH countered that the statutory moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC had already expired after the lapse of 180 days from the date of admission of the insolvency application

The DH further relied on an NCLT order dated 07.10.2025, which extended the timeline for the repayment plan but explicitly noted that the moratorium had ceased

1. Whether the moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC in a Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) is time-bound and automatically ceases upon the expiry of 180 days, regardless of whether a repayment plan has been finalized.

2. Whether recovery/execution proceedings can proceed independently against a personal guarantor once the statutory moratorium under the IBC has lapsed.

Section 101 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which stipulates that a moratorium in a PIRP commences upon admission of an application under Section 100 and ceases at the end of 180 days or upon an order on the repayment plan under Section 114, "whichever is earlier"

The court distinguished this from Section 14(4) of the IBC, which applies to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRP) and maintains the moratorium until the completion of the process

The court relied on the precedent in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416, which establishes that recovery proceedings and IBC proceedings are independent and can operate in parallel streams

The court observed that Section 101 of the IBC must be strictly construed according to its plain language

It noted that the legislative intent behind the phrase "whichever is earlier" in Section 101 is to make the PIRP moratorium inherently time-bound

Unlike the corporate insolvency framework, the PIRP framework does not provide for the continuation of the moratorium beyond 180 days in the absence of an adjudicatory order on the repayment plan

In this instance, since 180 days had elapsed and the NCLT had specifically clarified that the moratorium had ceased despite an extension of time to finalize the repayment plan, the court found no legal embargo to continue execution

The court rejected the JDs' argument that judicial restraint should be exercised to maintain parity among creditors, holding that once the temporary statutory protection (the moratorium) expires, the DH's right to pursue ordinary legal remedies is restored

Consequently, there was no legal impediment to the attachment of the JDs' assets

The court ordered the attachment of four specified properties (excluding Serial No. 3 due to potential legal issues)

A Court Receiver was appointed to conduct the sale of these properties within six months, with a fixed remuneration of ₹10,00,000

The application (EX.APPL.(OS) 2852/2022) was disposed of with these directions