IBC Moratorium Doesn't Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Corporate Debtor's Leased Property To Lessor: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sincere Securities Private Limited & Ors. Versus Chandrakant Khemka & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5) held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not bar the voluntary handover of property leased by the corporate debtor to the lessors if retaining the asset is deemed unviable and the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) endorses the decision.

Committee Of Creditors Continues To Exist Till Resolution Plan Is Implemented Or Liquidation Order Is Passed : Supreme Court

Case No.: KALYANI TRANSCO Vs MS BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. | C.A. No. 1808/2020 and connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 954

In the JSW Steel matter, the Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not become functus officio merely upon the approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court held that the CoC continues to have a role until the resolution plan is fully implemented or an order of liquidation is passed.

NCLT, NCLAT Vacancies Must Be Filled On War Footing; RERA Must Be Adequately Staffed : Supreme Court

Cause Title: Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. (and connected cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to fill up the vacancies at the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on a “war-footing.” The Court observed that dedicated IBC benches with additional strength should be constituted and services of retired judges may be utilized on an ad hoc basis until regular appointments are made.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan further directed the Union Government, within three months, to file a compliance report on measures taken to upgrade NCLT/NCLAT infrastructure nationwide. The Court also directed the States to ensure that RERA authorities are adequately staffed with infrastructure, experts, and resources, emphasizing that failure to do so may invite strict intervention by the Court.

IBC | Homebuyers Can't Be Denied Flat Possession If Their Claims Were Verified & Admitted By Resolution Professional : Supreme Court

Cause Title: AMIT NEHRA & ANR. VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 882

The Supreme Court has held that once a claim is verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP), it cannot be treated as “belated” to deny substantive relief under a resolution plan.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled in favour of the homebuyers, observing that their verified and admitted claims could not be downgraded to 'unverified' merely because of delayed filing, especially when such treatment wrongly denied them flat possession and confined them to a partial refund despite having paid substantial consideration. The Court directed the Resolution Applicant to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of the flat to the appellants within two months.

Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing Of Review Petitions Against Rejection Of JSW's Resolution Plan For Bhushan Power & Steel

Case Name: Punjab National Bank & Anr v Kalyani Transco & Ors

Case Number: R.P.(C) No. 1432/2025 in C.A. No. 1808/2020 and connected cases

The Supreme Court accepted the request for an open court hearing of the review petition filed against the May 2 judgment which had rejected JSW's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL). A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the parties on the review petition and posted the matter for hearing on July 31 at 3 PM.

High Court

Scheme Of Compromise Sanctioned By Court Under Companies Act Cannot Be Frustrated By Invoking Provisions Of SARFAESI Act: Calcutta HC

Case Name:ARCL Organics Ltd. Versus Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund

Case Number:CA 136 of 2017

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a scheme of arrangement/compromise sanctioned under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be unilaterally frustrated by a secured creditor by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The application was filed, praying for the execution of an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement/ compromise under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, as a deemed decree within the meaning of CPC, 1908. The applicant also requested the Hon'ble High Court to direct the respondent to issue “No Objection Certificate” for release of all charges on assets and properties of the applicant.

Insolvency Resolution Professional Is Public Servant, Sanction Needed To Prosecute Him Under Prevention of Corruption Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.16812 of 2025

The Madras High Court has recently directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to consider granting sanction for prosecuting a Resolution Professional for allegedly mismanaging funds of a company during a resolution process. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the resolution professional performed duties in connection with the administration of justice, was a person from whom a report was called for by the court of justice, and was performing a public duty. Thus, the court noted that the Resolution Professional would come within the definition of public servant as provided under Section 2(c)(v), 2(c)(vi), and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Delhi High Court Transfers Winding-Up Petitions Against Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt Ltd To NCLT

Case Name: Sh. Alok Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. M/s Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: CO.PET. 740/2014

The Delhi High Court has transferred winding-up petitions filed against Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt Ltd to the NCLT.

The bench, presided over by Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, observed that since the present application is also related to the transfer of winding-up proceedings of the respondent company to the NCLT, it would be appropriate to transfer these petitions as well so as to enable the effective adjudication of the matters. Lastly, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to proceed further with the proceedings of NCLT in accordance with law.

Gujarat High Court Stays IBBI Disciplinary Committee's Order Suspending Resolution Professional For 6 Months

Case Title: Chandra Prakash Jain v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Case No.: R/SCA No. 11944 of 2025

The Gujarat High Court last week stayed an order issued by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) which had suspended the registration of an insolvency resolution professional for six months pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.

The court passed the order after the petitioner questioned the procedure by which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. Justice Mauna M Bhatt issued notice on the petitioner's plea challenging an August 20 order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI whereby the petitioner's registration was suspended for 6 months from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of order.

Absence Of Disciplinary Proceedings Bars NCLT From Rejecting Proposed IRP Under IBC: Madras High Court

Case Name: K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Case No.: W.P. No. 22949 of 2025

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar, has held that in the absence of disciplinary proceedings pending against a professional, the NCLT is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the applicant under Sections 7 and 10 of the IBC, 2016. The Court observed that in an application under Sections 7 or 10, there is no statutory discretion available to the adjudicating authority to reject or substitute the IRP recommended by the corporate applicant.

Setting aside the impugned order of the NCLT, the Court clarified that the robust mechanism under Section 22 of the IBC empowers the CoC to replace the IRP by a 66% majority vote if needed. It directed the NCLT to pass a fresh order in accordance with the statutory scheme within six weeks.

NCLT Is Bound To Appoint IRP Proposed By Corporate Debtor: Madras High Court

Case Title: K.J. Vinod (Insolvency Professional) v. Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. No. 22949 of 2025 with W.M.P. Nos. 25783 & 25784 of 2025

The Madras High Court has held that the suggestions of the financial creditor, operational creditor, or corporate debtor with regard to the appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) are liable to be accepted. While hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of an IRP by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, the court interpreted Sections 10 and 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, observing that the IBBI is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the financial creditor or corporate debtor.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked When Party Has Already Approached DRT Under SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition while upholding that if a borrower has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, for a one-time settlement, a writ seeking the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

SARFAESI Act | Fresh Notice To Legal Heirs Of Borrower Not Necessary To Take Possession Under S.14: J&K High Court

Case Name: Mst. Sundri and Ors Vs J&K Bank & Anr

Case Number / Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 284

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that a secured creditor is not required to issue a fresh notice to the legal heirs of a deceased borrower before invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the bank under Section 14, observing that once notice under Section 13(2) has been served upon the borrower and the liability is not discharged within 60 days, the secured creditor is well within its rights to proceed under Section 14 to take possession of the secured assets.

NCLAT

NCLAT Judge Recuses From Case Saying He Was Approached By 'Higher Judiciary Member' To Favour A Party

Case Name: Mr. Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy Suspended Director of M/s. KLSR Infratech Ltd. v. M/s. AS Met Corp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Case No.: IA No. 487/2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 210/2023

The judicial member of NCLAT, Chennai Bench, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, recused himself from hearing an insolvency appeal citing that he was approached by "one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary" seeking a favourable order for one of the parties. The appeal challenges a July 14, 2023, order admitting KLSR Infratech Ltd. to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Employees Can't Be Paid Gratuity Dues In Addition To Payouts Allocated To Them In Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Name: Jadeja Ravirajsinh Juvansinh Versus Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. & Ors

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.733 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the employees of the corporate debtor cannot be paid gratuity dues in addition to the proposed payouts allocated to them in the Resolution Plan when it is clearly provided in the Resolution Plan.

Once Assignment Of Debt Is Declared Illegal, Assignee Loses Its Rights To File Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Name: Rajesh Vilasrao Patil Versus Savannah Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1201 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5907 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the assignment of debt from the bank to the applicant is found to be illegal and unauthorized, the very basis of filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC is knocked out, and such an applicant cannot be allowed to file the application on the basis of financial creditor's status.

Mere Rescheduling Of Payment Through New Agreement Does Not Change Repayment Obligations Under Original Agreement: NCLAT

Case Name: Vikram Bhavanishankar Sharma, Member of the Suspended Board of Directors of Supreme Panvel Indapur Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of India & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1811 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6979 & 8862 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that mere rescheduling of the payment date through an agreement does not alter the repayment obligations under the original Common Loan Agreement, nor does it result in novation. Therefore, an application under Section 7 of the IBC can be filed based on the original agreement.

Resolution Professional's Failure To Individually Inform Homebuyers About Insolvency Proceedings Goes Against Principles Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Name: Bharti Goyal and Anr. Versus Hector Realty Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1545 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5594 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the failure of the Resolution Professional to individually inform the homebuyers about the insolvency proceedings as mandated under Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, so they could file their claims on time, goes against the spirit of the IBC and vitiates the entire proceedings especially during Covid Pandemic.

Once Claims Are Received By Investors Under Settlement Agreement, They Are Prohibited From Claiming Same Amount Under Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Name: Shobhana Thakkar Versus Monitoring Committee of Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2156 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that once an investor of the Corporate Debtor has received an amount under the Settlement Agreement and has given an unconditional undertaking to forgo all claims under the Resolution Plan, they are barred from claiming the same amount under the Resolution Plan, as such dual recovery is impermissible.

Once CoC Agrees To Release Personal Guarantees Upon Payment, Invocation Cannot Be Directed By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Mukesh Goel v. Santanu Brahman & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1192 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4654, 4658 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), has held that if CoC has itself agreed to release the personal guarantees upon completion of payment under the Resolution Plan, no directions can be issued to invoke such guarantees.

Approved Resolution Plan Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Dissenting Financial Creditor's Dissatisfaction With Asset Valuation: NCLAT

Case Title: Central Bank of India Versus Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 713 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that approval of a resolution plan cannot be interfered with merely on the grievance of a single financial creditor regarding improper asset valuation of the corporate debtor, when the valuer has, in fact, duly considered all assets and submitted its report.

Litigants Can't Be Forced To Argue On Merits When They Did Not File Reply To RP's Report U/S 99 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Nandini Choudhary Versus Canara Bank and Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 814 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a litigant has not filed a reply to the Resolution Professional's report submitted under Section 99 of the IBC, due to sufficiently explained causes, requiring them to argue on merits would be premature and unjustified.

[Byju's Insolvency] No Adjudicatory Power Under IBC To Reconstitute CoC Or “Provisional Constitution” Of CoC: NCLAT, Chennai

Case Title: Byju Raveendran, Suspended Director and Promoter of M/s. Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. & 3 Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.120/2025 (IA Nos.329, 330, 381, 406 & 405/2025)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai bench has held that a Resolution Professional (RP) has no adjudicatory power under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Once the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is constituted, the RP cannot reconstitute the CoC on their own. The scope of updating claims is limited to determining the quantum and does not extend to reviewing the status of a creditor.

Power Of Attorney Can Be Executed By Officers Nominated By Designation, Not Necessarily By Name: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: Indian Bank v. M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 569 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice N. Seshasayee (Member – Judicial) and Arun Baroka (Member – Technical), has held that a power of attorney (POA) executed by bank officers nominated by their designation, rather than by name, is legally valid for instituting proceedings under the IBC, 2016.

CoC Has Discretion To Allow Resolution Applicant To Submit Revised Plan If Its Name Appears In Final Resolution Applicant List: NCLAT

Case Title: Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. Versus Avil Jerome Menezes, RP of Future Enterprises Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1022 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the committee of creditors (CoC) has discretion to allow the Resolution Applicant to submit a revised plan to maximise the value of the corporate debtor's assets if the Resolution Applicant's name appears in the final RA list.

Approval Of Resolution Plan Can't Be Interfered With Over 'NIL' Payment To Operational Creditors If Claims Have Been Properly Dealt With: NCLAT

Case Title: Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pulkit Gupta, RP of Vadraj Cement Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 831 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that since current legislative scheme does not mandate payment to Operational Creditors in event of the corporate debtor's liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the Resolution Plan approved by Committee of Creditors with 100% voting shares and in which the claims of the Operational Creditors have been properly dealt with.

In Absence Of Crystallised Debt Due To Dispute Over Quality Of Product Supplied, Petition U/S 9 Can't Be Admitted: NCLAT

Case Title: Ruchira Green Earth Private Limited Versus KLB Komaki Private Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1102 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when debt is not crystallized due to repeated communication on Whatsapp between the parties over the quality of the product supplied by the Operational Creditor and the defects acknowledged by the Supplier, an application under section 9 of the IBC cannot be accepted.

Required Percentage For Passing Resolution Must Be Calculated Based On Voting Shares Of All Creditors, Not Just Those Present & Voting: NCLAT

Case Title: Saariga Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar, RP, Richa Industries Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 887 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the required percentage of 66% as mandated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for passing a resolution by the Committee of Creditors cannot be counted merely based on voting shares of the creditors who are present and voting but voting shares of the all the creditors including absentees must be counted.

Limitation For Filing Application Under IBC Is Three Years If No Extension Is Sought, Even If Such Application Is Filed Based On Court's Decree: NCLAT

Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd. Versus Hemangi Patel

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 991 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the time period for filing an application under the IBC remains three years, even if it is based on a court decree. It is not extended merely because the limitation period for executing the decree is 12 years.

Order Passed By NCLT President On Transfer Application Listed In Court Is Judicial Order, Appealable U/S 421 Of Companies Act: NCLAT

Case Title: Sayam Shares & Securities (P) Ltd. Versus KSS Petron (P) Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1001 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that although the President of the NCLT exercises administrative functions such as listing and transferring cases, once a transfer application is listed before the Court, any order passed, even if by the President, becomes a judicial order, appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act.

'Hard To Believe Corporate Debtor Who Invested ₹5.5 Crore Was Unaware Of CIRP': NCLAT Refuses To Expunge Adverse Remarks Against Suspended Directors

Case Title:Bimal Kumar Jejani and Ors. Versus M/s Star Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 224 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that strong observations made against the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor, while passing an order of dissolution due to their non-cooperation in providing requisite statutory records to the Resolution Professional or the Liquidator and their continuous non-appearance before the Tribunal despite being served on the e-mails and at the postal address in the MCA date base cannot be expunged.

NCLT/NCLAT Under IBC Lacks Jurisdiction To Set Aside Auction Sale Conducted Prior To Initiation Of CIRP: NCLAT

Case Title: Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. Versus Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that an auction sale conducted before the commencement of the CIRP cannot be set aside by the NCLT while exercising its jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Such an auction is not hit by section 14 of the IBC.

90-Day Timeline Under Regulation 2B Of IBBI Regulations For Schemes Of Compromise/Arrangement Is Directory, Not Mandatory: NCLAT, Chennai

Case Title: M/S. Prakash Oil Depot vs. G. Madhusudhan Rao & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.304/2025 (IA No.892/2025) with Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.306/2025 (IA No.901/2025)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) have held that the 90-day timeline prescribed under Regulation 2B(1) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 for completing a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal held that the statute does not create an absolute bar on granting extensions, and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority may extend the period if it serves the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by promoting revival of the Corporate Debtor, reducing litigation, and respecting the commercial wisdom of the stakeholders.

Ex-Parte Order Is Invalid Where Company Petition Is Renumbered After Restoration Without Informing Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: Abhishek Singh, Suspended Director of Manpasand Beverages Ltd. Versus Yoginkumar Ashokbhai Patel & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1863 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a Company Petition is restored and assigned a different number, due to which the Corporate Debtor could not access the case and present its defence effectively, an ex-parte order cannot be passed in such circumstances. The Corporate Debtor should have been informed of the renumbering so it could present its defence.

Completion Certificate Issued By Corporate Debtor With Caveat On Rectification Of Defects Is Not Unconditional Acceptance Of Work: NCLAT

Case Title:Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited Office Versus Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1155 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4134, 4135, 4136 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Operational Creditor. The Tribunal held that issuance of completion certificate containing a caveat that the defects in the work have to be rectified cannot be construed as an unconditional acceptance of work. Therefore, it held that the petition under section 9 of the IBC was rightly rejected by the NCLT over a pre-existing dispute.

BIFR Scheme Under SICA Stands Superceded After Enforcement Of IBC, Benefits Can't Be Claimed After Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Title: Trinity Auto Components Ltd. Versus Axis Bank Ltd.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1757 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an unresolved claim under the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) scheme constitutes a claim under Section 3(6) of the IBC and should be dealt with within the Code. The failure of the BIFR scheme does not create an independent cause of action; therefore, benefits under the BIFR scheme cannot be claimed after approval of the resolution plan.

Termination Of Concession Agreement Does Not Discharge Corporate Debtor's Repayment Obligations When Unrelated To Its Default: NCLAT

Case Title:Vikram Bhawanishankar Sharma Member of the Suspended Board of Directors of Supreme Manor Wada Bhiwandi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Bank of India & Anr.

Case Number:Comp App. (AT) (Ins) No. 794 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2685 of 2023 & 1531 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that termination of a Concession Agreement by the Government of Maharashtra does not discharge the Corporate Debtor from its repayment obligations, especially when such termination has no relation to the default committed by the Corporate Debtor.

Debt Can Be Established Through Any Documentary Evidence Under Regulation 8(2) Of CIRP Regulations, Written Contract Not Needed: NCLAT

Case Title:Bijendra Prasad Mishra Versus M/s HS Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2364 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that a written contract is not a precondition to prove the existence of a legally payable debt. If other documentary evidence listed under Regulation 8(2) of the CIRP Regulations is available and clearly shows that the debt exists, it is sufficient to file an insolvency application.

Workmen Can Claim Dues After Layoff Only If They Continued To Work After Notice Was Issued By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title:UNITECH MACHINES KARAMCHARI SANGH Versus Vivek Raheja and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1418 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that if the workmen or employees fail to prove that they actually worked after a layoff notice was issued by the corporate debtor, they are not entitled to claim any dues for the period after the layoff. Such dues can only be claimed if they continued to work despite the layoff notice.

Application U/S 9 IBC Can't Be Rejected Over Issuance Of Demand Notice In Wrong Form When Invoices Contained In Notice Are Unchallenged: NCLAT

Case Title:KNK Ship Management Versus Thrani Industries Ltd.

Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2149 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 9 of the IBC cannot be rejected on a hyper-technical plea that, since the claim was based on invoices, the demand notice should have been issued in Form 4 of Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, not in Form 3, especially when the notice included all invoices, which were not challenged by the Corporate Debtor as fake or fabricated.

Successful Auction Purchaser Liable To Pay 'True-Up' Charges After Sale Of Corporate Debtor As Going Concern: NCLAT

Case Title:Maithan Alloys Limited Versus Easter Power Distribution Company

Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1514 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5492, 5493 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that once the Corporate Debtor is taken over by a Successful Auction Purchaser on a going-concern basis and a sale certificate is issued by the Liquidator, the purchaser cannot avoid its responsibility to pay true-up charges payable under law.

Restoration Of Plea U/S 7 Of IBC Not Permissible After Payment Of Principal & Interest By Corporate Debtor Upon NCLT's Order: NCLAT

Case Title: Campbell Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vipul Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1407 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5503 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the principal amount mentioned in Part IV of the application under Section 7 of the IBC along with interest is paid in pursuance of an order of the NCLT, the financial creditor cannot seek restoration of the application merely on the ground that interest on the entire principal amount was not paid, which crossed 1 crore; therefore, the NCLT should have restored the application.

Plea U/S 9 IBC Can't Be Admitted Once Affidavit Confirming Settlement Between Corporate Debtor & Operational Creditor Is Filed: NCLAT

Case Title: Dr. Indu Singh Suspended Director of G.V. Meditech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Prime Tower – A Partnership Firm & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 704 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the Corporate Debtor entered into a settlement with the Operational Creditor to discharge its liability, for which an affidavit confirming the settlement was also filed, the Adjudicating Authority cannot, overlooking these facts, admit an application under Section 9 of the IBC.

Rejection Of Legal Consultant's Claims By RP Over Absence Of Invoices In Corporate Debtor's Records Can't Be Set Aside: NCLAT

Case Title: Juristical Legal Services Versus Three C Universal Developers Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1451 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the rejection of the legal consultancy service provider's claim by the Resolution Professional, based on the absence of invoices for services in the Corporate Debtor's records, cannot be interfered with. Although the service provider was allotted flats/inventories in lieu of services, it is unclear whether this allotment was in discharge of services rendered to the Corporate Debtor or to its group companies, while the service provider claims it was for additional litigation services provided to the group companies but no evidence was presented for the same.

Corporate Debtor's Liability As Guarantor Remains Unaffected By Internal Adjustments Among Financial Creditors: NCLAT

Case Title: Pooja Ramesh Singh Versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1808 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6593 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that internal adjustments among the Financial Creditors in the form of merger, demerger, or amalgamation do not affect the liability of the Corporate Debtor as guarantor, especially when all terms and conditions of the Guarantee Deed remain intact even after such adjustments.

Corporate Debtor's Statement To Enter Into OTS With Financial Creditor Indicates Existence Of Debt And Default: NCLAT

Case Title: Rajratan Babulal Agarwal Versus State Bank of India & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 244 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Corporate Debtor's submission before the Adjudicating Authority regarding entering into a One Time Settlement with the Financial Creditor itself amounts to an admission of debt and default.

Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Filed Against Multiple Corporate Debtors Forming Part Of Same Project: NCLAT

Case Title: Mr. Satyabrata Mitra and Ors. Versus Earth Towne Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2171 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8108 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an application under section 7 of the IBC can be filed against multiple corporate debtors which are part of the same project.

Adjudicating Authority Can Decide Allegations Of Fraud U/S 65 Of IBC While Resolution Plan Is Being Considered: NCLAT

Case Title: Expert Realty Professionals Private Limited Versus Logix Infrastructure Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 383 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice N Seshasayee and Mr Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the stage at which an application under Section 65 is considered is inconsequential; and if fraud in initiating insolvency proceedings is proved, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. The mere fact that a resolution plan was under consideration when the application under Section 65 was filed does not denude the Adjudicating Authority of its power to decide allegations of fraud and collusion.

Approval Of OTS Proposal By One Member Of Consortium Subject To Approval Of Other Lenders Can't Bar Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: RAJENDER KUMAR PAHWA (SUSPENDED DIRECTOR OF GOODLUCK CARBON PRIVATE LIMITED) Versus CANARA BANK and ORS.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the corporate debtor, and approved by one consortium member subject to approval by all members, cannot bar the filing of an application under Section 7 of the IBC merely because the OTS is pending consideration before other lenders.

Claims Of EPFO Based On Inspection Conducted During CIRP Are Unenforceable: NCLAT

Case Title: CA Pankaj Shah Versus Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 17 of 2025 & I.A. No. 77 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the claims of the EPFO based on inspection conducted subsequent to initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) are unenforceable and cannot be admitted.

Specific Pleadings U/S 9 Of IBC Regarding Part Payments, Supported By Written Acknowledgment Resets Limitation Period: NCLAT

Case Title: Paresh K. Mehta Investment Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of India & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1197 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when there are specific pleadings under Section 9 of the IBC regarding part payments made by the Corporate Debtor, further supported by a written acknowledgment in the reply to the demand notice, the limitation period for filing the application is reset in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

Guarantor's Liability Can't Be Restricted To Cap Prescribed Under Deed Of Guarantee On Principal Borrower's Liability: NCLAT

Case Title: ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Seeta Neeraj Shah and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 731 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the liability of the guarantor cannot be restricted to only the capped amount prescribed in respect of the principal borrower's liability, since the guarantor's liability to discharge repayment obligations upon invocation of the guarantee and the principal borrower's liability operate in separate spheres.

Issue Of Share Application Money As Financial Debt Once Decided In Earlier Proceedings Can't Be Reagitated In Subsequent Plea U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Ajit Kumar Gupta Versus Uniexcel Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1686 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the issue of whether share application money amounts to a financial debt has been decided by the Adjudicating Authority in earlier proceedings, the same question cannot be agitated in a subsequent application filed under Section 7 of the IBC as such a plea is barred by res judicata.

When There Is More Than One Guarantor, Creditor Has Discretion To Proceed Against All Or Any One Of Them: NCLAT

Case Title: Kiran Kumar Jain Versus Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: I.A. No. 4524 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 955 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra has held that it is for the creditors to decide whether to proceed against all or any one of the personal guarantors when there are multiple guarantors. Therefore, an application under Section 95 of the IBC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the creditor chose to proceed against only one of the personal guarantors.

Mere Allegations Of Fraud Can't Invalidate Auction When Unsuccessful Bidder Failed To Put In Bid Despite Opportunity: NCLAT

Case Title: Jai Agarwal Versus Satyendra Prasad Khorania

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 30 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that mere bald assertions or allegations of fraud cannot invalidate an otherwise valid auction, especially when the unsuccessful bidder was given ample opportunity to log in to the system but failed to place a valid bid.

Unexplained Delay In Filing Second Petition U/S 94 Of IBC After Dismissal Of First Reflects Malafide Conduct Of Litigant: NCLAT

Case Title: MR. MANOJ AGGARWAL Versus KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 4 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that filing a second petition under Section 94 of the IBC, without disclosing that the earlier petition based on the same facts and cause of action had been dismissed, reflects mala fide conduct on the part of the litigant. Therefore, the second petition cannot be entertained unless sufficient explanation is provided for the delay in filing it after the dismissal of the first petition.

NCLT Can Grant Ex-Post Facto Approval To Criminal Complaints Filed Against Former Management With Adequate Reasons: NCLAT

Case Title: Pankaj Tandon Versus Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through its Liquidator CA Rajeev Bansal

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 201 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to grant ex-post facto approval of criminal complaints filed against the Ex-management by providing adequate reasons.

Money Deposited By Borrower As Precondition For Sanction Of Guarantee Ceases To Be Corporate Debtor's Asset Upon Invocation Of Guarantees: NCLAT

Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank Versus Consortium of GSEC Limited and Rakesh Shah and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 943 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Margin Money deposited by the borrower as a precondition for sanction of Bank Guarantees, being payable towards the Bank Guarantees invoked by the beneficiary, ceases to be the Corporate Debtor's asset once such guarantees are invoked. Therefore, such appropriation of margin money is not hit by section 14 of the IBC.

Claims Based On Guarantee Can Be Considered By RP Even If Guarantee Was Not Invoked Before Insolvency Commencement Date: NCLAT

Case Title: Hemant Sharma, Resolution Professional Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1039 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the claims of the creditor can be considered by the Resolution Professional even if guarantee based on which the claims were filed was not invoked.

Successful Bidder Can't Claim Exemptions From Statutory Compliance Merely On Grounds Of Being Successful Bidder Of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: Shanti International, Through Amol Mittal v. Ram Singh Setia, Liquidator of Gajanan Solvex Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1063 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that a successful bidder is not entitled to claim exemptions from statutory compliances merely on the ground that the Appellant was a successful bidder of the corporate debtor.

Findings Of NCLAT While Remanding Case Can't Operate As Res Judicata When No Conclusive Opinion Is Expressed: NCLAT

Case Title: Deepak Raheja & Anr. Versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1039 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in earlier proceedings cannot operate as res judicata when no conclusive opinion was expressed, and the NCLT's order was set aside only for non-consideration of relevant materials and submissions.

Revival Of Company Petition Permissible On Default Of Settlement Terms Despite Absence Of Liberty In NCLT's Withdrawal Order: NCLAT

Case Title: 5MF &G Private Limited Versus BMI Wholesale Trading Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 521 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that a petition withdrawn pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties can be revived if the corporate debtor fails to make payment as per the settlement terms, where the agreement clearly provides for such revival in case of default. The absence of express liberty granted by the NCLT in the withdrawal order is immaterial.

Refund Of Security Amount Can't Be Considered As Acknowledgment Of Debt U/S 19 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT

Case Title: Protech Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1054 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that refund of security amount which was given by Operational Creditor for carrying out the work contract cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of debt under section 19 of the Limitation Act.

Borrower Can't Plead Non-Service At Previous Address When Change Of New Address Is Not Communicated To Creditor: NCLAT

Case Title: Sh. Sumeet Juneja Versus Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (SASF) and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2169 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that it is the bounden duty of the borrower to inform the creditor of any change in address. If demand notices and other important communications are sent to the previous address, the borrower cannot plead non-service when delivery of essential documents is established from the record.”

Adjudicating Authority Must Consider Application U/S 65 Of IBC On Merits When Allegations Of Malicious Initiation Of CIRP Are Raised: NCLAT

Case Title: Anil Singh Versus SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1069 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once an application under Section 65 of the IBC is filed and allegations of malicious or fraudulent initiation of the CIRP are raised, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to consider it on merits and cannot reject it solely on the ground of lack of locus.

Assignment Of Tax Dues By GST Dept Doesn't Violate Article 265 Or GST Act If CIRP Has Been Initiated: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Ellison Oil Field Services Pvt. Ltd., CITOC Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1876 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6923 of 2024

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that the assignment of tax dues by the GST Department doesn't violate Article 265 or the GST Act if CIRP has been initiated.

NCLAT Upholds Unilateral Set-Off In Commercial Transactions Based On Nominee Director's Signature On Financial Statements

Case Name: Future Consumer Ltd. Aussee Oats India Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1382 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5379 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has upheld the unilateral set-off by the corporate debtor against a financial creditor, even when the term sheet excluded such set-off.

Audit Report Is Not Conclusive Proof To Declare Commercial Transaction Fraudulent U/S 66(2) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Nalinesh Kumar Paurush v. Shree Vishvamurte Tradinvest Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2024 & IA No. 6783 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Judicial) and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), has held that a transactional audit report alone cannot be conclusive proof of fraudulent trading under section 66 of the IBC, 2016.

Resolution Professional Can Be Replaced U/S 60(5) IBC If He Deliberately Avoids Placing Agenda For His Replacement Before CoC: NCLAT

Case Name: Mathioli N, RP of MQ Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 412/2025 (IA No.1172/2025)

The NCLAT, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has held that Section 60(5) of the IBC can be invoked to replace a resolution professional (RP) if he deliberately avoids placing the agenda for his replacement before CoC.

Resolution Professional Can Terminate Leave & Licence Agreements Even In Absence Of RERA Proceedings: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Mr. Shanod Sameer Das & Ors. vs. CA. Pankaj Bhattad, Resolution Professional of Gigeo Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1425, 1426 & 1427 of 2025

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has upheld the termination of the leave and license agreement by the resolution professional (RP) in the absence of RERA proceedings.

Revival Of Insolvency Proceedings Permissible Despite Absence Of Revival Clause In Settlement Agreement: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Dnyaneshwar Shankar Unde, Proprietor of Swadarshan Dairy v. Shukla Dairy Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1269 of 2024

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Judicial), and Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has allowed the revival of the insolvency proceedings despite the absence of a revival clause in the settlement agreement.

The tribunal observed that the NCLT had itself granted the liberty to revive the application in case of failure of settlement and criticised the conduct of the respondent, noting that it cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold by first agreeing to pay and later defaulting. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored.

NCLAT Expunges NCLT Remarks Against SBI Officials, Says Tribunal Cannot Make Stigmatic Observations Without Giving Hearing

Case Name: State Bank of India v. Smt. Nandamuri Meenalatha & M/s. Vantage Spinners Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) Nos. 362 & 383 of 2025

The NCLAT, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has expunged stigmatic remarks against the SBI officials and counsel, holding that tribunals cannot make stigmatic observations or impose costs without giving an opportunity to be heard.

It held that before making any remark which may affect professionals' careers and future opportunities, they must be provided an opportunity to defend themselves. Since in this case there was no effective opportunity to present a defence, the stigmatic remarks stood expunged. The tribunal also modified the direction regarding communication of the order to the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI, making it a fresh order with observations to ensure diligence of subordinates assisting NCLT, Amaravati.

Accordingly, the appeal was partially allowed.

Recall Application Seeking Review Of NCLAT Judgment Is Not Permissible: NCLAT Chennai

Case Name: V. Venkata Sivakumar v. S. Hari Karthik, New Liquidator of The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd & Anr.

Case Number: Review App No. 03/2023 in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 155/2023 To Recall IA No. 677/2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra, has held that a recall application seeking review of the NCLAT's order is not permissible.

The bench observed that the recall application in essence sought review of the Tribunal's order, which is not permissible. It held that recall can only be exercised in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or where the court itself has committed a mistake — not as an alternative to an appeal. Since the appellant had the opportunity to appeal against the judgment, it could not seek recall. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

IDBI Trusteeship Can Initiate CIRP If There Is Valid Authorization From Assignee Of Debt: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Deepak Raheja & Anr. v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 180 of 2025

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that a security trustee can file a section 7 application seeking initiation of the CIRP if there is a valid authorization from the assignee of the debt.

The tribunal observed that the instructions dated 15.03.2023 and 23.03.2023 clearly authorized the IDBI Trusteeship to initiate the CIRP proceedings. It further observed that the security trustee agreement remained valid as the assignee stepped into the shoes of the original lender, and the IDBI Trusteeship continued to act in its authorized capacity. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.

EPFO Dues From Pre-CIRP Period Cannot Be Claimed Based On Assessment Made During Moratorium: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Vineeta Maheshwari, Resolution Professional of Bloom Dekor Ltd.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1618 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5915 of 2024

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that EPFO dues of the pre-CIRP period cannot be claimed based on assessments made during the imposition of the moratorium.

The bench noted that though the assessment pertained to a period before CIRP admission, it was carried out after the imposition of the moratorium. Referring to its earlier ruling in CA Pankaj Shah (Supra), it reiterated that no assessment can be done post-moratorium under section 14 of the IBC. Thus, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.

NCLT Cannot Allow Alternate Prayers After Rejecting Main Prayer Without Cogent Reasons: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Ini Agri Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No. 218 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5507, 5509 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member-Judicial) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority cannot reject the main prayer without cogent reasons and allow the alternative prayers.

The tribunal observed that the NCLT dismissed the main prayer without any cogent reason and allowed the alternative prayer; hence, it would be correct to remand back the matter to the NCLT. Accordingly, the NCLAT set aside the impugned order and directed the NCLT to relook into it.

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Invoke S.60(5) IBC When Ingredients U/S 66 Are Not Made Out: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Sudhir Dinanath Chatutvedi vs. True IPE LLP & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 540 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra, has held that the adjudicating authority cannot invoke section 60(5) of the IBC when ingredients of section 66 are not made out.

The NCLAT observed that there is no justification for allowing the application, especially when the adjudicating authority has itself observed that the ingredients of section 66 had not been made. The bench also noted that the relief sought was either not related to the appellant or pertained to the financial creditors and hence, was not sustainable.

Suspended Director Cannot Halt Liquidation By Submitting Third-Party Settlement Offer After Expiry Of CIRP: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Deborshi Sadhan Bose v. Rakesh Duggar, Liquidator of E.C. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1267 of 2025

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that a suspended director cannot halt liquidation by submitting a third-party settlement offer after expiry of CIRP.

The appellant contended that it had given the higher offer and has also filed the application seeking direction to consider its offer. It was submitted that considering the higher offer is in accordance with the objectives of the CIRP. However, the NCLT kept the application pending and directed liquidation of the corporate debtor in furtherance of the application by the RP.

Distribution Among Financial Creditors Should Be Based On Pro Rata Basis As Per Vote Share: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sumit Sharma, Erstwhile RP & Anr

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1359 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5309 of 2025

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that the distribution among financial creditors should be based on security interest or on a pro rata basis as per voting shares.

The bench observed that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that CoC has passed the resolution plan adopting the voting share as the distribution mechanism of the debt. Also, the appellant's objection was pending before the adjudicating authority, and the resolution plan was approved. Further, the bench discussed the ruling of the State Bank of India v. IDBI Bank Limited & Anr., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 321/2024, and upheld the distribution based on the pro-rata basis.

Right To Sue U/S 9 Of IBC Begins When MSME Arbitral Award Becomes Final: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Haabia Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1027 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that the right to sue under section 9 of the IBC begins when the MSME award becomes final and operative.

The NCLAT observed that the date of issuance of the demand notice cannot be considered as the date for computing the limitation for the section 9 application. The tribunal mentioned that the application under section 9 has to be filed in accordance with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation from the date when the 'Right to Sue Accrues'. Here, the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were withdrawn in 2013, and on the same date, the award became final. Hence, the 'Right to Sue Accrues' when the award became final and operative.

NCLT's Reference To IBBI Order After Reserving Judgment Does Not Violate Natural Justice If RP Does Not Contest Order: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Pankaj Majithia, RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Vikas Kasliwal & Ors.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has observed that NCLT's reference to the IBBI order passed post reserving the judgment does not violate natural justice if the order is not contested by the resolution professional.

The tribunal observed that the appellant letter dated 04.07.2023 proved that he was aware of the notice, and it falsifies the stand of the appellant and also raises a question about his integrity. Considering the submission of the appellant with regard to IBBI, the bench noted that the appellant has not contended the IBBI order. And, since a fact is not denied, it hardly matters if the opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant or not.

Absence Of Charge Defeats Income Tax Department's Secured Creditor Status: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Parag Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1395 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that in the absence of a charge, the Income Tax Department cannot be considered as a secured creditor.

The NCLAT observed that the statement made by the Income Tax Department's counsel that the department has no charge against the demand of income tax stood unchallenged. It further noted that the adjudicating authority erred in presuming that the Income Tax Department is a secured creditor on the basis of Rainbow Papers (Supra) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra). Considering these circumstances, the NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT's order.

Vehicles Repossessed Before CIRP Can't Form Part Of Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLAT In Appeal By SMAS Auto Leasing Against Gensol

Case Title: SMAS Auto Leasing India Pvt. Ltd. v. Gensol Engineering Ltd. Through Its CoC and IRP

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1042 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical), disposed of an appeal filed by SMAS Auto Leasing India Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad, which had admitted the section 7 application filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited against Gensol Engineering Limited.

The NCLAT held that since 152 of the 164 leased electric vehicles had already been repossessed by SMAS under Delhi High Court orders prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), they do not form part of Gensol's insolvency estate and can't be dealt with by the Interim Resolution Professional. Finding no further purpose in continuing the matter, the NCLAT disposed of the appeal.

Neither Registry Nor NCLT Can Dismiss S.7 Petition Without Giving An Opportunity To Cure Defects In Supporting Affidavit: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: HDFC Bank v. Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1534 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5559, 5560 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that neither the registry nor the NCLT can dismiss a section 7 application without giving an opportunity to the party to cure the defects in the supporting affidavit.

The NCLAT observed that though the affidavit was sworn before the verification of the petition, the said defect is curable. Relying on the proviso to section 7(5)(b) of the IBC and the ruling in Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330, the tribunal held that it is the obligation of the adjudicating authority to give notice to rectify defects so that meritorious cases are not dismissed on technical grounds.

EPFO Dues Arising From Post-Liquidation Assessments U/S 7A Of EPF Act Are Not Admissible: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: The Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization v. Alok Kailash Saksena Liquidator of Gujarat Foils

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that the EPFO dues arising from the post-liquidation assessment under section 7A of the EPF Act are not admissible.

The bench observed that Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016, lays down that only those claims can be admitted that were existing at the time of the liquidation commencement date. Since the assessment of the EPFO claim was made after the liquidation commencement date, the claims were not in existence at the time of liquidation and are therefore inadmissible. The NCLAT upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal.

CIRP Order Based On GST Dept Letter Neither Addressed To, Nor Received By Corporate Debtor Is Invalid: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Ajay Rana, Director of Erstwhile Company Sarika Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar Goel & Ors.

Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1045 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3577, 3578 of 2023, 3403, 4010 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Judicial), and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has invalidated a CIRP order passed by the Adjudicating Authority based on a GST Department letter neither addressed to nor received by the corporate debtor.

The NCLAT observed that the letter relied upon by the operational creditor was not addressed to or received by the corporate debtor, making reliance on it for admission of the CIRP misplaced. It also held that in the absence of an agreement, interest based on unilateral invoices cannot be added to meet the threshold limit of ₹1 crore. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order admitting the CIRP was set aside.

Adjudicating Authority Can Enforce Arbitral Award Upon Application By Resolution Professional U/S 60(5) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. Vs. Mr. Satyendra Sharma, RP of Arkin Creations Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1180 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Technical), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Technical), and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority has jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC to entertain an IA filed by the Resolution Professional seeking enforcement of an arbitral award. The tribunal noted that once the adjudicating authority has taken up any matter, the jurisdiction of all other forums to take up the matter ceases and under section 60(5) of the IBC, the adjudicating authority is empowered to direct the judgment debtor to pay the outstanding amount.

The bench also observed that the award had attained finality as it was not challenged by the appellant and was necessary for the revival of the company. It further held that the 90-day limit prescribed under the MSME Act to pass the award is not mandatory, and its non-compliance cannot render the award a nullity. Hence, the tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal.

Corporate Debtor Cannot File Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC In Its Own Name After Appointment Of Resolution Professional: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Dhara Cements (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dineshbhai Khimjibhai Patel

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 444 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1520, 1521, 4288 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has held that a corporate debtor in its own name cannot file an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC after initiation of CIRP and appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Citing the ruling of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, the NCLAT observed that once an IRP is appointed, the management of the company stands suspended and it cannot maintain appeal in its name. The tribunal also noted that the IA seeking amendment to change the title was filed beyond the prescribed limitation under Section 61 of the Code. Finding no merit in the submissions of the corporate debtor, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.

NCLAT New Delhi Affirms CIRP Of M/S Revital Reality Private Limited (Group Company Of Supertech Limited)

Case Name: Mohit Arora (Suspended Director of Revital Reality Pvt. Ltd.) v. Manish Aneja & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1163 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has affirmed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Revital Reality Private Limited under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal held that the non-obtaining of an Occupation Certificate cannot be used as a defence when default arises from incomplete construction and failure to deliver possession to homebuyers. Relying on the rulings of Shailendra Agarwal vs. Asit Upadhyaya & Ors. and Manish Kumar v. Union of India, it noted that failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuing default and default against any allottee is sufficient for Section 7 proceedings.

Rejecting the plea for reverse CIRP, the Tribunal noted that it was not possible as the Section 7 applicants had opposed continuation by the promoter. Observing the decade-long delay and continued non-completion, NCLAT directed the Resolution Professional to proceed with issuance of Form G for early resolution of the corporate debtor, as early conclusion of the CIRP is warranted.

Additional Documents Need Not Be Filed With Reply To Demand Notice U/S 8(2) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1222 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has ruled that Section 8 of the IBC does not permit placing on record any documents with a reply to the demand notice except those specifically mentioned in sub-section (2). The appeal arose from an NCLT Mumbai order refusing to take on record additional documents filed by the corporate debtor after its reply in a Section 9 proceeding. NCLAT noted that the corporate debtor had referred to certain correspondence in its reply and was only seeking to place those materials formally on record.

Referring to Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and paragraph 89 of Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) 10 SCC 330, the Appellate Tribunal held that additional documents can be filed at any time before passing of the final order and the NCLT had misapplied the law. It therefore set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to take the additional documents on record, clarifying that it was not ruling on their relevancy but only on their admissibility at this stage.

Liquidation Is Only Recourse When Sole Financial Creditor Is A Related Party: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: STROS-Sedlcanske Strojirny, a.s. v. Poonam Basak (IRP for STROS Esquire Elevators & Hoists Pvt. Ltd.)

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2159 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Mr. N. Seshasayee (Member-Judicial), Mr. Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has held that liquidation is the only recourse where the sole financial creditor of a corporate debtor is also a related party. In the present case, the IRP found that the appellant was the only financial creditor and a related party, making the constitution of a Committee of Creditors impossible. The adjudicating authority had directed withdrawal of the CIRP application, but on appeal NCLAT noted that the corporate debtor was not a going concern and that the IBC does not provide for commencement of CIRP without a CoC.

While appreciating the appellant's reliance on Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 475, the tribunal observed that it cannot overstep the legislative scheme by permitting a related-party sole financial creditor to constitute a CoC. Emphasising that tribunals cannot leave a party remediless, NCLAT set aside the impugned order and directed liquidation of the corporate debtor as the only viable option in the circumstances.

[Reverse CIRP] NCLAT Closes CIRP Against Grand Reality Under Its Inherent Powers Upon Handover Of Flats To Homebuyers & Satisfaction Of Claims

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) exercising its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, has closed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. through the 'Reverse CIRP' mechanism. The project was completed under court-monitored supervision, and possession was handed over to all homebuyers, and no outstanding claims were due.

Procedural Direction To File An Affidavit On Ledger Accuracy Is Not Appealable U/S 61 Of IBC: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member – Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member – Technical), has held that the procedural direction requiring the appellant to file an affidavit confirming the accuracy of certain ledger transactions could not be appealed. The appeal was preferred u/s 61 of the IBC.

Ratification Of IRP Fees By CoC Can Be Implied From Meeting Minutes And Conduct: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member – Technical), has ruled that the application u/s 9 of the IBC, 2016, cannot be sustained if the operational debt is settled before the date of admission.

Financial Creditor Can't File Same Claim Twice For Same Loan In Multiple Insolvency Proceedings Without Proper Adjustment: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that a financial creditor is not permitted to file the same claim twice for the same loan in multiple insolvency proceedings without proper adjustment. In the present case, the Appellant filed the same claim in two separate proceedings without disclosing the claims filed in an earlier proceeding.

Intervention Application U/S 60(5) Of IBC Can't Be Entertained Beyond Limitation Period Of Three Years: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the Corporate Debtor cannot avoid its obligation to repay the debt on the ground that section 186 of the Companies Act was not followed while disbursing the loan. The aim of this provision is to protect the shareholders, not to shield the corporate debtor from its repayment obligations.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that once transactions are declared fraudulent under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Adjudicating Authority can pass an appropriate order directing the restoration of the demonstrated loss to the assets of the corporate debtor.

Conduct Of Litigant Can't Be Considered Bonafide When Fresh Order Is Challenged In Re-Filed Appeal After Curing Defects: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the conduct of the litigant cannot be considered bona fide when an appeal, re-filed after rectification of defects, challenges a new order different from the one challenged in the original appeal. Therefore, the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be granted to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the earlier proceedings.

Liability Of Corporate Debtor Not Discharged By Release Of Guarantors' Liability If Bank Preserves Right To Proceed Under IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the liability of the Corporate Debtor is not discharged merely because the guarantors were released from their liabilities by the Bank after One time settlement (OTS) especially when the Bank had preserved its right to proceed against the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Govt Cannot Maintain Attachment Of Property To Press For Recovery Outside Liquidation Framework: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member – Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member – Technical), has addressed the conflict between a secured creditor's statutory attachment under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Act, 1864, and the liquidation process under the IBC, 2016.

Bankrupt Can File Application For Discharge After One Year, If Bankruptcy Trustee Fails To Do So: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi held that when the Bankruptcy Trustee does not fulfil its statutory obligation under Section 138(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which requires the Trustee to apply for a discharge order after expiry of one year from the bankruptcy commencement date, the Bankrupt who is directly affected by continuance of the bankruptcy proceedings, can't be denied the right to approach the Adjudicating Authority and seek discharge.

Application U/S 7 Of IBC Withdrawn After Settlement Agreement Can Be Revived If Settlement Terms Are Breached By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the right of the financial creditor to seek revival of the original application filed under Section 7 of the Code cannot be taken away merely because a settlement agreement was reached, if the corporate debtor failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Belated Claims Of Homebuyers Can't Be Rejected If Their Units Are Reflected In Corporate Debtor's Records: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that claims filed by homebuyers cannot be rejected merely for being filed beyond the stipulated time period, if the homebuyer's unit is reflected in the list of homebuyers who had not filed their claims on time.

IBC Does Not Impose Time Limit For Rectification Of NCLT Orders: NCLAT New Delhi Upholds Two-Year Limit Under Rule 154 Of NCLT Rules

Case Name: Sandeep Goel (Erstwhile RP in CIRP of Sarvottam Realcon Pvt. Ltd.) v. Anugraham Builders

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 973 of 2025

The present appeal was filed by the erstwhile Resolution Professional of the corporate debtor against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, which approved the resolution plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant.

Fresh Application Correcting Typographical Error Is Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Application Was Dismissed On Merits: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Saurabh Premprakash Chugh v. The State Bank of India

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 718 of 2025

The present appeal has been filed against the adjudicating authority's order rejecting the section 94 application filed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application, noticing that a similar application (CP No. (IB)-7) of 2025 filed by the applicant seeking the same relief had earlier been dismissed by it.

DRT Recovery Certificate Confers Financial Creditor Status And Gives Rise To Fresh Cause Of Action: NCLAT Chennai

Case Name: Mr. Virigneni Anjaiah & Smt. Kadiyala Suneetha v. M/s Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) Nos. 163 & 164 of 2024

The company appeals were filed by the personal guarantors of the corporate debtor, challenging the order admitting the Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) against them u/s 95 of the IBC, 2016.

Claim Filed During Liquidation Must Be Dealt With U/S 53 Of IBC, NCLT Can't Direct RP To Make Payment Directly: NCLAT Delhi

Case Name: Atul Paper Pvt. Ltd. V/s Rakesh Kumar Jain, Liquidator for RG Infra Build Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1100 & 1101 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that a claim filed during liquidation must be dealt with as per the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the NCLT cannot direct a Liquidator to make payment to any claimant directly.

Justice Ashok Bhushan and Arun Baroka said: “We are of the view that when stakeholder filed a claim in the CIRP and in the liquidation, the claim is entitled to be dealt with as per Section 53 of the IBC. The Adjudicating Authority could not have issued any direction to make any payment to any stakeholder, dehors, the distribution as contemplated by the IBC. We, thus, are of the view that direction of the Adjudicating Authority for payment of Rs.2.01 crores to Atul Paper Pvt. Ltd., cannot be sustained.”

Mere Allegation Of Coercion, Threat, Or Fraud Without Prima Facie Proof Cannot Invalidate Withdrawal Of CIRP U/S 12A Of IBC: NCLAT Chennai

Case Name: M/s. K Computers vs. Mr. Pesaladinne Madhusudhan Reddy (IRP) & Mr. Kalyan Muppaneni

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 227/2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has held that the withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 12A of the IBC cannot be set aside on the mere allegation of coercion or threat unless that has been proved by sufficient evidence.

Fresh Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Filed Upon Default Under Restructured Terms: NCLAT

Case Title: GANGADHAR A. Versus CATALYST TRUSTEESHIP LTD AND ORS.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 698 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not prohibit parties from entering into an arrangement to restructure their debts during or after the section 10A period. If a restructuring agreement is executed between the parties, a fresh application under section 7 of the IBC can be filed upon default under the restructured terms.

Issuance Of Second Demand Notice U/S 8 Of IBC With Significant Changes Amounts To Fresh Notice: NCLAT

Case Title: Innovators Cleantech Private Limited Versus Pasari Multi Projects Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 115 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that issuance of a fresh demand notice with significant changes like claimed amount, date of default etc. triggers a time line therefore if any dispute is pending between the parties before the demand notice is issued, an application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be admitted.

Income Tax Refund Received By Bank During CIRP In Corporate Debtor's Account Cannot Be Withheld: NCLAT

Case Title: Indian Bank Versus Anshul Gupta, Liquidator Topsgroup Services & Solutions Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 85 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that Income Tax Refund received by the bank in the corporate debtor's account during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be withheld on ground and such amount must be remitted to the liquidation bank account of the corporate debtor.

Secured Creditor Is Obligated To Contribute Towards Workmen's Dues When Security Interest Is Realised Under SARFAESI Act: NCLAT

Case Title: Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Versus CS Anaghaanasingaraju, Liquidator for Pandit Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 67 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the obligation to contribute towards workmen dues out of the realised fund cannot be avoided by the Secured Creditor when the security interest has been realised under the SARFAESI Act. Section 52(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) permits a secured creditor to realise its security interest as applicable laws. Since in the present case, the security interest was realized under the SARFAESI Act, section 326 of the Companies Act shall be applicable and the realised amount must be distributed accordingly.

Application U/S 7 Of IBC Shall Be Deemed Withdrawn If Modification Application Is Not Filed Within 30 Days: NCLAT

Case Title: Hari Om Dixit Versus Ajit Srivastava & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 513 of 2024 & I.A. Nos.5085, 6475, 7338 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that failure to file a modification application under third proviso section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) within 30 days, from the date of commencement of the 2020 Amendment Act, to comply with the requirement of 100 allottees or 10% of the total unit holders shall result in the original application being deemed to have been withdrawn.

Unadjusted Trade Advance Payable With Interest Rate Qualifies As Financial Debt U/S 5(8) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Akzo Nobel India Ltd. Versus Stan Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1294 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that unadjusted trade advance carrying an interest rate payable by the Corporate Debtor till full repayment satisfies the requirement of consideration against time value of money under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and therefore qualifies as a financial debt.

Assets Of Corporate Debtor Attached Under PMLA Are Not Part Of Resolution Estate, NCLT Cannot Direct Release Even If Attached During CIRP: NCLAT

Case Title: Mr. Anil Kohli Resolution Professional Versus Directorate of Enforcement

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 389 of 2018

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that if a property is alleged to be proceeds of crime and is under adjudication by a competent authority under penal statutes, it cannot be treated as part of the freely available resolution estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot be directed to release assets of the corporate debtor attached during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

NCLAT Declares Transactions Fraudulent U/S 66 Of IBC Due To Corporate Debtor's Failure To Diligently Negotiate One-Sided Clause In MOU

Case Title: Vistra ITCL (India) Limited and Ors. v. Satra Properties (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1043 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3794 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that the complete surrender by the corporate debtor to negotiate the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding—particularly agreeing to a one-sided clause that allowed the other party to unilaterally terminate the agreement and forfeit the entire amount—constitutes a fraudulent transaction under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal observed that the suspended director's failure to act prudently and protect the company's interests demonstrated reckless indifference and fraudulent intent, warranting reversal of the NCLT's earlier order.

Single WhatsApp Message Raising General Dispute Can't Become Foundation To Reject Petition U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Mrs. Leena Salot v. Ridham Synthetics Private Limited

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 375 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1278 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that a single WhatsApp message sent long ago, raising a vague or general dispute, cannot form the foundation to reject a Section 9 insolvency petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal observed that when no specific invoices or transactions are disputed and the operational debt stands proved through invoices, ledger accounts, and GST records, such a generalized message cannot constitute a “pre-existing dispute” under law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the NCLT's order dismissing the petition was set aside.

Viability Of Corporate Debtor Can't Be Considered While Deciding Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Once Debt & Default Are Established: NCLAT

Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Versus Takshashila Heights India Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2261 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the corporate debtor is a viable entity and that initiating insolvency proceedings would adversely affect the stakeholders. The Adjudicating Authority has no discretion to consider whether the Application should be admitted or not once the debt and default are established.

Limitation Period For Filing Application U/S 95 Of IBC Against Personal Guarantor Stands Extended By Acknowledgement Of Debt: NCLAT

Case Title: Shri Rakesh Jolly vs. Indian Bank & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1267 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the limitation period for filing an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) by a creditor against a personal guarantor, stands extended upon a valid acknowledgment of debt made by the principal borrower. The Tribunal held that acknowledgement of debt through a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal is deemed to be an acknowledgement by the guarantor.

Registration Of Security Interest With CERSAI Is Sufficient To Claim Status Of Secured Financial Creditor: NCLAT

Case Title: Bizloan Private Limited Versus Mr. Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar [Liquidator For Autocop (India) Private Limited]

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 210 of 2024 & I.A. No. 718 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that security interest can be proved through its registration with Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) and the financial creditor can be classified as a Secured Creditor based on such registration as per Regulation 21 of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016. Therefore it is not mandatory for the security interest to be registered under section 77 of the Companies Act to claim the status of a Secured Financial Creditor in the Liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Litigants Are Not Trained Advocates, Restoration Application Can't Be Dismissed Due To Counsel's Failure To Inform Of Proceedings: NCLAT

Case Title: M/S Lok Sewak Leasing & Investment Private Limited Versus M/s GBL Chemical Limited

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 483 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the restoration application under Rule 48(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Rules, 2016 cannot be dismissed if the application is filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal of the original petition. It observed that non-appearance of a litigant due to the failure of their counsel to inform them of the proceedings cannot be held against such litigant.

NCLT

Dissolution Under IBC Can't Be Used To Frustrate Ongoing PMLA Proceedings: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Goyal Tea Agencies Private Limited v. M/s Shakti Bhog Snacks Ltd.

Case Number: IA-3695-2023 in IB-1713-2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has held that dissolution under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be used to frustrate ongoing criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Tribunal observed that once a corporate debtor is dissolved, it ceases to exist as a legal entity, which would inevitably frustrate the pending prosecution and defeat the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the PMLA. Hence, the application for dissolution was dismissed.

Financial Creditor Can Amend Date Of Default Even If Pleadings Are Closed: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Axis Bank Limited vs. Yashwant Dugdh Prakriya Limited

Case Number: IA(I.B.C.)/1382 (MB) 2023 in CP(IB)/707 (MB)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, comprising Nilesh Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Sameer Kakar (Member-Technical), has held that a financial creditor can amend its pleadings to correct the date of default in a Section 7 application, even if the pleadings have been declared complete. The tribunal observed that such an amendment does not introduce a new cause of action but merely clarifies the factual position necessary for effective adjudication, particularly when supported by documentary evidence.

IBC Not A Recovery Mechanism, Additional Claims Of Interest Beyond Amount In Petition Cannot Justify Admission Of Insolvency Plea: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Ritwik Finance Enterprises Private Limited v. Genesiis Constro Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB)/627(MB)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench comprising Justice V.G. Bisht (Retd.) and Prabhat Kumar (Member-Technical), examined whether a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) could be admitted when the amount claimed in the petition was subsequently offered by the corporate debtor through a demand draft.

The bench dismissed the petition, holding that the IBC is not a recovery mechanism and that additional claims of interest beyond the amount mentioned in the petition cannot justify admission of the insolvency plea.

Personal Guarantor's Liability Can't Exceed Contractual Limit: NCLT Kochi Dismisses Petitions U/S 95 IBC For Defective Demand Notices

Case Title: Canara Bank vs. Smt. Valsala T. S.

Case Number: CP (IBC)/1/KOB/2025, CP (IBC)/2/KOB/2025 & CP (IBC)/3/KOB/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench comprising Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) and Shri Vinay Goel (Judicial Member) has held that where a guarantee agreement expressly limits the liability of the personal guarantor, any demand notice or invocation of guarantee which seeks to recover an amount exceeding such capped liability is invalid and cannot form the basis for initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Tribunal observed that a material inconsistency between the terms of the guarantee agreement and the demand or invocation notice renders the demand notice defective in law. In the absence of a valid and legally tenable demand, the condition precedent for triggering the insolvency process against personal guarantors under Section 95 of the IBC is not satisfied.

Paying “Advance” Against Property Is A Commercial Transaction, Qualifies As Financial Debt U/S 5(8)(f) IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: M/s. Kaliber Associates Private Limited (through its Liquidator Mr. Mohan Lal Jain) v. M/s. J.R. Modi Associates Private Limited

Case Number: Company Petition No. (IB)-1122(ND)/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench-IV, comprising Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has admitted an application u/s 7 of the IBC seeking initiation of the CIRP against the corporate debtor. The tribunal held that the amount advanced against property can be treated as a “financial debt” u/s 5(8) of the IBC, 2016.

Liquidator Can't Direct Claimant To Approach NCLT Without Accepting Or Rejecting Claim, Amounts To Serious Procedural Lapse: NCLT Kochi

Case Name: Regional Commissioner, Provident Fund Versus CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar

Case Number: IA(IBC)/57/KOB/2024 In IBA/240/KOB/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench of Shri Vinay Goel (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that once claims are filed before the Liquidator, the Liquidator is obligated under Section 40 of the IBC to either accept or reject them. The Liquidator cannot direct the claimant to approach the Adjudicating Authority without first applying his mind, as such conduct amounts to a serious procedural lapse.

Liquidator Entitled To Fee Under Regulation 4(2) Of Liquidation Regulations, If Not Fixed By CoC: NCLT Guwahati

Case Name: Kannan Tiruvengadam, Liquidator of JAS Infrastructure and Power Limited Vs. Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited and Ors.

Case Number: IA (IBC)/155/GB/2024 In CP(IB)/23/GB/2022 In CP(IB)/1290/KB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench of Mr. Rammurti Kushawaha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member) has held that in the absence of the Liquidator's fees being fixed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) at the time of recommending liquidation under Section 33 of the IBC, and subsequently by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) under Regulation 4(1A) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, the Liquidator is entitled to fees as per Regulation 4(2) of the Liquidation Regulations and not by way of fixed monthly remuneration.

Allottee Does Not Cease To Be Financial Creditor On Ground Of Being Speculative Investor: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Name: Tajinder Pal Setia Vs. Sh. Arvind Kumar, Resolution Professional and Ors.

Case Number: IA (I.B.C)/2105(CH)2023 in CP(IB) No. 248/Chd/Chd/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench of Justice Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Sh. Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member) has held that the claim of an allottee cannot be rejected solely on the ground of being a speculative investor. An allottee does not cease to be a financial creditor merely because they qualify as a speculative investor.

Prior Approval Of Adjudicating Authority Before Initiating Legal Proceedings Against Any Party U/S 33(5) Of IBC Is Mandatory: NCLT Guwahati

Case Name: Purshotam Gaggar, Liquidator of Sree Bajrang Infracon Private Limited

Case Number: IA(IBC)/42/GB/2025 In CP(IB)/7/GB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Guwahati bench of Rammurti Kushawaha (Judicial Member) and Yogendra Kumar Singh (Technical Member) has held that prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority under section 33(5) is mandatory before initiating any legal proceedings against a party and such party is not required to be heard at the approval stage.

NCLT Can Invoke Inherent Powers To Permit Withdrawal Of Voluntary Liquidation Despite Absence Of Specific Provision In IBC: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Name: Enel Green Power India Private Limited v. Suman Kumar Verma

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 3 (CH) 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, comprising Harnam Singh Thakur (Member-Judicial) and Shishir Agarwal (Member-Technical), has disposed of an application seeking withdrawal of voluntary liquidation. The adjudicating authority held that even in the absence of specific provision under the IBC, it can allow the withdrawal of voluntary liquidation by invoking its inherent power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Not Maintainable For Non-Return Of Expired, Uninvoked Bank Guarantee Under Settlement Agreement: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Shri Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) and Shri Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member) has held that failure to return one of the bank guarantees, as per the settlement terms agreed upon between the parties, cannot form the basis for filing a petition under Section 7 of the IBC when such guarantee was neither renewed nor invoked before its expiry. In the present, the Respondent had paid the full payment as per the Settlement Agreement but failed to return one of the Bank Guarantees which expired without being invoked or renewed.

Pledged Shares Held By Corporate Debtor In Subsidiary Are Its Assets, Can't Be Invoked During CIRP Due To Moratorium: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Technical Member) has held that pledged shares held by the Corporate Debtor in its subsidiary company are assets of the Corporate Debtor and, therefore, cannot be invoked by the pledgee during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process due to the bar under Section 14 of the IBC.

Amounts Reflected In Corporate Debtor's Records Can't Be Rejected Even If No Formal Claims Are Filed Before Resolution Professional: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Justice Shri V.G. Bisht and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Member Technical) has held that amounts reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor cannot be rejected even if no formal claims are filed by the Creditors.

Adjudicating Authority Must Pass Liquidation Order U/S 33(4) Of IBC Upon Breach Of Resolution Plan By Successful Applicant: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Lakshmi Gurung (Member Judicial) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Member Technical) has held that once the Successful Resolution Applicant fails to comply with the terms of the Resolution Plan despite several reminders being given, the Adjudicating Authority is mandated to pass an order of liquidation under section 33(4) of the IBC.

Set-Off Of Fixed Deposit Against Overdraft Based On Pre-CIRP Contract Does Not Violate Section 14 Of IBC: NCLT Bengaluru

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, has held that the set-off of a fixed deposit against an overdraft, based on an untainted contract entered into before the commencement of the CIRP, does not breach Section 14 of the IBC, nor do such deposits form part of the Corporate Debtor's asset pool.

Related Party Status Must Be Determined On When Insolvency Proceedings Commence, Not By Historical Facts: NCLT Ahmedabad

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench of Mr. Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (Technical Member), held that related party status as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code must be determined on the date of commencement of Insolvency Proceedings and not based on historical roles.

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Direct Realisation Of Security Interest U/S 52(5) Of IBC In Absence Of Resistance From Corporate Debtor: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Central Bank of India

Case Number: IA (I.B.C) No. 1780/MB/2021 IN C.P. (IB) No. 2294/MB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) and Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) has held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct realisation of security interest under section 52(5) of the IBC when the Secured Creditor has failed to establish any resistance from the Corporate Debtor or any connected persons in realising the security interest. In this case, the assets sought to be charged in favor of the Creditor could not even be traced, therefore the NCLT refused to allow the application seeking distribution of the sale proceeds in favor of the Applicant.

Mere Possession Of Assets Of Corporate Debtor U/S 13(8) Of SARFAESI Act Does Not Confer Title On Creditor: NCLT Kochi

Case Name: Muthoot Fincorp Limited Versus Orchid Valley Buyer's Association Apartment and Ors.

Case Number: IA (IBC)/57/KOB/2025 IN IA (IBC)/215/KOB/2023 IN CP(IBC)/05/KOB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kochi bench of Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) and Shri Vinay Goel (Judicial Member) has held that mere possession over assets of the Corporate Debtor under section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act does not confer any title on the Creditor. A title over the property passes to the purchaser only after a valid sale.

NCLT Not Empowered To Adjudicate Disputes Concerning Auction Sale Of Property Not Forming Part Of Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLT Indore

Case Name: Aditya Bhatnagar & Ors V/s Bank of Baroda & Ors

Case Number: IA/195(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/18(MP)2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Indore bench of Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (Technical Member) has held that the Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to adjudicate disputes relating to auction sale of the property which does not form part of the Corporate Debtor's assets.

Liabilities Incurred Before Execution Of Guarantee Agreement Can't Be Included In It Unless Explicitly Stated: NCLT Kochi

Case Name: RL Marketing & Distributors Vs. Mrs. M.H. Hinshra

Case Number: IA(IBC)/65/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/57/KOB/2024 & IA(IBC)/66/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/58/KOB/2024 & IA(IBC)/64/KOB/2024 IN CP(IBC)/59/KOB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kochi bench of Madhu Sinha (Member Technical) and Vinay Goel (Member Judicial) has held that past liabilities incurred before the execution of the Agreement of Guarantee cannot be included in it unless an explicit clause covering such liabilities are explicitly incorporated in the Agreement.

Individual Homebuyer Can't Maintain Application U/S 60(5) Of IBC For Rejection Of Other Creditors' Claims: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Name: Rajeev Khurana Vs. Sh. Arvind Kumar, Resolution Professional and Ors.

Case Number: IA (I.B.C)/603(CH)2025 in CP(IB) No. 248/Chd/Chd/2019 (Admitted)

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chandigarh bench of Sh. Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Sh. Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member) has held that an individual homebuyer is not permitted to approach the Adjudicating Authority seeking rejection of other creditors' claims especially when no enforcement of his rights or personal grievances is involved.

Restriction On CIRP Assignments Taken By IRP Is A Matter Of Code Of Conduct Between IBBI & Resolution Professional: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Sagar Sharma & Anr. v/s Rohit Mehra

Case Number: IA 197 of 2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Justice Shri V.G. Bisht (Judicial Member) has held that restrictions on the number of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional (CIRP) assignments an Insolvency Professional (IP) can take is a conduct of code between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and the IP. It cannot be decided by the Tribunal under section 60 (5) of the IBC.

Operational Debt Can't Be Converted Into Financial Debt By Execution Of Subsequent Agreement Between Parties: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: M/s IPK Exports Private Ltd Vs. M/s HSB Home Solutions Ltd

Case Number:COMPANY PETITION (I.B.) NO. 771 OF 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that an Operational Debt cannot be converted into a Financial by the execution of subsequent agreement between the parties. If this is permitted, it would open the floodgates for potential misuse of the provisions of the IBC.

Development Rights Crystallised Before Termination Of Collaboration Agreement Form Part Of Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Mr. Ishan Singh Vs. Mr. Gaurav Katiyar

Case Number: IA 438/2025 IN CP: IB 284/ND/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that developments rights crystallised before the termination of collaboration agreement can be included in the assets of the corporate debtor even though such termination of the agreement was later upheld by the Arbitral Tribunal. These rights were exercised by the Corporate Debtor to develop the real estate project which holds relevance in the CIRP.

Bank Can Classify Corporate Debtor's Account As Fraud During CIRP, Such Classification Is Not Hit By S.14 Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Union Bank of India Vs Rolta India Limited

Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/3028(MB)2025 (NEW IA) IN C.P.(IB)/530(MB)2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Justice Virendrasingh Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) has held that a bank is empowered to classify the account of the Corporate Debtor as fraud even during the currency of the CIRP and such classification is not hit by section 14 of the IBC.

Successful Bidder Prohibited From Claiming Reliefs Or Concessions Not Provided In Sale Document: NCLT Amravati

Case Name: M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited Versus M/s. Saradambika Power Plant Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: IA (IBC)/153/2025, IA (IBC)/99/2025, IA (IBC)/104/2025, IA (IBC)/401/2022 & IA(IBC)/224/2022 IN CP(IB)/4/7/AMR/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Amravati bench of Shri Umesh Kumar Shukla (Technical Member) and Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) has held that Successful Bidder cannot claim reliefs, concessions or waivers which were not included in the sale document. Reliefs and concessions can only be claimed which are expressly provided in the Sale Document.

Failure To Deliver Second Demand Notice After First Is Returned Unserved Renders Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Not Maintainable: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Delhivery Limited Vs. Futuretimes Technology India Private Limited

Case Number: Company Petition IB (IBC)/169(ND)2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that when a demand notice under section 8 of the IBC is returned unserved with the endorsement “the addressee has left without instructions” and the Operational Creditor fails to effect the delivery again by any other alternate modes, the petition under section 9 of the IBC cannot be entertained.

Information Utility Record Is Not Mandatory To Prove Debt And Default Under IBC: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Name: Vardhaman Bank Vs. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd

Case No.: Company Petition IB/62/7/HDB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench of Justice Shri. Rajeev Bhardwaj (Hon'ble Member) and Shri. Sanjay Puri - Hon'ble Member Technical has held that proving debt and default through records of default with the information utility is not mandatory. If debt and default are established through other evidence, a petition under Section 7 of the IBC can still be admitted.

[S. 252(3) Of Companies Act] Company Cannot Be Revived In Absence Of Substantial Investment Reflected In Balance Sheet: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Name: Gurmeet Singh VERSUS The Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh

Case No.: CP No.29/Chd/Pb/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Mr. Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member) has held that in the absence of substantial investment reflected in a company's balance sheet, it cannot be revived under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act.

NCLT Is Not Competent Forum To Adjudicate Disputes Relating Copyrights Violations Or Contract Termination: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures Vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.P. (IB)/156(MB)2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench held that it is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes related to copyright violations and contract termination. Such matters must be pursued before a competent forum with jurisdiction.

Mere Denial That Invoices Were Not Received Cannot Override Signed Acknowledgements From Operational Creditor: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title: Altitude Finvest Limited v/s CAUSIS E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: COMPANY PETITION (IB) 811 (ND) 2024

The National Company Tribunal Chandigarh, bench of Justice Harnam Singh Thakur and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, have held that a mere bald denial that invoices forming the basis of the claim were not received cannot prevail over specific, dated communications and signed acknowledgements originating from within the operational creditors' finance department.

Conversion Of Corporate Debtor To Private Company Can't Be Denied On Grounds Of Pending SFIO Probe After Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: ANDHRA BANK v. STERLING BIOTECH LIMITED
Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/2216(MB)2025 IN C.P. (IB)/490(MB)2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) has held that an application for conversion of a company from a public limited company to a private limited company under an approved resolution plan cannot be rejected on the ground that prosecutions or SFIO investigations are pending against the corporate debtor, as all such investigations abate once the plan is approved.

Pooling Of Debt By Multiple Operational Creditors Is Prohibited U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi
Case Title: Invoice Discounters of Adaptio Facility Management Pvt Ltd Through Mr. Arunava Ghosh v. M/s CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CP No.: IB 74(ND)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that a petition under Section 9 of the IBC cannot be admitted based on the pooling of debt by multiple operational creditors, as such pooling is prohibited under the IBC. While a composite application under Section 7 of the IBC is permitted, no provision concerning the pooling of debt exists under Section 9 of the IBC.

Electricity Connection Can't Be Denied To Purchaser Of Corporate Debtor's Properties Due To Past Dues When Claims Are Filed Before Liquidator: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd. vs S Kumars Nationwide Ltd.
Case Number: I.A. 857/2024, I.A. 860/2024, I.A. 3446/2024, I.A. 446/2021 in C.P. (IB)294(MB)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Justice Ms. Lakshmi Gurung and Sh. Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer, Technical Member has held that electricity connection cannot be denied to the successful auction purchaser of the corporate debtor's properties on account of past dues, when such claims have already been filed before the Liquidator and will be addressed as per Section 53 of the IBC.

Set-Off Of Pre-CIRP Tax Dues Is Not Permitted Against Post-CIRP Tax Refund In Absence Of Pre-Existing Contractual Provision: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. Unijules Life Sciences Limited
Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/1811(MB)2025 in C.P. (IB)/3080(MB)2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) has held that pre-CIRP tax dues cannot be adjusted against post-CIRP tax refunds determined during the CIRP, in the absence of any pre-existing contractual set-off provision.

NCLT Under IBC Is Not Empowered To Direct De-Attachment Of Property Attached Under PMLA By ED: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title: Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari, RP of M/s Dreamz Infra India Private Limited Versus Enforcement Directorate
Case Number: IA No. 28 of 2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Justice Shri. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri. Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) has held that the NCLT under the IBC is not empowered to direct the de-attachment of property attached under the PMLA by the Enforcement Directorate, as such power falls within the realm of public law over which the NCLT has no jurisdiction.

Director Communications Can't Replace Documentary Proof For Establishment Of Loan: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Altitude Finvest Limited v/s CAUSIS E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: COMPANY PETITION (IB) 811 (ND) 2024

The National Company law Tribunal Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram And Shri Atul Chaturvedi Dismissed a section 7 petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process, holding that communications from the directors of the Corporate Debtor cannot override the lack of substantive documentary proof such as audited financials, books of accounts, or banking records for establishment of loan.

Corporate Debtor's Shareholdings Are An Integral Part Of Financial Assets, Can't Be Excluded From Valuation Report: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: HDFC Bank Limited Versus Opto Circuits (India) Ltd.

Case Number: I.A. No. 433 of 2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 199/BB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) the has held that the shareholdings of the corporate debtor in its subsidiaries form an integral part of its financial assets therefore cannot be excluded from the valuation reports. Such exclusion of the financial assets compromise the fairness and integrity of the CIRP.

No Direction Pertaining To Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional Can Be Passed Prior To Adjudication Of S.99 Report: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Central Bank of India v/s Mrs. Ritu Garg, Anurag Garg, Mrs. Manju Lata Garg, Akresh Garg, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

Case Number: I.A. No. 4923/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 96/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4919/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 89/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4918/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 98/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4920/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 94/ND/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal Delhi allowed applications filed by the Central Bank of India seeking replacement of Resolution Professional for failure of submission of report as per section 99 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and demanding fees before adjudication of the report.

The bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Shri Atul Chaturvedi held that “any directions pertaining to the fees and expenses of the resolution professional, prior to adjudication of the section 99 report, would be premature and contrary to the scheme envisaged under the code”.

Sale Of Corporate Debtor's Assets Can't Be Allowed At Reserve Price Reduced Beyond 25% As It Violates Liquidation Regulations: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: Supreme Overseas Exports India Private Limited Represented by its Liquidator

Case Number:I.A. No. 318 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 89/BB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Shri. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri. Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) has held that the sale of the Corporate Debtor's assets cannot be allowed at a reserve price reduced beyond the 25% threshold, as it would violate Schedule I of the Liquidation Regulations. This cannot be done by the Adjudicating Authority even by exercising its powers under section 60(5) of the IBC as it would amount to creating a procedural and substantive remedy which was not contemplated in the statute.

Changing Incorrect Date Of Default Is Permitted Before Final Adjudication If No New Cause Of Action Is Raised By Such Amendment: NCLT Amravati

Case Title: M/s. Canara Bank Versus M/s. Vasavi Power Services Pvt Ltd

Case Number: IA (IBC)/418/2024, IA (IBC)/98/2025 in CP (IB)/3/7/AMR/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Amravati Bench of Shri Umesh Kumar Shukla (Technical Member) and Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) held that a change in the incorrect date of default mentioned in the original petition can be allowed before final adjudication, provided it does not introduce a new cause of action and no prejudice is caused to the corporate debtor by such an amendment.

After Initiation Of CIRP, There Can Be No Encumbrances On Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Navneet Kumar Ranka Vs. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan

Case Number: INV.P/(IBC)/5/CHE/2025 In I.A.(IBC)(PLAN) 11(CHE)/2024 IN CP(IB)/124/CHE/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench of Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) Shri. Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member) has held that after the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), there can be no encumbrances on the assets of the corporate debtor, and all claims must be dealt with in accordance with Section 53 of the IBC.

Sale Of Corporate Debtor's Property Can't Be Declared Fraudulent Merely On Claim Of Security Interest Without Supporting Evidence: NCLT Kochi

Case Title: M/s. Greenlace Builders and Developers Private Limited -Versus- Mr. Kakkanatil Siraj Mather Abdul Rahiman

Case Number: IA(IBC)/219/KOB/2024 IN CP(IB)/28/KOB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench of Shri. Vinay Goel (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that when the property of the Corporate Debtor is purchased in good faith by a bona fide purchaser, the mere fact that the sale price was slightly lower than the actual price does not bring the transaction within the ambit of a fraudulent transaction, especially when the sale is sought to be reversed on the ground that the property was charged in favor of the Respondent, without any documentary evidence to establish such a secured interest.

In Absence Of Claims From Financial Or Operational Creditors, Liquidation Order Must Be Passed U/S 33 Of IBC: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: Kalpana Kamlesh Gandhi Interim Resolution Professional of M/s Konverge Healthcare Private Limited

Case Number:IA No. (Liq) 01/2025 In C.P. (IB) No. 133/BB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) has held that in the absence of any claims from either financial or operational creditors, due to lack of supporting documents to prove such claims and the inability to constitute the Committee of Creditors (CoC), liquidation of the corporate debtor can be ordered under Section 33 of the IBC.

Claims Of Multiple Operational Creditors Arising From Different Work Orders Can't Be Clubbed Into Single Debt To Cross Threshold Limit: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Surasha Group of Companies Vs. ETA Engineering Pvt Ltd

Case Number: CP(IB)/77/CHE/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai bench of Justice Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Technical Member) has held that claims arising from different work orders cannot be clubbed to cross the threshold limit for filing an insolvency petition under section 9 of the IBC. Furthermore, claims of multiple Operational Creditors cannot be clubbed into a single debt for the purpose of a petition under section 9 of the IBC.

No Bar On Compounding Offence U/S 441 Of Companies Act If Punishable With Fine Only: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: NVENT THERMAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/s REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MUMBAI

Case Number: Company Petition No. 7/MB/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Hon'ble Shri Ashish Kalia, (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that since the punishment under Section 99 of the Companies Act, 2013 is only a fine, and as per Section 441 of the Act there is no bar on the Tribunal to compound an offence punishable only with a fine, the offence of not holding Annual General Meetings on time can be compounded.

Financial Creditor Can File Plea U/S 7 Of IBC If Actionable Rights Under Guarantee Are Preserved In Approved Resolution Plan: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title:M/s IFCI Limited VERSUS M/s ACCIL Hospitality Private Limited

Case Number:CP No.: IB 492(PB)/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon'ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that Financial Creditors can proceed against Personal Guarantors even after the approval of the Resolution Plan, if actionable rights under the guarantee are preserved.

The present petition has been filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.

Electricity Can't Be Disconnected At Corporate Debtor's Plant When Assets Are Put On Auction To Maximise Value: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Mr. Pratim Bayal -Versus- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Case Number: I.A (IBC) No 617/KB/2025 In C.P (IBC) No 522/KB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench of Rekha Kantilal Shah (Technical Member) and Labh Singh (Judicial Member) has held that electricity cannot be disconnected at the Corporate Debtor's plant while machinery and other assets are being auctioned. Electricity is essential to maximise asset value and ensure safety of the assets.

Impleadment Of GST Authorities Not Permissible In Proceedings U/S 9 Of IBC Merely Due To Allegations Of Bogus Invoices: NCLT Allahabad

Case Title: M/S SUNDER ENGINEERING WORKS V/S MACHINERY LIMITED

Case Number:IA No.17/2024, IA No.150/2024 & IA No.345/2024 IN CP (IB) No.101/ALD/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench of Shri Praveen Gupta, (Hon'ble Member Judicial) and Shri Ashish Verma (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that impleadment of the GST Authorities in proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), is not permissible merely on the ground that the invoices on which the petition is based have been disputed by the Corporate Debtor. The GST Authorities are independent bodies conducting investigations in accordance with law and, therefore, have no connection with proceedings under the IBC.

Power Of NCLT To Restore Name Of Struck Off Company U/S 252 Of Companies Act Can't Be Exercised Suo Motu: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Dhirendra Pratap Singh & Anr. Versus Dook Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:CA/442/ND/2021 IN C.P. No. 54/ND/2014

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon'ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that the power to restore a name of the struck company under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be exercised suo moto. A company's name can be restored only on an application filed by the Companies, its members or creditors or workmen aggrieved by the order of striking off under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act.

Set-Off Of Transactions Executed Prior To Commencement Of CIRP Based On Arbitral Award Is Permissible During CIRP: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Mr. Rajesh Ramani

Case Number:IA-118/2024 In (IB)-113(ND)/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Hon'ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that a set off of transactions based on arbitral award entered into prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is permissible even during the currency of the CIRP, and such set-offs are not barred by Section 14 of the IBC.

Fixed Deposit Receipts Form Part Of Corporate Debtor's Financial Assets, RP Can Seek Their Defreezing & Take Custody: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: ANSHUJ DIDNGRA Vs. COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS (COC) THROUGH ITS SOLE MEMBER HVR INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.

Case Number: IA NO. 3127/2025 IN CP (IB) NO. 199/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon'ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) form part of the Corporate Debtor's financial assets; therefore, the Resolution Professional can approach the concerned bank to seek their defreezing and realise them.

Resolution Professional Can't Cherry-Pick Entries From Financial Records Of Corporate Debtor While Verifying Claims Of Creditors: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Private Limited Sinnar Thermal Power Limited.

Case Number:I.A. NO. 782 OF 2025 IN C.P. IB NO 2561 (ND) OF 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon'ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that the Resolution Professional is obligated to verify the claims of creditors after considering all entries in the financial records of the corporate debtor. The RP cannot cherry-pick entries and reject others that favour the creditors, as such an approach violates the principles of fairness and objectivity expected of the RP.

Corporate Debtor May Be Permitted To Complete Project Under IRP's Supervision If A Structured Plan Is Proposed: NCLT Indore

Case Title: S.K. Dutta (Swapan Kumar Dutta) Vs. Global Mega Ventures Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No.71/7/MP/2020 With IA No. 199/MP/2022, IA No. 45/MP/2024, and IA No. 271/MP/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench of Sh. Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma (Technical Member) has held that while admitting a petition under Section 7 of the IBC filed by homebuyers based on the default committed by the corporate debtor, the corporate debtor can be directed to complete the project under the reverse Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) model, under the supervision of the Interim Resolution Professional, if a structured and viable plan to complete the project is proposed by the corporate debtor.

Interest Claims Under MSMED Act Can't Be Added To Principal Amount: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Shree Jajoo Instrument Manufacturing Corporation Versus Tapasya Engineering Works Private Limited

Case Number:CP (IB) / 1055 (MB) 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Justice V. G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has held that since the NCLT under the IBC is not competent to adjudicate interest claims under the MSMED Act, such interest claims cannot be added to the principal amount to meet the threshold limit for filing an insolvency petition.

Property Alloted In Lieu Of Consultancy Fees Constitutes Financial Debt: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Positive Rays Events Private Limited vs Sheltrex Karjat Private Limited

Case Number: IA/942/2024 in C.P. (IB)/3126(MB)2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V, comprising Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Member- Judicial) and Sh. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Member- Technical), has held that a property allotted in lieu of consultancy fees can be considered as a financial debt.

The application was filed requesting to issue a direction to the Resolution Professional to admit the claim filed by the applicant in the class of financial creditor.

Debt Arising From Structured Supply Chain Finance Facility Does Not Constitute 'Financial Debt' U/S 5(8) Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Prudent ARC Limited v. Karan Automibiles

Case No.: Restored Company Petition (IBC) /22/ND/2024 (Old Case CP (IB)/60/ND/2023)

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-IV, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has held that the debt arising out of a structured supply chain finance facility doesn't come under the ambit of financial debt u/s 5(8) of the IBC, 2016.

Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Is Inadmissible Without Payment Received By Corporate Debtor In Subcontracted Work Done By Operational Creditor: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. S.K. CONSTRUCTION Vs. SRI AVANTIKA CONTRACTORS (I) LIMITED

Case Number: CP (IB) No.128/09/HDB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad bench of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Hon'ble Judicial Member) and Sri Sanjay Puri (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that in absence of any payment received by the Corporate Debtor in a subcontracted work executed by the Operational Creditor, application under section 9 of the IBC cannot be entertained. Filing such an application would be an attempt to use the IBC as a forum to recover the debt which is against the objectives of the IBC.

Adjudicating Authority Can Pass Order U/S 114 Of IBC Based On Resolution Professional's Report If No Repayment Plan Is Submitted: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title:Karur Vyasa Bank Versus Vishnoo Mittal

Case Number:IB-313/ND/2022 IA-1261/2025, IA-1210/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Sh. Man Mohan Gupta (Hon'ble Member Technical) has held that a meeting of the Committee of Creditors is not required to be summoned under Regulation 17A of the Personal Guarantors Regulations when no repayment is submitted by the Personal Guarantor. The Adjudicating Authority can pass an order based on the report submitted by the Resolution Professional under section 112 or section 106 even in the absence of creditors' meeting.

Institution Of Criminal Proceedings Against Officials Of Financial Creditor Does Not Bar Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLT Cuttack

Case Title:Canara Bank VERSUS M/S. S.S. ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: CP (IB) No 18/CB/2O24

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Cuttack bench of Deep Chourasia (Judicial Member) and Babulal Meena (Technical Member) has held that institution of criminal proceedings or allegations of fraud against officials of the financial creditor do not bar an application under section 7 of the IBC.

Adjudicating Authority Is Not Appropriate Forum To Determine Liability Of Corporate Debtor To Pay Interest Under MSME Act: NCLT Amrawati

Case Title: Green Morning Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. Versus Lakshmi Infrastructure and Developers India Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB)/23/9/AMR/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Amrawati bench of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli, Member (Judicial) and Shri Umesh Kumar Shukla, Member (Technical) has held that the Adjudicating Authority is not the appropriate forum for determination on the liability of the Corporate Debtor to pay interest under the MSME Act or Interest Act.

Resolution Professional Not Entitled To Fees Or Expenses During Stay Of CIRP Proceedings: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Name: Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari, Interim Resolution Professional of Mindlogicx Infratec Ltd. v. Union Bank of India.

Case No.: I.A. No. 586/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 126/BB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, comprising Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member-Judicial) and Radhakrishna Sreepada (Member-Technical), has held that an IRP/RP is not entitled to fees or expenses incurred during the stay of CIRP proceedings granted by NCLAT or Judicial Forum.

Resolution Professional Not Entitled To Fees Or Expenses During Stay Of CIRP Proceedings: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Name: Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari, Interim Resolution Professional of Mindlogicx Infratec Ltd. v. Union Bank of India.

Case No.: I.A. No. 586/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 126/BB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, comprising Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member-Judicial) and Radhakrishna Sreepada (Member-Technical), has held that an IRP/RP is not entitled to fees or expenses incurred during the stay of CIRP proceedings granted by NCLAT or Judicial Forum.

Moratorium Under IBC Does Not Prevent Reversal Of Funds Mistakenly Transferred To Corporate Debtor: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Mr. B. A. Chandrasherkara Setty and Ors v. M/s. Intec India Limited Ltd

Case No.: IA 625/2024 IN Company Petition No. (IB) – 2432/(PB)/2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising Jyotsna Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Member-Technical), has held that the moratorium under section 14 of the IBC doesn't prevent reversal of funds mistakenly transferred to the corporate debtor's account.

Invocation Of Guarantee Does Not Preclude Financial Creditor From Initiating CIRP: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: UCO Bank Versus Vasupujya Enterprise Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 141/MB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Cmde Siddharth Mishra (Technical Member) admitted a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against Vasupujya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a corporate guarantor of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., holding that there is no bar under the IBC from simultaneously filing two applications under section 7 of the IBC against Borrower as well as the guarantor.

Discretion Vested Upon NCLT U/S 7(5)(A) IBC Cannot Be Used To Impel Financial Creditor To Consider Settlement: NCLT Chennai

Case: Punjab National Bank v. [Corporate Debtor – Name not specified in excerpt]

Bench: Sanjiv Jain (Member-Judicial) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Member-Technical)

The NCLT, Chennai Bench, comprising Sanjiv Jain (Member-Judicial) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Member-Technical), has held that the discretion vested upon the adjudicating authority under section 7(5)(a) IBC cannot be used to impel the financial creditor to consider the settlement proposed by the corporate debtor.

NCLT Not Empowered To Interfere With Attachment Of Properties Under PMLA Proceedings: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Vikram Kumar (RP) v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case Number: I.A. No. 4373 of 202 & I.A. 5680 of 2023 in C.P. IB No. 843 (ND) of 2018

The NCLT, New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has held that the NCLT lacks the authority to adjudicate upon an order issued by the adjudicating authority under PMLA or to direct the Enforcement Directorate to release the attachment.

It observed that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not apply to PMLA proceedings, and immunity under Section 32A operates only after approval of a resolution plan, which was not the case here. The bench relied on Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. (2019), Varrsana Ispat Ltd. v. Deputy Director, ED (2019), and Kiran Shah v. ED (2021) to hold that NCLT cannot interfere with matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of authorities under PMLA. The RP can only approach the adjudicating authority under PMLA where the matter is pending. Accordingly, the bench refused to stay or set aside the attachment.

NCLT Bengaluru Admits Insolvency Petition Against Dunzo Digital Private Limited For Debt Of ₹1.91 Crore

Case Name: Velvin Packaging Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dunzo Digital Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 36/BB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, comprising Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member-Judicial) and Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada (Member-Technical), has admitted the CIRP petition against Dunzo Digital Private Limited for Debt of Rs. 1.91 Crore.

The section 9 IBC petition was filed by Velvin Packaging Solutions, seeking initiation of the CIRP against Dunzo Digital Private Limited for default in payment of Rs. 2.29 Cr. inclusive of interest. The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor raised vague disputes without evidence and held that the post-default settlement did not extinguish the original cause of action.

Detailed Inquiry Into Legality Of Transfer Of Property Cannot Be Adjudicated In Summary Proceeding U/S 7 IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Mag.T Exim Limited

Case No.: CP (IB) 199 (ND) 2025

The NCLT, New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has held that a deeper inquiry into the legality of the transfer of property or allegations of fraud cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Section 7 of the IBC.

The NCLT observed that the allegations and counter-allegations concerning the sale of mortgage property, collusion with Yes Bank, and the validity of the loan involve questions of fact and allegations of fraud. Therefore, it cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings u/s 7 of the IBC. Further, the bench ruled that the deeper inquiry with regard to allegations of fraud and legality of transfer should be adjudicated by the competent forum. It also observed that the default has not been established.

NCLT Kolkata Admits Application U/S 7 Of IBC Against Jain Infraprojects, Gives Two-Month Settlement Window

Case Title: IDBI Bank V/s Jain Infraprojects Limited

Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/999(KB)2025 in CP (IB) No.175(KB)/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal, bench of Siddharth Mishra (Technical Member) and Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member), Kolkata admitted a section 7 petition filed by IDBI Bank against Jain Infraprojects Limited, while granting the Corporate Debtor a two-month window for settlement.

Despite this, the Tribunal admitted the section 7 petition, holding that the dues were “too large to ignore”. It noted that the corporate debtor had shown substantial settlement efforts, by already resolving dues with 7 out of 11 consortium lenders and payments made to IDBI bank under successive OTS agreements. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries v. Axis Bank, the tribunal reiterated that admission Section 7 petition is discretionary, not mandatory. It noted that “with time “Vidharbha” affect may have been diluted to some extent, however, till date “Vidharbha” has not yet been overruled. Thus, the tribunal gave the corporate debtor an opportunity to settle dues with IDBI Bank and sought recall of admission order within two months.

Liquidator Cannot Be Penalized For Event Outside His Control: NCLT Kolkata Permits Exclusion Of Time Spent In Procedural Compliance

Case Name: Central Bank of India v. Sasa Musa Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: I.A. (IB) No. 1322/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 157/KB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Member-Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra (Member-Technical), has permitted exclusion of time spent in complying with judicial orders and directions of the stakeholder body, saying that the liquidator cannot be penalized for an event outside his control.

The adjudicating authority observed that the mentioned period was consumed in judicial process, consideration of scheme u/s 230, SCC meetings, etc. And the liquidator could not have published the fresh auction notice until the leave of the tribunal and SCC approval. Further, the bench observed that regulation 47 of the liquidation regulations prescribes the model timeline, which is directory. Also, the adjudicating authority has time and again discussed that the time spent in the judicial orders, appellate proceedings, or directions of stakeholder bodies should be excluded in order to ensure that the liquidator is not penalized for events outside his control.

Equity Investment Made Through Commercial MoU Doesn't Qualify As Operational Debt: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Name: Neeta Zanvar v. Filatex Fashions Ltd

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 30/9/HDB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, comprising Mr. Rajee Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical), has held that an equity investment with conditional repayment made through a commercial memorandum of understanding (MoU) doesn't qualify as operational debt.

The bench observed that the reading of the MoU suggests that the investment was made towards the acquisition of equity shares and not towards any supply of goods or services. And the plain reading of section 5(21) provides that the claim arising out of equity investment or share subscription doesn't qualify as the operational debt. Further, the bench observed that the promise of a refund in case of non-performance doesn't alter the nature of the debt, and the commercial MoU lacks the character of the operational relationship.

IBC Proceedings Not Barred By Pending Writ Petition Or Administrative Classification Of Account As NPA Or Fraudulent: NCLT Kochi

Case Name: Axis Bank Limited v. Euro Tech Maritime Academy Private Limited

Case No.: IA(IBC)/226/KOB/2025 & CP(IBC)/10/KOB/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, comprising Mr. Vinay Goel (Member-Judicial) and Madhu Sinha (Member-Technical), has held that the IBC proceedings are not barred by the pending writ petition or administrative classification of accounts as NPA or fraudulent.

The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor has acknowledged the debt and restructuring but failed to maintain financial discipline. It also noted that the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court were related to the classification of the account as a fraud account, which has nothing to do with the present proceedings. Considering the documents on record and rejection of the stay by the High Court, the NCLT admitted the Section 7 application.

Any Defect In Title Of Security Does Not Vitiate Duly Executed Personal Guarantee: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Rinki Prakash Kumar vs. The Bank of Maharashtra Limited

Case No.: IA (I.B.C)/3594(MB)/2025 in CP(IB)/1138(MB)/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, Court VI, comprising Justice Nimesh Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Sameer Kakar (Member-Technical), has held that any defect in the title of the security does not vitiate the personal guarantee, duly executed, specifically when the person admits the execution.

The bench observed that the company availed the loan facility and the personal guarantee was executed by the applicant. Any defect in the title of the security cannot vitiate the guarantee, and since no appeal was filed against the admission of the section 95 petition, the order attains finality. Hence, the present petition was dismissed.

Interest Accrued During & After S.10A Period Can Be Combined With Principal Amount To Meet ₹1 Crore Threshold U/S 4 IBC: NCLT Kolkata

Case Name: Dhanuka Udyog Private Limited v. Kamala Board Box Private Limited

Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 293/KB of 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Member-Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra (Member-Technical), has held that if the default is committed prior to or during the section 10A period and liability to pay interest is accrued during the section 10A period and continued thereafter, such interest could be counted to meet the threshold of Rs. 1 Cr.

Relying on the ruling of Beetel Teletech Ltd. v. Arcelia IT Services Pvt. Ltd., the bench observed that section 10A protection does not extend to a default that continued beyond the protected period. Even if the amount of the protected period is excluded, the amount is still above the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Cr., considering the interest due. Hence, the application is not hit by section 10A and is accordingly admitted.

Shareholders & Guarantors Have No Locus To Intervene In CIRP Based On Private Unregistered MoU: NCLT Kochi

Case Name: Dr. Badri Prasad and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Agarwal, RP of Furnace Fabrica (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: IA(IBC)/93/KOB/2024 IN CP(IBC)/14/KOB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, comprising Justice Vinay Goel (Member-Judicial) and Madhu Sinha (Member-Technical), has held that any private agreement between the corporate debtors, borrowers, and guarantors is not binding on the financial institutions unless the institutions are parties to the agreement and have explicitly consented to it.

The bench observed that the applicants have no locus standi to intervene in the CIRP, as they were not participants in it in any capacity. Referring to the supremacy of creditors' rights under the IBC, it held that any private agreement, including an unregistered MoU, cannot defeat the statutory process or impair the rights of the secured creditor. The application was therefore dismissed.

Unconditional Consent By Sole Financial Creditor Satisfies Requirements Of S.12A IBC & Regulation 30A Of CIRP Regulations: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Mrs. Neha Bhasin, Interim Resolution Professional for Victory Electric Vehicles International Ltd.

Case No.: IA 2483/2025 in CP (IB) 723/ND/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-IV, comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Member-Technical), has held that if there is a stay on the meetings of CoC, then the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor is sufficient for the withdrawal of the CIRP.

The tribunal observed that Section 12A and Regulation 30A prescribe approval of 90% of the CoC for withdrawal of the application, and in this case the applicant had rightly complied, as the sole financial creditor had issued a no-objection. Considering the settlement between the parties and the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor, the adjudicating authority allowed the application with 100% approval of the CoC.

Lease Dues Incurred During CIRP Prior To Vesting Date Are Payable To Financial Creditor, Do Not Belong To Successful Resolution Applicant: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Name: State Bank of India v. Summit Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: IA (IBC)/1025/2024 in CP (IB)/320/9/HDB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical), has held that the lease dues incurred during the corporate insolvency resolution period prior to the vesting date are payable to the financial creditor and don't belong to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).

The tribunal observed that the resolution plan provides that the balance in the corporate debtor's account as of the vesting date is to be transferred to the SBI. It ruled that the non-payment of the dues before the vesting date doesn't extinguish the liability of the SRA, especially when it has admitted the dues in the affidavit.

Personal Guarantors Cannot Seek Disclosure Of Resolution Plan Details U/S 60(5) IBC Or Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Paramount Consultant & Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhat Telecom India Ltd.

Case No.: IA (I.B.C)/3132 (MB) 2025 In C.P. (IB)/1874 (MB) 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Justice Sushil Mahadeorao Kochkey (Member-Judicial) and Prabhat Kumar (Member-Technical), has held that personal guarantors cannot seek disclosure of resolution plan details under section 60(5) or Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules.

The adjudicating authority observed that there is no provision in the IBC that talks of sharing the resolution plan with anyone except the members of the CoC and the suspended Board of Directors. Relying on the ruling of Glas Trust Company LLC v. Buju Raveendran, Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024, it held that inherent power cannot override express provisions of law and dismissed the application.

Settlement Agreement Between Parties Merely Acknowledging & Structuring Repayment Doesn't Change Nature Of Debt: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: M.K. Metals vs. Kundan Industries Ltd.

Case No.: C.P.(IB)-738(MB)/C-III/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-III, comprising Justice Lakshmi Gurung (Member-Judicial) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Member-Technical), has held that a settlement agreement entered between the parties merely for the purpose of acknowledging the debt and structuring the repayment schedule doesn't necessarily change the nature of the debt when it is concreted with sufficient evidence.

Relying on the ruling of Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd. vs. Jasmine Buildmart Private Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1164/2023], the tribunal observed that such a settlement does not alter the character of the debt. The bench further held that the dues mentioned under the settlement agreement cannot be regarded as operational debt under section 5(21) of the IBC and dismissed the petition.

Unconditional Consent By Sole Financial Creditor Satisfies Requirements U/S 12A Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Mrs. Neha Bhasin, Interim Resolution Professional for Victory Electric Vehicles International Ltd.

Case No.: IA 2483/2025 in CP (IB) 723/ND/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-IV, comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Member-Technical), has held that if there is a stay on the meetings of CoC, then the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor is sufficient for the withdrawal of the CIRP.

The tribunal observed that Section 12A of the IBC and Regulation 30A require approval of 90% of the CoC for withdrawal of an application. In this case, since the sole financial creditor (HDFC Bank) filed an unconditional no objection for withdrawal of the CIRP, the requirement stood fulfilled. Considering the settlement between the parties and the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor, the adjudicating authority allowed the application with 100% approval of the CoC.

NCLT Bar Association Writes To Ministry Of Corporate Affairs Over Infrastructure Crisis Causing Standstill At NCLT Delhi

Date: 05.09.2025

On 04.09.2025, the National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association made an urgent representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, expressing serious concern over the persistent infrastructure challenges faced by the NCLT, New Delhi Bench.

The representation highlighted that the closure of the 8th floor of Block 3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road—housing Court Nos. IV, V and VI—due to severe roof seepage has brought the functioning of the Tribunal to a near standstill. All courts under the New Delhi Bench are now operating on a half-day basis, resulting in severe disruption of judicial proceedings and denial of citizens' access to legal remedies under Article 39A of the Constitution of India.

The Bar Association also stated that even prior to this issue, the space from which the NCLT currently operates (6th, 7th, and 8th floors) has been inadequate. Despite the Delhi High Court allotting the first floor of the building for the NCLT, ongoing construction and renovation have prevented it from being handed over to the Tribunal.

The Bar has requested the Ministry to take immediate steps to restore normal functioning of the Tribunal and warned that failure to act will compel it to take necessary measures to ensure restoration of judicial operations.

NCLT Hyderabad Grants Interim Protection To Petitioner After EGM Allotted 2.49 Crore Shares To Respondent, Making Them Majority Shareholder

Case Name: Ashok Kumar Mandhani v. MBG Commodities Pvt Ltd & 7 others

Case Number: IA (CA)/208/2025, IA (CA)/209/2025, IA (CA)/210/2025 and IA (CA)/211/2025 in Company Petition 32/241/HDB/2025

The NCLT Hyderabad Bench of Mr. Rajeev Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical) granted interim relief to the Petitioner under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, read with Sections 59 and 213. The Petitioner, a 71.79% majority shareholder before the impugned allotment, argued that the EGM held on 28.06.2025 was convened without notice and pushed through related-party loans and guarantees worth ₹25.05 crore. During the EGM, 2,49,95,000 shares were allotted to Respondents No. 5 and 6, reducing the Petitioner's stake from 71.79% to 47.87%.

Observing a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the Petitioner, the Bench restrained MBG Commodities Pvt Ltd and others from acting upon the EGM decisions. It further restrained Respondents No. 5 and 6 from exercising voting rights based on the changed shareholding pattern in light of the disputed allotment.

NCLT Declares Former DHFL Chairman Kapil Wadhwa Bankrupt Over ₹4546 Crore Debt

Case Name: Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kapil Wadhawan

Case No.: C.P. No. (IB) 755/MB/C-III/2025

The petition was filed by the Union Bank of India before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench-Court III, seeking initiation of bankruptcy proceedings under section 123 of the IBC, 2016. The respondent, Mr. Kapil Wadhawan, acted as the personal guarantor of the DHFL, a corporate debtor that had undergone the corporate insolvency.