Write short notes on the following: Will SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevail over Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ? Explain with Decided Cases.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over SARFAESI Act, 2002. Both of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and SARFAESI Act, 2002 serve different purposes and operate independently. However, there can be situations where conflicts arise between the two laws, especially when it comes to the rights and remedies available to creditors. In general, if there is a conflict between the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the IBC, the provisions of the IBC shall prevail in light of the provisions of section 238 of IBC, 2016 which provides as follows: "The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." It is to be noted that a similar non-obstante clause is present in Section 35 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as well however, given that IBC is a later and more comprehensive legislation that deals specifically with insolvency and bankruptcy matters, including the resolution of default situations, it will prevail in case of any conflict in the provisions of both the Laws. In the case of Canara Bank V/s Shri Chandramoulishvar Spg. Mills (P) Ltd., the NCLAT while referring to Supreme Court's verdict in Innovative case has ruled that when two proceedings are initiated, one under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) and the other under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, then the proceeding under the Code shall prevail. The appeal in the case was preferred by the Financial Creditor i.e., Canara Bank against the NCLT's (National Company Law Tribunal) Order, whereby the application preferred by Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor) against the Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Sri Chandra Moulishvar Spinning Mills Private Limited was admitted by the Tribunal. The Appellant's main grievance in the case was that he had already initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for recovery against the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT in view of the issue involved in the case, made reference to Supreme Court's verdict in the case of Innoventive Industries Ltd. V/s ICICI Bank, whereby the Apex Court was of the view that if the application under Section 9 is complete and there is no 'existence of dispute' and there is a 'debt' and 'default' then the Adjudicating Authority is bound to admit the application. Thus, NCLAT upheld NCLT's decision and also noted that such action cannot continue as the Code will prevail over SERFASESI Act, 2002.