Riju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava

Banks Can Initiate Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act To Recover Loan If It Wasn't Party To Resolution Plan: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Gopinath P. has held that a bank can initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover outstanding dues if it was not a party to the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that the bar against claims outside a resolution plan does not extend to third parties merely associated with the corporate debtor through agreements such as joint ventures.

Gratuity Dues Of Workers Do Not Form Part Of 'Liquidation Estate' Of Corporate Debtor, Must Be Paid In Full: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that gratuity dues are statutorily protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and do not form part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The court held that gratuity payments are outside the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and must be paid in full, irrespective of the resolution plan. It further observed that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has an overriding effect, ensuring that employees' statutory rights are upheld even in insolvency proceedings.

NCLAT

Pre-CIRP Electricity Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have reiterated that all claims which are not included in the approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished upon its approval. The Tribunal held that Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC/ Appellant) was not entitled to demand pre-CIRP dues from Mackeil Ispat & Forging Ltd. (Corporate Debtor/ Respondent No. 1) when it requested resumption of electricity supply. The Tribunal directed DVC to refund the pre-CIRP amount.

Decision Taken By Liquidator To Proceed With Private Sale By 'Swiss Challenge Method' Cannot Be Said To Be Beyond Jurisdiction: NCLAT

The 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 decision taken by the Liquidator to proceed with private sale by adopting Swiss Challenge Mechanism, cannot be said to be a decision beyond the jurisdiction or authority of the Liquidator and that too when the said decision came to be approved by the Stakeholders Consultation Committee.

Claims Based On Uninvoked Guarantee Cannot Be Admitted By Resolution Professional: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that guarantee given by the corporate debtor cannot be invoked after initiation of the CIRP. Any claims based on such guarantee cannot be admitted by the Resolution Professional.

NCLAT Member Recuses From Hearing Appeal By Riju Ravindran Against Inclusion Of Aditya Birla, Glas Trust In CoC As Financial Creditors Of Byju's

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member), Judicial Member of of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench, has recused from hearing ed-tech start-up, Byjus' founder, Riju Raveendran's appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Bengaluru, which allowed Glas Trust and Aditya Birla Finance to be included in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as Financial Creditors of Think & Learn (Parent Company of Byjus).

Delay Of 115 Days In Refiling Appeal Cannot Be Condoned On Frivolous Grounds: NCLAT

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that allowing refiling delay condonation on frivolous grounds would be an anathema to the timeliness and integrity of the liquidation process. In this case,the tribunal refused to condone delay of 115 days in refiling the present appeal.

Deposit Of Security Under Memorandum Of Understanding Without Intention Of Commercial Effect Of Borrowing Cannot Be Categorised As Financial Debt: 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 security amount deposited under a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') without any intention of commercial effect of borrowing and time value of money cannot be categorised as financial debt under section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

Once Resolution Plan Is Approved By CoC & Submitted To Adjudicating Authority For Approval, No Other Plan Can Be Considered By CoC: NCLAT

NCLAT Orders NCLT To Decide BCCI's Plea For Settlement And Withdrawal Of CIRP Against Byju's Within One Week

Case Title: Riju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai bench comprising Justice (retd) Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) have directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to decide the application filed by Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to withdraw the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Byju's within a week's time.

Lone Homebuyer Can't Challenge Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member), and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that one lone homebuyer has to go with the majority decision of the homebuyers and cannot challenge the approval of Resolution Plan. He has to sail or sink with the majority decision.

Sale Of Corporate Debtor In Liquidation As Going Concern Beyond 90 Days Is Permissible Under Amended Regulation 32A(4) Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that the sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern in liquidation can be conducted even beyond 90 days under amended Regulation 32A(4) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016 (Regulations). After the amendment, the sale of the corporate debtor can be conducted in the first auction and the requirement that such sale has to be conducted within 90 days has been removed.

Relief U/S 60(5) Of IBC Against Rejection Of Claims By Liquidator Cannot Be Sought When Remedy U/S 42 Is Not Exhausted: 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 relief under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be claimed against rejection of claims by the liquidator when the remedy provided under section 42 of the code against such decision has not been resorted to.

Adjudicating Authority Can't Override CoC's Majority Decision On Extension Of CIRP Period At Instance Of Minority Dissenting Creditor: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have re-iterated that that liquidation of the Corporate Debtor should be the last resort. The Tribunal observed that when 95.01% of the CoC members, after considering all aspects, passed a resolution for a 60-day extension, the Adjudicating Authority could not have overturned this decision at the instance of a dissenting Financial Creditor holding only a 0.17% vote share.

Infusion Of Funds In Corporate Debtor With Intention Of Earning Profits Would Fall Within Definition Of Financial Debt: NCLAT

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 Injecting funds in the Corporate Debtor with the objective of generating profits would be covered within the ambit of Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). It further held that such transactions have a commercial effect of borrowing.

Submission & Approval Of Resolution Plan In Extended Timeline Of Expression Of Interest Cannot Be Questioned By Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant: 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 issuance of fresh Form G is not required in case of modification in Invitation of Expression of Interest (EoI) when there existed a clause in the EoI permitting the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to extend the timeline for submitting the resolution plan.

Approval Of Resolution Plan Containing Clause Which Permits Creditors To Take Recourse Against Guarantees Cannot Be Interfered With: NCLAT

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 approval of a resolution plan containing a clause that creditors can take appropriate actions in relation to corporate/personal guarantee cannot be interfered with.

Related Party Status Established Through Agreement Cannot Be Changed By Sending Termination Notice Against Terms Of Agreement: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that related party status established through an agreement under Section 5(24) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be changed by sending a termination notice in contravention of expressed terms of the agreement.

No Bar On Corporate Debtor From Contesting Application U/S 9 Of IBC Even If No Reply Is Given To Demand Notice Issued U/S 8: 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 just because no reply was given by the Corporate Debtor to the demand notice issued by the Operational Creditor under section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the Corporate Debtor cannot be precluded from contesting the application filed under section 9 of the Code.

Machinery Hypothecated By Corporate Debtor Against Loan Remains Its Asset If No Lease Deed Is Shown By Third Party: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that the corporate debtor shall remain the owner of the machinery in its possession if no lease deed is shown under which the third party is claiming to be the owner of the machinery therefore the Resolution Professional is entitled to include such machinery in the Information Memorandum.

Non-Registration Of “Charge” U/S 77 Of Companies Act Does Not Bar Creditor From Being Treated As “Secured Creditor” Under IBC During CIRP: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that non-registration of “charge” in terms of Section 77 of Companies Act, 2013 is not a sine qua non for a Creditor to be treated as a “Secured Creditor” under section 3(30) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the Resolution Professional (RP).

Related Party Can't Assign Debt To Bypass Disqualification From Participating In CoC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that a 'related party' cannot assign its debt only with the object of securing a seat in the Committee of Creditors (CoC), to affect the interest and rights of other creditors.

Serving Demand Notice To Personal Guarantor Under Rule 7 Of Personal Guarantors Rules Cannot Be Considered Invocation Of Guarantee: 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 a Notice served to the personal guarantor under Rule 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (“2019 Rules”) cannot be considered 'Invocation of Guarantee', therefore unless a guarantee has been invoked as per the terms of the 'Deed of Guarantee', an application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) against the personal guarantor cannot be entertained.

Order Approving Resolution Plan Passed Beyond 330 Days Cannot Be Questioned When Application Seeking Approval Was Filed Within CIRP Period: NCLAT

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 when an order approving the Resolution Plan is passed by the Adjudicating Authority after expiry of 330 days but the application seeking approval was filed within the stipulated time period, it cannot be said the plan was approved after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period.

Interest Free Maintenance Fee Deposited By Allottees Under Conveyance Deed Cannot Be Considered As Financial Debt U/S 5(8) Of IBC: 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 interest free maintenance fee to be paid by the allottees to the corporate debtor under the Conveyance Deed cannot be considered as financial debt under section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

NCLT Has No Jurisdiction To Convict Person For Offence U/S 68 Of IBC In View Of Section 236 Of IBC: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has no jurisdiction to convict a person for an offence under Section 68 under Chapter VII of Part II of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) in view of the express provision contained in Section 236(1) of the Code.

When Debt Is Not Unequivocally Admitted By Corporate Debtor, Application U/S 9 Of IBC Must Not Be Entertained: 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 rejection of the Resolution Plan submitted by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor by Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot be interfered with when the concerned Director was present in all the meetings of the CoC and had still not submitted the plan in pursuance of Invitation to Expression of Interest (EoI).

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that the default falling in pre-section 10A period cannot be said to be continued when some payments towards the acknowledgement of debt accumulating during the prohibited period is made.

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 electricity being an essential supply cannot be disconnected during moratorium period under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) even if no payment is made for such such supply. The payment for such supply shall form part of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs.

Beneficiaries Of Personal Guarantee Can File Application U/S 95 Of 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 beneficiaries of personal guarantee can initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) against Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

If Tribunal Is Closed On Last Day Of Filing Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC, That Day Shall Stand Excluded As Per Rule 3 Of NCLAT Rules: NCLAT

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 when office of the Tribunal remains closed on the last day of filing an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the appeal can be filed on the day when the Tribunal reopens as per Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules.

NCLT

NCLT Hyderabad Rejects Application U/S 9 Of IBC Filed By M/s Isthara Parks Private Ltd On Grounds Of Pre-Existing Dispute

The NCLT Hyderabad Bench of Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member) has held that once a prima facie case of a genuine pre-existing dispute is made out prior to issuance of demand notice under Section 8(1) of the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority must reject an application filed by Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the Code.

NCLT Orders Disciplinary Proceedings Against Resolution Professional Of BYJU's, Says He Acted With Prejudice To Mislead Tribunal

The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru bench comprising Justice K. Biswal (Judicial Member) and Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member) have held that that as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code/IBC”), there is no provision to 'provisionally' constitute the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”); the CoC once constituted is final and cannot be revised or reconstituted by the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”)/Resolution Professional (“RP”) without the interference of the Adjudication Authority.

Bankrupt Individual Cannot Seek Discharge U/S 138(1) Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench comprising Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that under Section 138(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), only the Bankruptcy Trustee has the authority to apply for the discharge of a bankrupt individual before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal held that the non-filing of such an application by the Bankruptcy Trustee does not grant the Bankrupt the locus standi to file it himself.

Business Arrangement Involving Joint Profit-Sharing, Exclusive Supply Agreement Does Not Establish Creditor-Debtor Relationship Under IBC: NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi, has held that a petitioner cannot initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) if the business arrangement between the parties involves joint participation and profit-sharing rather than a straightforward operational debt. The Tribunal ruled that such an arrangement does not establish a debtor-creditor relationship under the IBC.

NCLT Can Punish For 'Civil Contempt' Of Its Orders U/S 425 Of Companies Act Read With S. 12 Of Contempt Of Courts Act: NCLT Ahmedabad

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench comprising Justice V. G. Bisht (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has approved the Resolution Plan for Reliance Big Private Limited submitted by ACME Cleantech Solutions Private Limited.

News

IBBI Introduces Amendments To Allow Homebuyers To Take Possession During CIRP

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has introduced amendments to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 through Notification No. IBBI/2024-25/GN/REG122, dated 03.02.2025. These amendments aim to enhance transparency and efficiency in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), particularly in relation to real estate projects.