Indian Bank v. K R Tirumuruhan, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.150/2025

NCLAT

Mere Execution Of Restructuring Agreement Does Not Extinguish Corporate Debtor's Liability When Restructuring Scheme Is Not Approved By NCLT: 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 the mere signing of a Master Restructuring Agreement, wherein a third party undertakes to discharge the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor, does not result in the extinguishment of the Corporate Debtor's obligations if the restructuring subsequently fails. It cannot be presumed that liabilities have been transferred solely due to the existence of a restructuring agreement. For such a transfer or extinguishment to be valid, the conditions under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act—specifically, mutual agreement between the original parties for substitution or novation—must be satisfied.

Continued Reflection Of Debt In Balance Sheet Amounts To Acknowledgement U/S 18 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a default in repayment obligations is said to occur when the debt is continuously reflected in the Corporate Debtor's balance sheets over an extended period, particularly when no fresh borrowing was undertaken during that time. In such circumstances, the continued inclusion of the liability constitutes a clear acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code stands extended, even if the Financial Creditor's name is not expressly mentioned in the balance sheets.

Liquidation Of Corporate Debtor Can Be Ordered If Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Obtain Necessary Approvals Within One Year: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a successful resolution applicant fails to obtain all necessary approvals within one year from the date of approval of the resolution plan— as mandated under Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—liquidation of the corporate debtor must follow as a necessary consequence.

Resolution Plan Providing Contingencies To Ensure Compliance With Building Norms Can't Be Deemed Unviable: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that one of the contingencies outlined in the resolution plan has been accepted, and Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) has expressed readiness to execute the construction in accordance with any of the approved options. These contingencies are lawful alternatives designed to facilitate construction with the necessary approvals from the Board. Therefore, the appellant's claim that the resolution plan is contingent, unviable, or unworkable lacks merit.

Court Records Can't Be Disputed Without Filing Correction Application: NCLAT Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) & Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dismissed an appeal challenging the National Company Law Tribunal's refusal to accept a reply filed after the closure of arguments. The Tribunal held that the record of the Court is correct until and unless an application is made to the same Court for any correction in case, there is any error.

NCLT Lacks Authority To Restrain Replacement Of Liquidator In Voluntary Liquidation: NCLAT Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the National Company Law Tribunal can't compel the corporate debtor to retain the same liquidator once a valid board resolution has been passed for their replacement under voluntary liquidation.

Payment Made During Pendency Of CIRP Application Cannot Be Considered For Calculating Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has allowed an appeal filed by the operational creditor. The issue before the tribunal was whether the threshold has to be seen at the time of filing of the application or at the time of admission of the application.

If Rights Under Debenture Deed Are Transferred Without Prior Approval From Holders, Liabilities Of Corporate Debtor Remain Undischarged: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a debenture deed mandates prior approval of the Debenture Trustee for any transfer of rights or liabilities, any such transfer made through an Acquisition Agreement without obtaining the required approval is in contravention of the principal deed and, therefore, unenforceable. Consequently, the Corporate Debtor cannot claim that its liabilities towards the debenture holders stood discharged merely by entering into such an agreement.

NCLAT Chennai Dismisses Appeal By Bjyu's Challenging NCLT Interim Order In Aakash Shareholding Dispute

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has dismissed the appeal filed by Think & Learn Private Limited (Byju's) against Aakash Educational Services Limited and others. The Tribunal held that the impugned order under challenge was interlocutory in nature and passed with the consent of the parties, and therefore no interference was warranted at the appellate stage.

Subsequent Application U/S 95 IBC Is Barred Where Proceedings Against Same Personal Guarantor Are Already Pending: NCLAT, Chennai

Case Title: Indian Bank v. K R Tirumuruhan

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) have held that where proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) have already been initiated by one Financial Creditor, a subsequent application under the same provision by another creditor against the same Personal Guarantor is barred by Section 96 of the Code.

When Entire Debt Amount Has Been Re-Paid, CIRP Process Can't Be Continued: NCLAT Delhi

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that when the admitted dues have been repaid by the debtor there is no point in continuing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

Suspended Management Cannot Disburse Funds Of Corporate Debtor Post-CIRP Commencement Without Authorisation Of IRP: NCLAT New Delhi

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 held that after commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) once moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) kicks in, no person can unilaterally recover any amount from the account of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal held that the suspended management of the Corporate Debtor is also strictly prohibited from directly or indirectly deploying the funds of the Corporate Debtor unilaterally, without the authorisation of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Further, in view of moratorium which precludes any such recovery, cheques cannot be encashed after the moratorium starts.

Corporate Insolvency And Bankruptcy Laws Bar Association Requests Operationalisation Of Second Bench At NCLAT Chennai

The Corporate Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws Bar Association, established to promote the study and advancement of corporate, insolvency, bankruptcy, economic, and allied laws, has submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Chairperson of the NCLAT on May 28, 2025, seeking the early constitution of a second bench at NCLAT, Chennai.

NCLT

Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Admitted In Absence Of NeSL Certificate If Loan Disbursal & Default Are Proved By Other Documents: NCLT Mumbai

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Justice V.G Bisht, (Retd). and Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member ) has held that even in the absence of a NeSL certificate, an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be admitted if the disbursal of the loan amount and occurrence of default are established through other reliable and relevant documents.

Corporate Debtor Can't Deny Transaction For Which It Earlier Gave Approval: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal Bench of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) upheld a Section 9 petition filed under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) stating that if the Corporate Debtor has given its approval for an amendment in the wage structure, it can't deny it later.

Interest-Free Debt Must Involve Time Value Of Money To Qualify As Financial Debt: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal Bench of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) dismissed a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the code”) stating that when the loan is granted without any interest it should have a consideration of time value of Money.

Absence Of Formal Written Agreement Does Not Preclude Establishment Of Financial Debt: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal Bench of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) the absence of a formal loan agreement does not defeat the existence of a financial debt. Documentary evidence such as tax filings (Form 26AS), TDS deductions, ledger entries, financial statements, and written acknowledgments are sufficient to establish a Financial Debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Merely Extending Financial Assistance Can't Be Considered As Loan In Absence Of A Loan Agreement: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal Bench of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) dismissed a Section 7 application filed under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the code”) holding that merely providing financial assistance can't be construed as a short-term or long-term loan in the absence of a formal loan agreement.