The NCLAT made the observation while dismissing an appeal by a personal guarantor who had challenged a May 1 NCLT order to appoint a resolution professional (RP).

By this order, the NCLT had asked the RP to examine an application to initiate CIRP against a personal guarantor of Supertech Limited, which had defaulted on some loans. The RP was ordered to submit a report on the matter under Section 99 of the IBC.

This May 1 order was passed on an application under Section 95 (application by creditor to initiate insolvency resolution process, in respect of personal guarantors) of the IBC by a financial creditor, IFCI Bank Ltd. The application was filed on June 2, 2021, and registered on August 9, 2021.

Notably, another financial creditor, PNB Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL), filed a similar application about a month later, on July 14, 2021. However, this application was registered on August 2, 2021, which was before IFCI's application was registered.

On May 1 this year, the NCLT appointed an RP to examine if the insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantor should be taken forward.

The personal guarantor challenged this May 1 order before the NCLAT on the ground that an interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC barring any such proceedings - which was triggered by PNBHFL's application - was still in force.

This appeal before NCLAT was contested by IFCI, which argued that even if PNBHFL's application was registered first, IFCI's application was filed much earlier. The moratorium period referred to in Section 96 thus began from the date on which IFCI's application was filed (June 2), it was argued. The prior registration of PNBHFL's application or its pendency was of no consequence, IFCI contended.

The fate of the appeal thus hinged on when an interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC would start - whether it is the date from which an application for initiating CIRP is filed or the date from which such an application is registered.

The NCLAT eventually agreed with IFCI's stance, relying on previous verdicts which held that the date of "filing" of an application under Section 95 is the date when it is e-filed and not when it is numbered and registered by the registry.

"Applying the above ratio in the present case, we have to hold that filing of the Application by IFCI, was prior in time and the mere fact that Application filed by PNBHFL was registered earlier is inconsequential and moratorium shall commence on filing of the Application by IFCI," the NCLAT held, before proceeding to dismiss the appeal.