Homebuyers File Review Petition Against Supreme Court Judgment Holding Greater Noida Industrial Authority A 'Secured Creditor' Under IBC

Case Title: Blossom Zest Flat Buyers Welfare Association v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Ors.

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its judgment dated February 12, 2024 which classified Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as a 'secured creditor' for the purposes of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Filed by a homebuyers' association, the plea states that the impugned judgment has led the National Company Law Tribunal to send back many resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration on the ground that the same do not treat Noida/Greater Noida as 'secured creditor'.

Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included In IBC Resolution Plan Can't Be Enforced: Supreme Court

Case Title – Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S ESL Steel Limited) vs Ispat Carrier Private Limited

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491

The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. “we have no hesitation to hold that upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished. Therefore, the award dated 06.07.2018 is incapable of being executed”, the Court said.

IBC | Difference Between 'Avoidance Transactions' & 'Fraudulent Or Wrongful Trading' : Supreme Court Explains

Case details : PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED) v. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1632-1634 OF 2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 374

The Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd v. 63 Moons Technology explained the key difference between how the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 deals with avoidance transactions and transactions relating to fraudulent or wrongful trading. Notably, under the IBC 2016, 'avoidance transactions' are specific transactions conducted by a corporate debtor prior to insolvency proceedings that are deemed detrimental to the interests of creditors. These include (1) Preferential transactions, (2) Undervalued transactions, (3) Extortionate Credit transactions; (4) Fraudulent transactions.

S.61 IBC | When Judgment Is Pronounced In Open Court, Limitation Period Runs From That Day : Supreme Court

Case : A Rajendra v Gonuganta Madhusudhan Rao and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 392

The Supreme Court held that the incident which triggers the running of the limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 is the the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website.

Supreme Court Upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan For DHFL, Sets Aside NCLAT Order

Case details : PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED) v. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1632-1634 OF 2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 374

The Supreme Court today (April 1) approved the Resolution Plan proposed by Piramal Capita and Housing Finance for the erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd(DHFL).

The Court held that funds recovered from the fraudulent transactions at Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) will go to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.

Byju's Insolvency : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Riju Ravindran's Plea Against NCLAT Mandating CoC Nod For CIRP Withdrawal

The Supreme Court recently issued notice on an appeal challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment holding that the application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (trade name Byju's) needed approval from 90 percent of the Committee of Creditors.

S. 61(2) IBC | Appeal Filed Beyond 45 Days Not Condonable By NCLAT : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (May 7) ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), has no power to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed limit of 45 (30+15) days under Section 61(2) of the Code.

Explained| Why Supreme Court Set Aside JSW's Resolution Plan For Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd

Case Details : Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd and connected appeals | C.A. No. 1808/2020

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 524

The Supreme Court in its recent decision to set aside the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd, flagged the various procedural non-compliances done by the Resolution Professional and lack of commercial wisdom exercised by the Committee of Creditors (Coc)

Holding that the Resolution Plan of JSW was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC), a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the Committee of Creditors(Coc) should not have accepted it. The bench also faulted the National Company Law Tribunal for approving the Resolution Plan.

NCLT/NCLAT Cannot Review Actions Taken By ED Under PMLA : Supreme Court

Case : Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd and connected appeals | C.A. No. 1808/2020

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 524

In the Bhushan Steel insolvency case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal staying with the provisional attachment order passed against the assets of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Court emphatically stated that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot review the actions taken by statutory authorities under other laws.

S. 8 IBC | Service Of Demand Notice On Corporate Debtor's Key Managerial Personnel Is Valid To Trigger Insolvency Process : Supreme Court

Case Title: VISA COKE LIMITED VERSUS M/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 505

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 29) upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor's Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC.

Setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan allowed the Operational Creditor's appeal, stating that delivery of the demand notice to the corporate debtor's KMP constitutes deemed service of the notice.

IBC | Supreme Court Accepts Apology Of Tax Authorities For Asking Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Dues Not Covered By Approved Plan

Case Title: M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED VERSUS PRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS., CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 629 OF 2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Giving the benefit of doubt and accepting their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court today disposed of a contempt petition filed against Chhattisgarh tax authorities for raising demand notices against a successful resolution applicant over claims in respect of a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan.

"we have no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by the respondents/authorities for a period prior to the date on which the learned NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan were totally contemptuous in nature. The respondents could not have raised the said demands inasmuch as they are not part of the Resolution Plan...However, we do not propose to proceed against the respondents/contemnors inasmuch as they are entitled to benefit of doubt", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih.

IBC | Once Resolution Plan Approved, Dues Not Part Of It Get Extinguished : Supreme Court Rejects Post-Resolution Income Tax Demand

Case Title: Vaibhav Goel & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330

The Supreme Court today (March 20) declined a claim raised by the Income Tax Department to include a tax demand in a Resolution Plan after it was approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Citing the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657, which held that all claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval

No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium : Supreme Court

Case Title: VISHNOO MITTAL VERSUS M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314

The Supreme Court held that if the cause of action for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has arisen after the declaration of moratorium with respect to the company as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), then the proceedings under S.138 NI Act cannot be continued against the ex-director of the company.

Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency

Case Title – Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285

The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders.

IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”).

The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory statutes like the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium.

Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Interdicting Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantor At Threshold Stage In Writ Jurisdiction

Case Name: BANK OF BARODA v. FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2759/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 234

The Supreme Court while deciding an appeal pertaining to insolvency proceedings initiated against a personal guarantor, observed that the High Court should not have prohibited such proceedings by holding that the guarantor's liability has been waived.

“It is well-settled that when statutory tribunals are constituted to adjudicate and determine certain questions of law and fact, the High Courts do not substitute themselves as the decision-making authority while exercising judicial review.,” the Bench of Justices P.S. NARASIMHA and Manoj Mishra observed.

'IBC A Complete Code' : Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Exercising Writ Jurisdiction To Interdict CIRP

Case Title: MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD. VERSUS FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 48/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Disapproving a High Court's order interdicting a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court recently observed that the IBC is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, and thus, the exercise of supervisory and judicial review powers by High Courts demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application.

Supreme Court Dismisses Builder's Plea To Confine Insolvency Process To Single Real Estate Project

Case Title – Harpal Singh Chawla v. Vivek Khanna & Ors.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 14708/2024

The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal seeking to confine Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) to a single real estate project of the company located in Gurugram.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal against the decision of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi rejecting an application to confine the CIRP of the corporate debtor to a single project.

IBC | For Resolution Plan Involving Combination, Prior Approval Of Competition Commission Mandatory Before CoC Examination : Supreme Court

Case name: INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126

The Supreme Court on January 29, by 2:1 majority, observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, containing a proposed combination(a merger or amalgamation of entities), should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

High Court

Calcutta High Court Upholds Order Dismissing Plea Challenging Shift Of NCLT Premises To New Town

Proceedings U/S 37 A Of FEMA Can't Be Continued During Moratorium U/S 33(5) Of IBC: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & others.

Case Number: WPA 4585 of 2023

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Jay Sengupta has held that once a liquidation order against the Corporate Debtor is passed, all proceedings including those pending at the time of such order under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) cannot be continued, nor can any new proceedings be initiated, in view of the bar under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This is further reinforced by the non obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code, which gives the Code overriding effect over conflicting provisions, including those of FEMA.

Delhi High Court Reduces Suspension Period Imposed By IBBI Disciplinary Committee On Insolvency Professional, Finds Penalty Disproportionate

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Bhatt vs. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors.

Case Number: LPA 1054/2024, CM APPL. 61894/2024 & CM APPL.1284/2025

The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela have reduced the suspension period imposed on the Appellant/Resolution Professional, noting that the Disciplinary Committee of IBBI overlooked material aspects and relied on incorrect data while imposing the penalty. It reduced the suspension to the period already undergone.

All Claims Which Are Not Part Of Resolution Plan Shall Stand Extinguished, No Person Entitled To Initiate Any Proceedings Over Such Claims: Bombay HC

Case Title: Garden Silk Mills Limited v. Gayatri Industries

Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3540 OF 2021 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2003

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an Interim Application filed by the Appellant seeking the release of the bank guarantees, stating that all claims which are not part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any such claim.

Application U/S 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Against Sole Proprietorship Firms: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: RAMESH KOTHARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 7687 of 2025

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Prem Narayan Singh has held that since sole proprietorship firms are not included in the definition of the corporate person under section 3(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), an application under section 94 of the Code cannot be entertained.

Notice U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act Cannot Be Issued By Authority After Approval Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 Of IBC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: AMW Auto Component Limited Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot 1

Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 1593 Of 2025

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has held that after approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), all liabilities prior to the approval of the plan stand extinguished. Therefore, the Income Tax Authority cannot be permitted to issue a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) seeking to revise the assessment after the approval of the Plan.

[Noida Sports City Scam] Allahabad HC Lays Down Guidelines Regarding Rights Of Other Members Of Consortium When One Member Goes Into Insolvency

Case Title: M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019]

While directing CBI inquiry against officials of New Okhla Development Authority and various allottes/ builder involved in development of the Sporty City project in Noida, the Allahabad High Court laid down guidelines regarding the rights of other members of consortium, when one member goes into insolvency as the same is not provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Holding that the IBC is not indented to hamper projects of national importance, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar laid down the following guidelines:

Corporate Debtor Immune From Prosecution Under PMLA Post Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP.

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

Case Title: ASHOK HARRY POTHEN Vs. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S. INDIAN BANK

Case Number: W.P (C) No.4147/2025

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

Case Title: M/s. Stesalit Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 532 of 2025

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.

Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques After Commencement Of CIRP Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Chandra Bamrana and Ors. vs. Rukmani Gupta

Case Number: CRL. M.C. 6170/2022 & CRL. M.A. 24285/2022, CRL.M.C. 6178/2022 & CRL.M.A. 24297/2022

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishnonour of cheque cannot continue against individuals once a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is in effect.

Sole Financial Creditor Can't Entertain Request For One-Time Settlement Once CIRP Proceedings Have Commenced: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Limited

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.20620 OF 2024

Telangana High Court has dismissed a Writ petition filed by Mandava Holdings Private Limited challenging the rejection of the one-time settlement (OTS) proposal offer made to PTC India Financial Services Limited so as to stop CIRP proceedings without considering the RBI framework for compromise settlement and technical write-offs.

The petitioner contended that PTC India Financial Services Limited was wrong in approving the resolution plan without considering the settlement offer and prayed that the rejection letter issued in 2023 be set aside and consequently reconsider the proposal of OTS.

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.

Majority's Consideration Of Debt Restructuring With Corporate Debtor Does Not Bar Individual Member From Filing Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

NCLAT Upholds Admission Of CIRP Against Pushp Ratna Realty

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Dehi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have upheld the admission of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Pushp Ratna Realty Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the rejection of a settlement proposal made by the Appellant-Jayshree Agnihotri, noting that the Committee of Creditors (CoC), composed of homebuyers, had reasonably and unanimously opposed it. The home-buyers had been awaiting delivery of their constructed units for over a decade. The Tribunal held that an allottee who has lost trust in the management is entitled to seek resolution through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

S. 13(2) SARFAESI Act Notice Demanding Payment From Guarantor Constitutes Invocation Of Personal Guarantee: 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 where a Section 13(2) notice explicitly demands payment from the guarantor in terms of the guarantee agreement, it amounts to an invocation of the personal guarantee.

CoC Not Barred From Holding Second Challenge Process Despite Declaration Of Highest Bidder: NCLAT Delhi

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 766 of 2025

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 Committee of Creditors is not barred from holding a Second challenge process for auction of Corporate Debtor's asset, even if a highest bidder has already been declared in the first process.

Liberty Granted By NCLAT To File Fresh Application Does Not Permit Appellant To Alter Date Of Default In Application U/S 7 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 the mere fact that the NCLAT granted the Appellant liberty, and the Appellant subsequently failed to pursue the first appeal against the order dated 10.04.2023 by which the first application under section 7 of the Code was dismissed, does not entitle the Appellant to change the date of default at its convenience by alleging that a reminder was served to the Respondent after the default occurred on 04.02.2021.

Only Resolution Professional Is Empowered To File Application For Avoidance Of Preferential Transactions U/S 43 Of IBC: 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 an application for avoidance of preferential transactions under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) can be filed only by the Resolution Professional. Hence, the application filed by a single homebuyer was rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.

Adjudicating Authority Not Justified In Rejecting Plan Based On Valuation Report When No Objections Were Raised By Stakeholders: 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 no objection to the valuation conducted of the Corporate Debtor was raised by any stakeholders, it was not open for the Adjudicating Authority to enter into the issue of valuation of assets of the Corporate Debtor and to make the said ground for rejecting the Resolution Plan under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

Execution Of Fresh Personal Guarantee Post-Restructuring Bars Initiation Of Insolvency Process U/S 95 Of IBC Against Personal Guarantor: 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 the lenders restructured their debts and extinguished prior security interests by obtaining a fresh personal guarantee from the Personal Guarantor, the Appellant cannot invoke the earlier guarantee to initiate personal insolvency proceedings under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) against the Personal Guarantor, who is also the Resolution Applicant with an approved plan upheld by the Supreme Court.

Gratuity With Interest Qualifies As Operational Debt U/S 5(21) Of IBC: 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 claim for gratuity along with interest falls within the definition of operational debt; therefore, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) based on such a claim, is fully maintainable.

NCLT Can Exercise Inherent Powers To Forward A Copy Of Its Order To Relevant Statutory Authorities For Necessary Action: 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) that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, may direct that a copy of its order be forwarded to relevant statutory authorities for necessary action.

Interim Resolution Professional Is Empowered To Take Possession Of Assets Owned 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 Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is well within his authority under Section 18(1)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) to take possession of assets owned by the Corporate Debtor, and filing an application before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the Code for this purpose is permissible.

SEBI-Imposed Penalty Qualifies As A 'Fine' & Is An 'Excluded Debt' U/S 79(15)(A) Of IBC: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has upheld a decision passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Hyderabad), admitting an application filed under Section 122(1) of the IBC, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority has earlier held that the penalty imposed by the SEBI will come under the ambit of 'fine' and will be treated as the 'excluded debt' for the purpose of Section 79(15)(a) of the IBC. Hence, it will not come under the ambit of the moratorium and the bankruptcy proceedings.

No Cause of Action Arises Unless the Section 95 IBC Petition Is Admitted Against the Personal Guarantors: NCLAT Chennai

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has ruled that the personal guarantors cannot challenge the appointment of the resolution professional and other procedural actions taken under Section 95 to 100 of the IBC, 2016. The tribunal observed that these provisions are non-adjudicatory in nature, and no cause of action arises until an order under Section 100 is passed.

NCLAT Dismisses Appeal Against DLF U/S 61 Of IBC For ₹4.65 Crores Debt, Says Multiple Exchanges Between Parties Prove Pre-Existing Dispute

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has dismissed an appeal filed by the contractor under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) against DLF, claiming a debt of Rs. 4.65 crores, was dismissed on the grounds that multiple exchanges between the corporate debtor and the operational creditor prior to the issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Code demonstrate the existence of a pre-existing dispute. This dispute, the Tribunal held, must be adjudicated by an appropriate forum and not by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Code.

Absence Of Assignee Name In Balance Sheet Of Corporate Debtor Does Not Negate Applicability Of Section 18 Of Limitation Act: 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 fact that the debt was assigned to Assignee and the assignee was not named in the balance sheets does not negate the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act).

Repeated Filing Of Applications U/S 42 Of IBC Violates Principle Of Res Judicata, Amounts To Abuse Of Law: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Employees' Provident Fund Organization v/s Dr. Madurai Sundaram Sankar

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 193/2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical) dismissed appeals filed by the EPFO against the RP and SRA, stating that the same is restricted by the Doctrine of Res Judicata.

Joint Application U/S 9 Of IBC Not Maintainable If Individual Claims Do Not Meet Threshold Limit U/S 4 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Kavindra Kumar and Ors. Vs M/s Desein Private Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1272 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Baurn Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that in a joint application filed by operational creditors under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), the threshold limit prescribed under Section 4 must be independently satisfied by each operational creditor. The collective or aggregate debt of all operational creditors cannot be clubbed to meet the minimum threshold requirement for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

No Claim Can Be Submitted After Approval Of Resolution Plan By CoC If Creditor Was Aware Of CIRP Initiation Against Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: T.C.A. Surveyors & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pooja Bahry, Est. RP for United News of India & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 533 of 2025

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 when a creditor is well aware of the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor but chooses not to file a claim before the Resolution Professional, it cannot be permitted to submit the claim after the Resolution Plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Homebuyers Remain Financial Creditors U/S 5(8)(F) Of IBC Regardless Of Whether They Obtained RERA Recovery Certificates: NCLAT

Case Title: Shailendra Agarwal Versus Asit Upadhyaya and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 327 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 whether or not homebuyers have obtained recovery certificates from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), they remain financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

NCLT Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Contractual Claims During Liquidation Under IBC If There Exists An Arbitration Clause: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Amier Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther v. NLC India Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 213/2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), dismissed an appeal arising out of an order passed by the NCLT, Chennai. The tribunal observed that a liquidator under the IBC, 2016, cannot seek adjudication of a disputed contractual claim if the contract provides an arbitration clause. The tribunal held that the IBC forums are not the appropriate platform for adjudicating and recovering the dues, and the appellant must seek recourse through the mutually agreed forum.

When There Is Sufficient Material To Show Dispute U/S 9(5)(ii)(d) Of IBC, Adjudicating Authority Cannot Ignore The Same: NCLAT, New Delhi

Case Title: Bhawani Prasad Mishra Vs Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 557 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical) admitted appeal filed Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, Court-I, admitting Section 9 application filed by Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd.

NCLAT Upholds Liquidation Of Go Airlines, Permits Submission Of Compromise/Arrangement Within 90 Days Of Liquidation Order

Case Title: Busy Bee Airways Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dinkar T Venkatasubramanian, Liquidator, Go Airlines (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.124 of 2025 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.175 of 2025 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.244 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC), acting under its commercial wisdom and in accordance with Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was within its rights to resolve to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, Go Airlines (India) Ltd., in the absence of any compliant resolution plan.

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Accept Report Of Resolution Professional Mechanically, Must Conduct Independent Assessment U/S 100 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Mrs. Rajani Ajay Gupta (Personal Guarantor to M/s. Metrix Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indian Bank

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2184 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8158 of 2024

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 the Adjudicating Authority, while considering the report of the Resolution Professional submitted under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), must conduct its own independent assessment to determine whether all essential issues required for accepting or rejecting the application filed under Section 95 of the Code are fulfilled. It cannot merely accept the findings of the Resolution Professional mechanically.

Dissenting Financial Creditors Are Entitled To Receive Payments On Pro-Rata Basis Of Resolution Plan Value Rather Than Liquidation Value: NCLAT

Case Title:RBL Bank Limited Vs Sical Logistics Limited and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.36/2024 (IA Nos. 106, 107 & 779/2024)

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 dissenting financial creditors are entitled to receive payments on a pro-rata basis of the Resolution Plan rather than the liquidation value.

Breach Of Settlement Agreement Does Not Preclude Financial Creditors From Filing Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Bahadur Ram Mallah Versus Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 66 of 2025

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 financial creditors are not precluded from filing an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), merely because they have entered into a settlement agreement with the corporate debtor that was subsequently breached. The nature of the debt remains unchanged, even if a settlement agreement has been executed between the parties.

All Assets Reflected In Balance Sheet Of Corporate Debtor Form Part Of Liquidation Estate U/S 36 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Anil Kohli Liquidator of Vegan Colloids Limited Versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 865 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that all assets reflected in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor form part of the liquidation estate under Section 36 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot be distributed to creditors outside the framework prescribed under Sections 52 and 53 of the Code. If any asset of the Corporate Debtor has been realized by a creditor during liquidation, such asset must be returned to the Liquidator.

Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Is Maintainable Against Order Passed By NCLT Initiating Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantors: NCLAT

Case Title: Aarti Singal Versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2121 of 2024, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2124 of 2024, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2114 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2115 of 2024

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 An appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) can be filed by personal guarantors against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 100 of the Code, directing the initiation of the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP), as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is the appropriate forum for initiating insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors.

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Suo Moto Amend Date Of Default In Insolvency Application Unless Amendment Application Is Filed: NCLAT

Case Title: Royal Construction Versus Gannon Dunkerley & Company Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 393 of 2025

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 the Adjudicating Authority cannot suo moto amend the date of default mentioned in the insolvency application unless an amendment application is filed; otherwise, it would tantamount to exceeding its jurisdiction, which is not permissible in law.

Liquidation Order U/S 33 Of IBC Cannot Be Set Aside When Third Party Has Taken Possession Of Property After Sale Conducted By Liquidator: NCLAT

Case Title: P. Navcen Chakravarlhy V Ramakrishnan Sadasivam.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.32/2021 (IA No.74/2021)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that the order passed under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), directing the liquidation of the corporate debtor, cannot be set aside once the Successful Auction Purchaser has taken possession of the corporate debtor's property pursuant to the sale conducted by the liquidator.

Committee Of Creditors Not Prohibited From Seeking Multiple Modifications Or Revisions Of Resolution Plans: NCLAT

Case Title: Sagar Stone Industries Versus Sajjan Kumar Dokania (RP)

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 524 & 525 of 2025

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 the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is empowered to seek revisions or modifications in the Resolution Plans submitted by the Resolution Applicants multiple times, as Regulation 39(1A) of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), restricts only the Resolution Professional from permitting modifications to the plan more than once, but does not impose any such restriction on the CoC.

Decree Obtained By Operational Creditors From Civil Court Does Not Mean They Cease To Be Operational Creditors: NCLAT

Case Title: Venus Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Senbo Engineering Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1317 of 2023

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 an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the Operational Creditor, having obtained a decree for the debt, ceases to be an Operational Creditor.

Recall Application Filed By Shareholder Cannot Be Entertained When Director Who Pursued Earlier Proceedings Had Resigned: NCLAT

Case Title: M/s. Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. V Ace Enviro Tech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number: IA Nos.1293 & 1295/2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.129/2024 (IA Nos.1294 & 1296/2024)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that an application filed by a shareholder cannot be entertained when the Suspended Director, who pursued the proceedings leading to the order sought to be recalled, has resigned. A shareholder cannot substitute the Director due to their distinct legal status.

Merely Stamping Invoices Does Not Imply Acceptance Of Debt Without Resolution Of Pre-Existing Dispute: NCLAT

Case Title: Tirupati Drilling & Mining Services Private Limited Versus Sadbhav Engineering Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 95 of 2025 & I.A. No. 395 of 2025

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 mere stamping of tax/proforma invoices at the site office by lower functionaries of the Corporate Debtor only indicates receipt and does not imply acceptance by the Corporate Debtor that there was no pre-existing dispute with respect to the quantum of the amount payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor, especially when the dispute related to the quantum of the amount had already been raised multiple times before issuance of the demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

NCLT Cannot Rectify Or Amend Uploaded Order Without Hearing Affected Parties: NCLAT

Case Title: Deccan Advanced Sciences Private Limited V Escientia Biopharma Private Limited And Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.43/2025 (IA Nos.535, 536, 537 & 538/2025)

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 once an order is uploaded on the website, it is deemed to be in the public domain. Therefore, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot carry out any rectification or amendment under Rule 154 of the NCLT Rules without first providing an opportunity of being heard to all affected parties.

Adjudicating Authority Can't Presume Applicability Of Interest On Principal Amount In Absence Of Express Agreement Between Parties: NCLAT

Case Title: Shitanshu Bipin Vora Suspended Director of Exclusive Linen Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Hari Yarns Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2204 of 2024

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 while deciding an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the Adjudicating Authority cannot presume the applicability of interest based on vague statements in the invoices issued by the Operational Creditor. Unless there is a specific contract between the parties stipulating the payment of interest on delayed payments, such claims for interest are not legally sustainable.

Date Of Default Pleaded U/S 7 Of IBC Cannot Be Changed Automatically On Basis Of Arbitral Award Passed After Filing Application: NCLAT

Case Title: Deepak Mahadev Shirke Versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 490 of 2025

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 the date of default mentioned in Part IV of the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be changed merely on the basis that an arbitral award was passed subsequent to the filing of the application.

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Can't Be Entertained During Moratorium Period Under Accepted Restructuring Proposal: NCLAT

Case Title: CATALYST TRUSTEESHIP LTD. Versus ECSTASY REALTY PVT. LTD

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 467 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the debenture holders have acted upon the restructuring proposal given by the Corporate Debtor, which included a moratorium on its repayment obligations, they cannot be permitted to file an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), until the expiry of the moratorium period proposed under the restructuring plan especially when the Corporate Debtor had fulfilled its obligations under the said proposal to which the financial creditors had consented.

Petition U/S Section 7 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Based On Guarantee Invoked During Prohibited Period U/S 10A Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: IDBI Bank Limited Versus Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 939 of 2023

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 liability of the guarantor arises only when the guarantee executed by them in favor of the creditor is invoked. If such guarantee was invoked during the period prohibited under Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), an application under Section 7 of the Code cannot be maintained.

Service Of Notice On Email Provided In Section 7 Petition Constitutes Sufficient Compliance With Rule 38(1) Of NCLT Rules: NCLAT

Case Title:Akhilesh Kumar Versus Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 512 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1946 of 2025

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 service of notice on the email address provided in the petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) constitutes sufficient compliance with Rule 38(1) of the NCLT Rules.

Ten-Day Time Period U/S 99 Of IBC For Submission Of Report By Resolution Professional Is Directory, Not Mandatory: NCLAT

Case Title: Suresh Atlani Atlani Villa Versus Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 200 of 2025

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 the 10-day period provided under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 (Code) within which the Resolution Professional has to submit the report after appointment, cannot be considered mandatory, as no consequences are prescribed in the provision itself for failure to submit the report within the stipulated period, even though the word "shall" has been used.

Lenient Approach To Be Adopted While Condoning Delay In Refiling, But Sufficient Cause Must Be Shown: NCLAT

Case Title:Prakash Ambure & Ors. Versus Invent Bio-Med Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number:I.A. No. 1680 of 2024 In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 582 of 2024

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 lenient approach has to be adopted by the court while condoning the delay in refiling the appeal; however, sufficient cause must still be shown before the application for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal can be allowed.

Interest Mentioned In Unsigned Invoice Cannot Be Included In Calculation Of Threshold Limit U/S 4 Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Jai Narain Fabtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Cheema Spintex Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1515 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5453 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) and Mr. Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Chandigarh. The tribunal held that the interest specified in an unsigned invoice cannot be included in the calculation of the debt for the purpose of meeting the threshold limit under Section 4 of the IBC.

Hire Charges Cannot Be Calculated In CIRP Costs When Asset Is Not Used by Corporate Debtor: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Starlog Enterprises Ltd. v. Pulkit Gupta

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 558 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Mumbai. The tribunal held that the hire charges for the assets not used by the corporate debtor during the CIRP cannot be classified as CIRP costs under Regulation 31(b) of the CIRP Regulations.

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Entertained For Default On Interest Component Of Loan If It Occurs After Section 10A Period: NCLAT

Case Title:Vinod Kumar Versus Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2265 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 an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), can be entertained based on the default in the interest component committed after the prohibited period under Section 10A of the Code, provided that the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore under Section 4 of the Code is met.

When Acknowledgment Of Debt By Repeated One-Time Settlement Proposals Is Not Controverted, Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Entertained: NCLAT

Case Title: Rohit Suri (suspended director of corporate debtor) Versus Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1125 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4037, 4038, 4039 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 when no contrary facts are presented by the Corporate Debtor to the arguments advanced by the Financial Creditor that multiple One Time Settlement (OTS) proposals made by the Corporate Debtor extended the limitation period with each new proposal, it cannot be contended that an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), based on the Corporate Debtor's acknowledgment of liability through such OTS proposals, is not maintainable provided it is filed within three years from the date of the last OTS proposal.

No Right To Be Heard Can Be Given At Stage U/S 99 Of IBC, Resolution Professional's Role Is Only Recommedatory And Not Adjudicatory: NCLAT

Case Title:IQBAL JUMABHOY V SHRI MANOJ KUMAR ANAND and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 29/2025 IA No. 115/2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) has held that no opportunity of being heard is required at the stage when a report under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is submitted, as the role of the Resolution Professional at this stage is merely to assist the Adjudicating Authority in deciding whether the application should be accepted or rejected. Therefore, if no opportunity is given at this stage by the Resolution Professional, the admission order of the petition based on such a report cannot be set aside.

Resolution Professional Can File Liquidation Application U/S 33 Of IBC If CIRP Period Expires Without Approved Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Title: Subh Laxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. Versus Committee of Creditors of Sintex Plastics Technology Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1104 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3977 of 2024

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 when the extended Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period has expired and no resolution plan has been approved, it is incumbent upon the Resolution Professional to file an application for the liquidation of the corporate debtor. A discussion regarding the filing of a liquidation application and the Committee of Creditors (CoC)'s request to nominate a liquidator is sufficient for the purposes of Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

NCLT May Waive Eligibility Criteria U/S 244(1)(b) Of Companies Act When Allegations Of Oppression & Mismanagement Are Not Previously Adjudicated: NCLAT

Case Title: Somangsu Biswas Versus the Calcutta Cricket & Football Club

Case Number: COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.56 OF 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that when there are internal differences among the members of a company and repeated allegations of oppression and mismanagement have been raised by some members, which have not been previously adjudicated, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 244(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 (Companies Act) required for filing such an application, may be waived by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by exercising its discretionary power under the proviso to Section 244(b) of the Act.

Provident Fund Claims Filed After Approval Of Resolution Plan By Committee Of Creditors Cannot Be Admitted By Resolution Professional: NCLAT

Case Title: REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Versus MR. JAYESH SANGHAJKA

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2100 of 2024

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 statutory obligations must be fulfilled during insolvency proceedings; however, this does not mean that statutory dues including provident fund claims can be submitted even after the Resolution Plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Therefore, the Resolution Professional is not obligated to admit additional claims filed after the CoC's approval of the plan.

Mortgagee Bank Cannot Seek Exclusion Of Property From Resolution Plan Approved By Unit Holders Having Conveyance Deeds: NCLAT

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd Versus Atul Kumar Kansal & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 549 of 2025

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 the bank in whose favor mortgage rights were created over the property of the Corporate Debtor cannot seek exclusion of the property from the Resolution Plan, especially when the unit holders, possessing either a conveyance deed or builder-buyer's agreements, have approved the Resolution Plan.

Written Acknowledgment Of Debt Extends Limitation Period For Insolvency Application: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Ajay Singal v. Mr. Ranjan Chakraborti & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1285 and 1272 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member - Technical), disposed of an appeal arising from an order passed by the NCLT New Delhi. The bench held that by virtue of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the written acknowledgment of debt extends the limitation period for initiating the CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016. The bench observed that the limitation will be observed from the last written acknowledgment of the debt.

Limitation Period For Filing Appeal Begins From Date Of Pronouncement If Substantive Order Is Passed: NCLAT

Case Title: Rajan Rawat, RP Future Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. Versus Kishanlal Shivramji Sharma

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 167 of 2025 & I.A. No. 657 of 2025

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 it is only when no substantive order is passed on the date of pronouncement that the date of uploading the order shall be considered for calculating the limitation period, and not the date of pronouncement. However, this principle cannot be invoked when a substantive order was, in fact, passed on the date of pronouncement in such cases, the limitation period shall begin from that very date.

Conversion Of Partner's Dues Into Loan Does Not Qualify As Financial Debt U/S 5(8) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Gogia Leasing Ltd. Versus Sunanda Polymers LLP

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 405 of 2025

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 conversion of partners' dues against the partnership firm into a loan cannot become a financial debt merely because the dues were assigned at the time the partnership firm was converted and registered as a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). It further held that at the time the debt arose, it was not a financial debt within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code)

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Declare Sale Of Going Concern As Void Without Any Challenge: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Arrhum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Khattar (Liquidator)

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1944 of 2024

The Principal Bench of NCLAT, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), set aside the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench's order and held that a sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern cannot be declared null and void suo moto by the Adjudicating Authority in the absence of any challenge to such sale. The Adjudicating Authority had earlier nullified the sale and imposed penalties on the liquidator.

Financial Creditors Proceeding With Application U/S 7 Only As A Recovery Measure Is Not The Objective Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Maneesh Ramakant Sapte Vs Export Import Bank of India & Ors

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1954 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical) dismissed and appeal filed by a suspended director of the Corporate Debtor (Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited) challenging the order of admitting Section 7 application by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench.

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Declare A Sale Transaction Void U/S 66(1) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Sangeeta Jatinder Mehta & Anr. V. Kailash Shah RP of New Empire Textile Processor Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 104 of 2024

The Principal Bench of the NCLAT, New Delhi, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) along with Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has modified an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) and partly allowed an appeal. The tribunal partly set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order, which invalidated the transfer of two flats to the appellants, but upheld the direction to repay the fraudulent consultancy charges. The tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority is very much empowered to direct contributions to the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 66(1) of the IBC, 2016, for fraudulent transactions, but it cannot declare the sale transaction void.

Section 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Used To Hinder Recovery Process Under SARFAESI Act: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Syed Sirajis Salikin Khadri v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 455 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of by Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical) has upheld the dismissal of a Section 94 IBC petition filed by the personal guarantor and held that IBC proceedings cannot be misused to obstruct legitimate recovery under SARFAESI Act. It was held that the right given under Section 94 of the IBC cannot be taken away solely because of the fact that SARFAESI proceedings have been initiated previously but the Adjudicating Authority must examine the specific facts of each case to determine its applicability.

Section 45 Of IBC Applies To Transactions Made Prior To CIRP, Not On Date Of Initiation: NCLAT Principal Bench, New Delhi

Case Title: Avni Jain Versus Manoj Kulshrestha, IRP for Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2288 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical) dismissed joint appeals filed by eight appellants against a common judgment of the adjudicating authority (NCLT, New Delhi) in various interlocutory applications (IAs) challenging the cancellation of residential unit allotments in the project developed by Corporate Debtor.

Application U/S 95 Of IBC Against Personal Guarantors Not Barred By Change In Debt Quantum After Approval Of Plan Against Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: Aarti Singal Vs. State Bank of India & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2121 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 a change in the quantum of debt to be paid by the personal guarantor, following the approval of the resolution plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor, does not negate the right of the creditors to proceed against the personal guarantor under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

Creditor Obtaining Award Directing Real Estate Firm To Not Create Third-Party Interest In Specified Units Doesn't Amount To 'Security Interest': NCLAT

Case Title: M/s. Star Maxx Properties Through its Authorised Representative Mr. Nakul Goel Versus Arunava Sikhdar and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 338 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 merely obtaining an arbitral award in which the corporate debtor was directed not to create any third‑party interest in specified units does not amount to creating a “security interest” within the meaning of Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Therefore, a creditor relying solely on such an award cannot be classified as a secured financial creditor especially when no Builder‑Buyer Agreement was executed to evidence transfer of the unit to that creditor.

Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Based On Fabricated Invoices Created To Pursue Revenge Litigation Against Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title:Om Sai Moulds & Plactics Versus Pllastomax Engineering Private Limited And Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 261 of 2025

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 a Section 9 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be admitted when the operational creditor has used its control over the corporate debtor's affairs to fabricate invoices and drag the company into insolvency on account of personal or matrimonial disputes pending between the creditor's partners and the corporate debtor's director.

NCLAT Upholds Order Directing Suspended Directors To Repay ₹32 Lakh Which Was Withdrawn During CIRP, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost

Case Title:Sh. Ashish Chaturvedi and Ors. Versus Sh. Sanjay Garg and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 432 of 2025

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 upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor to return the Rs.32 lakh along with interest they had withdrawn during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It also imposed costs of Rs.5 lakh on the respondents for repeatedly raising the same issue again and again in multiple proceedings.

Liquidated Damages Validly Deducted During CIRP Cannot Be Refunded After Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Title: Fabtech Projects and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Fabtech Projects and Engineers Ltd.) Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 373 of 2025

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 once the Resolution Professional opted to continue the contract during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), all its terms including liquidated‑damages deductions from invoices will remain binding. These deductions cannot be faulted, and no refund can be ordered after the approval of the Resolution Plan.

Withdrawal Application Filed After Constitution Of CoC Must Obtain Its Approval U/S 12A Of IBC: NCLAT, Chennai

Case Title: Riju Ravindran Suspended director and Promoter of Think & Learn Pt ltd V. Pankaj Srivastava, IRP of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 89 of 2025 IA Nos. 250, 251 & 390/2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, (NCLAT), Chennai comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical) dismissed joint appeals filed by the suspended director of Think & Learn Pt ltd and BCCI against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in relation the CIRP process of the corporate debtor- Think & Learn Pt ltd (Parent company of BYJU's)

IBC | Section 12A Application Not Mandatory If No Other Creditors Are Involved & Settlement Is Reached: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Sachin Malde v. Hemant Nanji Chheda & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 123 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitral (Member-Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), disposed of an appeal while holding that if no other claims have been received in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and a full settlement has been reached between the parties, then it is not mandatory to file a Section 12A application under the IBC. Exercising its inherent power, the tribunal closed the CIRP proceedings.

Application For CIRP Not Maintainable If Default Occurred During Protected Period U/S 10A Of IBC

Case Title: Manish Mukim v. Ms. Rakhi and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 617 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), disposed of an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Kolkata Bench-II regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Consideration And Subsequent Rejection Of Resolution Plan By Committee Of Creditors Submitted After Due Date Cannot Be Questioned: NCLAT

Case Title: Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited The Ruby Versus Ashdan Properties Private Limited and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1566 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5973, 6380 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 the consideration and subsequent rejection of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors submitted after the due date cannot be questioned.

IBC Only Overrides Another Statue When There Is A Clear And Direct Conflict: NCLAT

Case Title: Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. V Chief Engineer (Commercial), Ajmer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1411 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5124, 5125, 5126, 7549 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member (Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member (Technical) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical) dismissed appeal filed against the impugned order of NCLT, Jaipur allowing Respondent to recover Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) from Appellant for periods prior to the admission of the Company in Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP).

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Direct Committee Of Creditors To Consider Expression Of Interest Submitted After Due Date: NCLAT

Case Title: PTC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Munjal, RP of Nipman Fasteners Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 444 of 2025

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 the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has decided not to accept Expressions of Interest (EoI) submitted after the due date, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct fresh consideration of such EoI by the CoC.

Successful Resolution Applicant Can Be Directed To Make Upfront Payment To Dissenting Financial Creditors If Resolution Plan Includes Such Provision: NCLAT

Case Title:Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia Successful Resolution Applicant of MBL Infrastructure Ltd Versus IDBI Bank Limited and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 198 of 2025

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 the Successful Resolution Applicant(SRA) can be directed to make an upfront payment to the dissenting financial creditors under the Resolution Plan when there is a clause in the Plan itself providing for such payment.

After Submission Of Final Revised Resolution Plan Within Stipulated Time Frame, Resolution Applicant Cannot Be Permitted To Modify It: NCLAT

Case Title: M/s. Findoc Finvest Private Limited Registered Office Versus Mr. Surendera Raj Gang and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.249 of 2025

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 After submission of the final revised Resolution Plan within the stipulated timeframe, the Resolution Applicant cannot be permitted to modify it.

While Deciding Application U/S 7 Of IBC, Adjudicating Authority Is Not Required To Interfere With Terms Of Contract Between Parties: NCLAT

Case Title:Mrs. Madhubala Chauhan Suspended director of Karni Developers & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 604 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 while dealing with an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority is expected to interfere with the terms of the contract entered into between the concerned parties. All that is required to be seen is whether the debt and default is proven without adjudicating on whether the rate of interest was unreasonable or inflated.

Resolution Plan Can Be Approved Beyond 330-Day Time Limit If There Are Valid Grounds For Extension: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. v. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench-II regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

CoC Cannot Remit Approved Resolution Plan Post-Submission To Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT

Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 62 of 2025 & I.A. No. 245 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that once a resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and submitted to the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC cannot seek remit it back to the CoC for fresh consideration.

Adjudicating Authority Can Extend Time For Payment Of Sale Consideration Beyond 90 Days U/S 35 Of IBC Read With Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules: NCLAT

Case Title: Rajabhau Shinde Versus S.M. Electric Works Through Shri. Sunil Madhukar Saraf & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 826 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2989 of 2024

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 the 90-day period for payment of sale consideration under Schedule 1, Clause 1(12) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, is mandatory and can only be extended by the Adjudicating Authority, not the Liquidator.

NCLAT Dismisses Senior Advocate's Plea Over Non-Payment Of Over ₹6 Crore In Fees By Company, Says Pre-Existing Dispute Bars Initiation Of CIRP

Case Title: Debarata Ray Choudhuri v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1985 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from the final order by the NCLT New Delhi Bench-IV regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Allottee Cannot Be Considered Financial Creditor When Allotted Unit Is Cancelled At Their Request: NCLAT

Case Title: Gaurav Jindal Versus Debashish Nanda, RP Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2076 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7357 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 an allottee of a unit cannot be considered a financial creditor if the allotted unit was canceled at their request and the loan taken to purchase the flat was settled with the lending bank.

Delivery Of Demand Notice To Last Known Address Of Personal Guarantor Shall Be Deemed Valid Service U/S 95(4) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Paresh Rastogi and Ors. Versus M/Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024

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 delivery of a demand notice to the last known address of the personal guarantor, as stipulated in the deed of guarantee, shall be deemed valid service for the purposes of Section 95(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted When Debt Is Discharged By Corporate Debtor After Receipt Of Demand Notice: NCLAT

Case Title: Mr. Pankaj Kalra (Suspended director of Essar Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Limited) Vs Greeka Greens Solution (India) Limited and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1783 of 2024

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 Insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be initiated if the debt in question has been discharged and settled between the parties after the issuance of demand notice under section 8 of the Code.

Lease Hold Rights Existing In Favor Of Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Terminated During Moratorium Period U/S 14 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Divyesh Desai RP of GPT Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Bhuj

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1103 of 2024 & I.A. No.3974 of 2024

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 an order terminating the lease cannot be passed during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), particularly when leasehold rights are assets of the corporate debtor which were in its possession.

Once CoC And Adjudicating Authority Approve Resolution Plan, Payment Terms Are Final: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Institution) v. Sandeep Gupta & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the Greater Noida Development Authority (GNIDA). The appellant challenged the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, which had already been finalized. The tribunal emphasized that once the resolution plan had been approved by the CoC and adjudicating authority, the payment terms became final.

Reflection Of Genuine Pre Existing Dispute From Correspondences Between Parties Is Sufficient To Reject Application U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Dilipkumar Lokooram Arora, (Member of Suspended Board of Directors) Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Versus KTR Management Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2183 of 2024

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 pre-existing dispute regarding the claim exists between the parties, as clearly reflected in their correspondence, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), must be rejected.

Secured Creditor's Security Interest Becomes Part Of Liquidation Estate If Amount As Stipulated Under Regulation 21A(2) Is Not Deposited Within 90 days: NCLAT

Case Title: Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 592 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3167 of 2024 & 1166 of 2025

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 If a secured creditor who has chosen to realize its security interest under Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) fails to deposit the amount as stipulated under Regulation 21A(2) of the Liquidation Regulations within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date, the security shall become part of the liquidation estate.

NCLAT Clarifies Computation Of Limitation Under Section 61 Of IBC When Last Day Falls On A Holiday

Case Title: Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr. (Suspended Director and Promoter of WSH Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors

Case Number: I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhusan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that for computing the 30 days' period under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), if the last day expires on a day when the office of the NCLAT is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which the NCLAT remains closed shall also be excluded.

Operational Creditor Can Only Trigger CIRP Process When There Is An Undisputed Debt And Default In Payment: NCLAT

Case Title: Rajendra Bisht, Erstwhile promoter of M/s Ambassador Logistics Pvt Ltd. V M/s Satkar Logistics Pvt Ltd

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 285 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member (Technical) dismissed appeal filed by the operational creditors due to the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and corporate debtor.

Rights Of Auction Purchaser Are Crystallized Upon Issuance Of Sale Certificate: NCLAT Chennai

Case Title: Ketan C Bagadia V Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, Liquidator of Nexus Electro Steel Ltd. Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Nexus Electro Steel Ld.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins)No.36/2025 (IA Nos. 127 & 128/2025)

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai comprising of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical) dismissed an appeal filed by the former director of the corporate debtor (Nexus Electro Steel Ltd.) challenging the impugned order of NCLT, Chennai and the auction process being undertaken by the liquidator.

Penalties U/S 65 Of IBC Can Be Imposed Against Those Who Fraudulently Initiate Insolvency Process: NCLAT

Case Title: Rakesh Arora & Anr. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Rockman Advertising & Marketing (India) Ltd. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1606 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5859 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical) disposed an appeal filed by a majority shareholder of the corporate debtor stating that the Section 7 application filed by financial creditors was fraudulently filed in collusion with the corporate debtors' promoters.

For Initiating Proceedings U/S 7 Of IBC, Existence Of Financial Debt And Corresponding Default Is A Sine Qua Non: NCLAT

Case Title: M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited V. State Bank of India

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 974 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a Section 7 petition filed by the Appellant (M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited) and upholding the decision of Adjudicating authority, stating that the petition was filed with malicious intent.

When There Is No Privity Of Contract Between Operational Creditor And Corporate Debtor, Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted: NCLAT

Case Title:Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV Versus MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.)

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2279 of 2024

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 an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), cannot be admitted when there is no privity of contract between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. When the invoices were raised on the sister concern of the Corporate Debtor rather than on the Corporate Debtor itself, it clearly demonstrates the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties.

Adding Inflated Interest To Outstanding Liability Merely To Cross Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC Is Not Permissible: NCLAT

Case Title: Aquarius H2O Dynamics Private Limited Versus M/s Riddhi Siddhi Metals

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2025

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 the interest cannot be added to the outstanding liability when there is no contract between the parties to this effect and no past practice justifying such action merely to cross the threshold of Rs. 1 crore under section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

Consent Terms Can Only Be Legally Enforced If Ratified By Court: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Title: United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt Ltd. v. Varaha Infra Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 480 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal filed against an order passed by the NCLT, Jaipur. The bench held that once the entire debt had been liquidated by the corporate debtor, the corporate debtor could not be put into insolvency. The tribunal ruled consent terms can only be legally enforced if ratified by the court.

Google Abused Dominant Position Through Restrictive App Store Billing Policy But Didn't Deny Market Access: NCLAT Reduces Penalty From ₹936 Cr To ₹216 Cr

Case Title: Alphabet Inc. & Ors. vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr.

Case Number: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 04 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has partially upheld the decision of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Google leveraged its dominance in the Play Store ecosystem to promote Google Play which violates section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Fresh Period Of Limitation U/S 18 Of Limitation Act Begins From Date When Balance Sheet Is Signed By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: IL&FS Financial Services Limited Versus Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Private Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1379 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 a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) for the purpose of filing an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) begins from the date the balance sheet is signed by the authorized signatories of the corporate debtor, not from the date it is uploaded on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website.

Order Passed After Considering All Materials Essential For Determining Issue Cannot Be Recalled: NCLAT

Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 376 of 2025

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 an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority after considering all necessary materials essential for determining the issue cannot be recalled. Therefore, it cannot be said that such an order was obtained by playing fraud on the court on which ground only an order can be recalled.

When Corporate Debtor's One Time Settlement Proposal Is Rejected By Financial Creditor, Application U/S 7 Of IBC Must Be Admitted: NCLAT

Case Title: Nakul Bharana Versus National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1930 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7495 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 when a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the corporate debtor is rejected by the financial creditor and the debt remains unpaid, the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), must be admitted.

Approved Resolution Plan Cannot Be Reopened For Belatedly Agitated Claims: NCLAT

Case Title: Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a set of four appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 stating that the appellants had failed to exercise due diligence on protecting their rights with the prescribed timelines.

Promoter Undergoing CIRP Can Be Permitted To Complete Project For Benefit Of Homebuyer: NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended directors of the Supertech Township Projects Ltd stating that the resolution plan of the corporate debtor must proceed strictly as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

No Straight Jacket Formula Can Be Laid Down For Adjudication Of Application U/S 12A Of IBC & Objections Therein: NCLAT

Case Title: Himanshu Singh, Suspended Director of Kriti Prakashan Private Limited Versus HDFC Bank Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 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 no straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority of a 12A application and the objections filed therein.

It further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has to see whether the claim has substantially been settled substantially or not. If it is satisfied that the amount has already been settled, it may consider this as one of the factors while allowing the application under section 12A.

Timely Implementation Of Resolution Plan Is The Underlying Objective Of The IBC: NCLAT

Case: Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India

Citation: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2012-2013 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7544 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India, recently dismissed the appeal filed by Darwin Platform, upholding an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, which had reinstated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The case arose from the failure of the appellant to implement the resolution plan within the stipulated timeline, leading to the invocation of its Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG).

Operational Creditors Cannot Question Approval Of Resolution Plan That Provides Them With More Than Liquidation Value: NCLAT

Case Title: J.K. PAPER FIBRE RESOURCES Through its Partner Mr. Jitendra K. Shah Versus Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 76 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) that Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be questioned by the Operational Creditors when they were provided more than the liquidation value under the Plan as per section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

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

Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Mackeil Ispat & Forging Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1663 of 2023

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

Case Title: M/s Power Mech Projects Ltd. Versus Essar Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.106 of 2025

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

Case Title: Ankur Kumar Versus Sustainable Agro-Commercial Financial Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 484 of 2023

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

Case Title: Riju Ravindran Suspended Director & Promoter of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd. vs. Pankaj Srivastava, RP of Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd & 3 Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 58/2025 (IA Nos. 204 & 205/2025)

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

Case Title: 'CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary Versus Adani Infrastructure & Developers Private Limited'

Case Number: 'I.A. No. 8709 of 2024 in Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2316 of 2024'

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

Case Title: Global Indian School Education Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mr. Abhay Narayan Manudhane

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1617 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5841, 5842, 5843 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 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

Case Title: Parmesh Construction Company Ltd. Versus Pramod Kumar Sharma

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 149 of 2025

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 Resolution Plan even prior to the approval of the Adjudicating Authority is binding inter se the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the SRA.

It also held that the CoC is clearly not entitled to consider any other request for consideration of any Resolution Plan after it has approved the Resolution Plan, which is pending consideration for approval before the Adjudicating Authority.

Application U/S 7 Of IBC Must Be Decided First When Application U/S 54C Is Filed 14 Days After S.7 Application: NCLAT

Case Title: Bank of Baroda Versus Shree Rajashthan Syntex Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 888 of 2023, Comp. App. (AT) ('Insolvency') No. 1492 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5310 of 2023 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.890 of 2023

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when an application under section 54C of the IBC is filed after 14 days from the date of the application filed under section 7 of the IBC, the application under section 7 must be decided first as per section 11A(3) of the code.

Constitution Of Project Management Committee Under Settlement Agreement Does Not Absolve Corporate Debtor From Repayment Obligations: NCLAT

Case Title: Sandeep Jain Versus IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 146 of 2025

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 any dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7 of the code.

It also held that the constitution of a Project Management Committee comprising members of financial creditors and corporate debtor in pursuance of a Settlement Agreement does not absolve the CD from its repayment obligations.

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

Case Title: Jai Prakash Keswani vs. MB Malls Pvt. Ltd & Ors

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 92 & 93 of 2025 & I.A. No. 294, 295, 378, 379 of 2025

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

Case Title: Anuj Bajpai and Anr. Vs. Inderdeep Construction Company & Anr.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.1698 of 2024 & I.A. No.6123 of 2024 and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No.1518 of 2024 & I.A. No.5507 of 2024

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

Case Title: Asean International Limited Versus Sanjeev Maheshwari

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1647 of 2023

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

Case Title: Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. Chirag Rejendrakumar Shah

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.242 of 2025

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

Case Title: Adhunik Corporation Limited Versus Shivam India Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1427 of 2023

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

Case Title: Brand Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Avishek Gupta & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 194 & 195 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 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

Case Title: Raman Gupta Versus Surendra Raj Garg Resolution Professional, Metenere Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.51 of 2025 & I.A. No. 127 of 2025

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

Case Title: Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sumat Gupta Resolution Professional, International Mega Food Park Ltd.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1423 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5101 of 2023

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

Case Title: Spik Enviro Management Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vision Earthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1507 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5431, 5432, 5433 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 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

Case Title: Saturn Ventures & Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Versus S. Gopalkrishnan & Anr.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 645 of 2024

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

Case Title: Home Kraft Avenues v. Jayesh Sanghrajka, RP of Ornate Spaces R/t Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No. 756/2023

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

Case Title: Greenshift Initiatives Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sonu Gupta, Resolution Professional of Rolta Bi & Big Data Analytics Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1936 of 2024

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

Case Title: State Bank of India Versus Mr. Deepak Kumar Singhania

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.191 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 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

Case Title: DKY Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Mr. Sanjay Garg and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1367 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4973 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 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

Case Title: ILD Owners Welfare Association Versus M/s. ALM Infotech City Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2198 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8172 of 2024

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

Case Title: Ajay Vij and Anr. Vs Mr Abhishek Dutta and Anr.

Case Number: COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INS) NO. 726 & 728 OF 2021 and COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(INS) NO. 818-819 OF 2021

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

Case Title: NAVIN MADHAVJI MEHTA Versus JALDHI OVERSEAS PTE LTD AND ORS.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 792 of 2024

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 application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be entertained when the debt is not unequivocally admitted by the Corporate Debtor.

Rejection Of Resolution Plan By Suspended Director Can't Be Interfered With If No Expression Of Interest Was Submitted Despite Participation In Meetings: NCLAT

Case Title: Sanjeev Agarwal & Anr. Versus Avishek Gupta & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.228 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 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).

Limitation Period For Filing Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Commences From Date Of Order, Not From Date Of Its Receipt: NCLAT

Case Title: Assistant Commissioner (Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise, Division) Versus Meera Prasad

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1850 of 2024 and I.A. No. 6671, 6777 of 2024

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 limitation period for filing an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) shall commence from the date of passing of the order and not from the date when a copy of the order is received.

Adjudicating Authority Is Empowered To Decide Whether Successful Resolution Applicant Is Liable To Pay Pre-CIRP Electricity Dues U/S 60(5) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Versus Akums Lifesciences Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1258 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is empowered to decide an issue whether Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) is liable to pay Pre-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) electricity dues after the approval of the resolution plan and taking over of the corporate debtor under section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

Pre-Section 10A Default Is Not Extended By Acknowledgment When Partial Payment Is Made For Acknowledged Debt: NCLAT

Case Title: Mr. Sudhir Bobba V M/s. TVN Enterprises and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.95/2024 (IA Nos.262, 263 & 264/2024)

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.

Electricity Being Essential Supply Cannot Be Disconnected During CIRP Period As Per Section 14(2) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ravi Sethia Resolution Professional of Morarjee Textiles Ltd and Ors.

Case Number: 'Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 56 of 2025 & I.A. No. 235 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 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

Case Title: Krishan Kumar Jajoo Versus Piramal Enterprises Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1601 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5835 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 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

Case Title: BSE Ltd. Versus Mrudula Brodie & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1862 of 2024 & Interlocutory Application No.6846 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1883 of 2024 & Interlocutory Application No.6950 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 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.

Workers' Claims For Layoff Period Dues Under Industrial Disputes Act Cannot Be Decided By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT

Case Title: Drish Shoes Workers Union Versus Drish Shoes Ltd.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2281 of 2024 & I.A. No.8501 of 2024

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 non-computation of salary after lay off by the Resolution Professional cannot be faulted with since the Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that whether the Workers are entitled to claim their dues for the layoff period under provisions of Industrial Dispute Act is not in the domain of the Adjudicating Authority.

Adjudicating Authority While Dismissing Appeal For Non-Prosecution Cannot Add Direction To Dismiss It On Merits As Well: NCLAT

Case Title: Nabard Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd Versus Dharmendra Kumar, (Official Liquidator for IAP Company Pvt. Ltd.)

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2196 of 2024

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 when the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution, it cannot be said to be dismissed on merits as well. In this case, the NCLT while dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution added a direction that the appeal is dismissed on merits as well.

Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Shall Stand Excluded As Per SC Judgment In 'Re:Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation': NCLAT

Case Title: Indospirit Distribution Limited Vs Kristal Spirits India Pvt Ltd

Case Number: COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(Ins) No.503 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in light of the Supreme Court judgment in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation for the purpose of calculating the limitation period while filing an application under section 9 of the code.

Eviction Of Tenant From Corporate Debtor's Property Can Be Sought Under Tenancy Law, Not U/S 60(5) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Sumati Suresh Hegde & Ors. Versus Anand Sonbhadra

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 884 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that eviction of tenant from the property of corporate debtor can only be sought under the Act in which tenancy was created and such power of eviction cannot be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the Code.

No Title To Immovable Property Can Be Transferred On Basis Of Unregistered Instrument: NCLAT

Case Title: Rahat Hussain Versus Divyesh Desai & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2373 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8905 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the fact that the property is shown in the records in the name of the Corporate Debtor, Liquidator has every right to take possession of the shop on which the Appellant could not prove any title. The Appellant on the basis of the unregistered agreement to sell, cannot claim to have acquired any title.

Successful Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Compelled To Pay Pre-CIRP Electricity Dues Before Restoring Electricity Connection: NCLAT

Case Title: M/s Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL), Versus M/s. Shyam Baba Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2023

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Successful Auction Purchaser cannot be insisted to pay Pre-CIRP electricity dues which dues were payable by the Corporate Debtor, before restoring electricity connections. Dues if any would have to be paid as per waterfall mechanism under section 53 of the code.

Unilateral Revocation Of Guarantee Does Not Discharge Guarantor From His Obligations When Such Revocation Was Not Accepted By Creditor: NCLAT

Case Title: State Bank of India Versus Gourishankar Poddar and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 689 of 2024

The 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 unilateral revocation of guarantee by the Respondent No.1 does not absolve him from his obligations under the guarantee agreement when the Financial Creditor has not agreed to such revocation. The terms of contract agreement also clearly show that the contract was irrevocable.

Initiation Of Arbitration Proceedings Before Issuance Of Demand Notice Is Sufficient To Reject Application U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: R.A.J. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Versus NEWERA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 83 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that initiation of arbitration proceedings before the issuance of demand notice under section 8 of the code evidences a pre-existing dispute which can be a ground to reject application under section 9 of the code.

Authorised Representative Can Be Replaced By Following Procedure Provided Under Regulation 16(3A) Of CIRP Regulations: NCLAT

Case Title: Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Versus Rakesh Verma Authorised Representative and Anr.'

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1924 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7124 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the Authorised Representative can be replaced by following the procedure engrafted under Regulation 16(3A) of the CIRP Regulations therefore the application of an individual homebuyer seeking replacement of the Authorised Representative before the Adjudicating Authority cannot be entertained.

Admission Order Of Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Recalled If Fraud Or Malicious Intent Is Proved U/S 65 Of Code: NCLAT

Case Title: M/s Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus M/s Rockman Advertising and Marketing (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1480 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when CIRP proceedings are initiated fraudulently or maliciously, the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction under the IBC to consider the allegations of fraudulent and malicious initiation of CIRP proceedings in terms of Section 65 and recall the CIRP admission order.

Initiation Of Recovery Proceedings Before DRT Does Not Preclude Financial Creditor From Filing Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title:Pawan Kumar Versus Central Bank of India & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1095 of 2024

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 initiation of recovery proceedings before the DRT does not prohibit financial creditors from filing an application under section 7 of the code.

When Entire Liability Is Not Discharged After Selling Pledged Shares, Application U/S 7 IBC Can Be Filed To Claim Remaining Amount: NCLAT

Case Title: Amit Yogesh Satwara Versus Incred Financial Services Limited

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1584 of 2024

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 when the entire liability of the corporate debtor after selling the pledged shares is not discharged, an application under section 7 of the IBC can be filed for claiming the remaining amount.

166 Days Delay In Re-Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned In Absence Of Genuine And Plausible Explanation: NCLAT

Case Title: Anup Kumar Liquidator of Independent TV …Appellant Versus Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors.

Case Number: I.A. No. 6903 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1913 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a delay of 166 in re-filing an appeal cannot be condoned in the absence of a plausible and genuine explanation offered for the same.

Interest On Operational Debt Cannot Be Claimed Unless There Is An Express Agreement: NCLAT

Case Title: Comet Performance Chemicals Private Limited Versus Aarvee Denims and Exports Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1878 of 2024

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 as per section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, interest on invoices cannot be claimed by the operational creditor in the absence of any stipulations in the agreement to this effect.

Commercial Wisdom Of CoC In Opting For Liquidation And Rejecting Resolution Plan Of Ineligible Applicant Is “Non-Justiciable”: NCLAT

Case Title: Fortune Chemicals Limited vs. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1263 of 2022

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in rejecting a resolution plan and opting for liquidation is “non-justiciable”. The Appellant-Director was disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, thereby rendering the him ineligible to be a Resolution Applicant under Sections 29A(e) and 29A(j) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Tribunal held that the decision of the CoC to reject the Appellant's Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with.

Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Is Not Maintainable After Dissolution Of Corporate Debtor U/S 54: NCLAT

Case Title:New India Color Company Ltd. Versus Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. (In CIRP) & Anr

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1255 of 2022 & I.A. No. 3839 of 2022

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an appeal under section 61 of the IBC cannot be entertained after the dissolution of the corporate debtor under section 54 of the code.

Appeal U/S 421 Of Companies Act Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Order Permitting AGM, No Substantive Rights Affected: NCLAT

Case Title: Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Ors. v. Financial Software and Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: Comp App (AT) (CH) No.84/2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, against an interlocutory order permitting holding of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) without affecting the substantive rights of the appellants is not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural orders which do not determine substantive rights cannot be appealed under Section 421.

NCLAT Upholds Status Of Canara Bank As Financial Creditor For Providing Loans To Homebuyers Of CD, Distinguishes Value Infracon Judgment

Case Title: Canara Bank Versus Sh. Vivek Kumar

Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 390 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1301, 1302 of 2023, 7105, 7610 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) upholds the claims of the Canara Bank for the loans advanced to the corporate debtor on behalf of the Homebuyers on the ground that a specific clause was mentioned in the tripartite agreement executed between the parties that in case of default made by the borrower, the builder was obligated the refund the entire amount to the bank.

Claims Filed Subsequent To Cut-Off Date Shall Be Dealt With As Per Resolution Plan Approved By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT

Case Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg Resolution Professional Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1365 of 2023

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 claims filed subsequent to cut off date shall be dealt with as per Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority.

Claims Arising Under Section 11E Of Central Excise Act Cannot Be Treated As Secured Debt: NCLAT

Case Title: 'Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Kadi Division Vs. Pradeep Kabra, RP of Cengres Tiles Ltd.'

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 844 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that claims arising under section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be treated as a secured debt.

It also held that “the 'Secured Interest' as defined under the Code excludes charges created by Operation of law. Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from the provisions of 'Gujarat VAT Act, 2003' and therefore the decision in the matter of 'State Tax Officer v. Rainbow', (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.”

Delay Beyond 15 Days In Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned As Per Proviso To Section 61(2) Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Mohit Kumar Legal Heir of Naresh Kumar, Personal Guarantor

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2242 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8422 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that delay in filing an appeal beyond 15 days as per section 61(2) proviso of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be condoned.

Insolvency Application Against Personal Guarantor Is Maintainable U/S 60(1) Of IBC Even If No CIRP Process Is Pending Against CD: NCLAT

Case Title: Anita Goyal Versus Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Anr

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2282 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that an application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code) against the personal guarantor is maintainable before the NCLT under section 60(1) of the code even if no CIRP or Liquidation process is initiated or pending against the corporate debtor before the NCLT.

NCLAT Stays Ban on WhatsApp's Data-Sharing Policy; Orders Meta To Pay 50% Of ₹213 Crore Penalty

Case Title: Whatsapp LLC vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Case Number: I.A No. 280 of 2025 IN Competition App. (AT) No. 1 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has granted partial relief to WhatsApp from the Competition Commission India's (CCI) order against its 2021 privacy policy update.

The CCI had banned WhatsApp from sharing user data with Meta for advertising purposes for 5 years and imposed a Rs. 213.14 crore penalty for violating sections 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act by using its dominant position to “coerce” users into accepting the update.

Period Of Moratorium U/S 101 Of IBC Cannot Be Extended Beyond 180 Days: NCLAT

Case Title: Anil Kumar (Resolution Professional in the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process of Sh. Mukund Choudhary) Versus Mukund Choudhary

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 38 of 2025

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the period of moratorium beyond 180 days as provided under section 101 of the IBC cannot be extended.

It further held that “when the statutory scheme is clear and unambiguous, there is no role of any interpretive process to find out the jurisdiction of NCLT to extend the period of Moratorium when statute provides a date for cessation of the Moratorium it cannot be extended by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal against the statutory intendment under Section 101(1).”

Adjudicating Authority Can Recall Orders Obtained Through Fraud Under Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules: NCLAT

Case Title: Marvel Landmarks Pvt Ltd. vs. Jay Nihalani & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2227 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has observed that where the Adjudicating Authority has been made to rely on distorted facts which the Adjudicating Authority became aware of belatedly, the Adjudicating Authority can always invoke its inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process.

Issue Of Maintainability Of Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Decided Separately By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT

Case Title: Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Presidia Araya Residents Welfare Association

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 97 of 2025

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the issue of maintainability of application under section 7 of the code can either be decided separately or with other substantive issues.

Resolution Applicant Whose Plan Was Rejected By CoC Can Participate In Freshly Issued Invitation For Expression Of Interest: NCLAT

Case Title: Adroit Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sanjay Kukreja Vs. Amit Poddar Resolution Professional & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1274 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once resolution plan including revised plan submitted by the resolution applicant is disapproved by the CoC, a fresh plan can be submitted by the same resolution applicant in a freshly issued invitation to expression of interest.

Last Payment Made By Corporate Debtor Within Period Of Limitation Amounts To Acknowledgment U/S 19 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT

Case Title: Super Floorings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Napin Impex Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1928 of 2024 & I.A. No.7115 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when there is clear acknowledgment by the corporate debtor of last payment made which payment was within the period of three years, the operational creditor was clearly entitled for the benefit of extension of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act and both the conditions which are required to be fulfilled under Section 19 were fulfilled.

NCLAT Directs Revival Of Company Petition After Appellant Was Deprived Of Remedies Under Article 21 Of Constitution

Case Title: Mr. Tajinder Singh Bhathal vs. MRF Limited & Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 94/2023 (IA No.1191/2023)

The NCLAT Chennai bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), considering the peculiar situation where the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn three days after the company petition under section 59 of the Companies Act was dismissed, directed the revival of company petition. The Tribunal observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India safeguards the right to judicial remedies, which includes the right to pursue legal remedies before competent courts for the redressal of grievances.

Rejection Of Belated And Contingent Claims By Resolution Professional Cannot Be Faulted: NCLAT

Case Title: CSA Corporation Pvt. Ltd Versus Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the claims have been filed belatedly after 548 days and that too the claims arise from damages and breach of contract which according to the Appellant is admittedly contingent, the RP's action to reject the claim by way of a reasoned reply to the Appellant cannot be put to fault.

Section 95 Application Can Be Filed By Creditor In His Individual Capacity Or Jointly With Other Creditors Or Through RP: NCLAT

Case Title: Amit Dineshchandra Patel, Vrindavan Versus State Bank of India and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1826

The NCLAT Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical member) has held that Section 95 of IBC clearly provides that a Section 95 application can be filed by a creditor in his individual capacity or jointly with other creditors or through a RP. It nowhere lays down any prescription that if the credit facility has been extended by more than one financial creditor, the Section 95 application is required to be filed collectively.

After Initiation Of Moratorium U/S 14 Of IBC, No Assessment Proceedings Can Be Continued By EPFO: NCLAT

Case Title: Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Versus Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani and Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062 and 1065 of 2024

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 after initiation of moratorium under Section 14, sub-section (1), no assessment proceedings can be continued by the EPFO. When an order of liquidation is passed, moratorium under section 33 kicks in which does not prohibit initiation or continuation of assessment proceedings.

Commercial Wisdom Of CoC To Distribute Amount Based On Security Interest Under Resolution Plan Cannot Be Interfered With: NCLAT

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that commercial wisdom of the CoC to distribute the amount under the Resolution Plan based on security interest of the respective financial creditors cannot be interfered with provided provisions of the code are complied with.

CCI Imposes ₹40 Lakh Penalty On Goldman Sachs For Failure To Notify Investment In Biocon Biologics U/S 6(2) Of Competition Act

Case Title: In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002

Ref. No.: M&A/10/2020/01/CD

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has penalized Goldman Sachs INR 40 lakh under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, for failing to notify its investment in Biocon Biologics Limited.

Creditors Are Not Barred From Enforcing Personal Guarantee Signed On Their Behalf By Trust: NCLAT

Case Title: Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that creditors are not barred from enforcing a personal guarantee even if they were not party to the trusteeship deed signed on their behalf between a trust and the personal guarantors.

Decision To Liquidate Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Faulted When Revival Is Not A Viable Option: NCLAT

Case Title: Amrit Rajani Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Anr.

Case Number: Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 375 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1261, 1262 of 2023

The 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 when it becomes clear that revival is not a viable option, a decision taken by the CoC to liquidate the corporate debtor cannot be faulted.

NCLAT Upholds Rejection Of Application U/S 9 Of IBC Against Hindustan Unilever Limited

Case Title: K. Lakshmi Narayana v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2105 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has dismissed the appeal against the order rejecting the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed against Hindustan Unilever Limited on the ground that the claims were below the threshold limit, time-barred and there was a pre-existing dispute.

Withdrawal Of Liquidation Application Can Be Permitted When CoC Allows RP To File Application Seeking Extension Of CIRP Time Period: NCLAT

Case Title: 'Ramesh Jadhav Vs. Vakati Balasubramaniam Reddy & Anr.'

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 173 of 2025

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when the CoC has already taken decision to file an application for extension of CIRP time period and granting permission to publish Form G for third time, withdrawal of liquidation application by Adjudicating Authority can be permitted.

Liquidation Proceeds Must Be Distributed Amongst Secured Creditors Based On Admitted Claims U/S 53 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: State Bank of India Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 321 of 2024

The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) has held that liquidation proceeds must be distributed as per section 53 of the IBC based on admitted claims of the respective secured creditors and cannot be distributed on the basis of security interest of different Secured Creditors.

Assets Of Subsidiary Can't Be Treated As Assets Of Holding Company In CIRP: NCLAT Sets Aside Order Directing Fresh Valuation Of Assets

Case Title: State Bank of India, Singapore Branch vs. Shantanu Prakash & Ors.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1351 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4802, 4803, 4804, 4805, 6007 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has observed that the assets of a subsidiary company cannot be treated as part of the assets of its holding company in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority does not have the jurisdiction to direct fresh valuation of such assets when they are owned by the subsidiary and not the Corporate Debtor.

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.

Non-Payment Of Outstanding Lease Rent Amounts To Operational Debt: Nclt Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) held that when the lease amount is unpaid by the Corporate Debtor it amounts to Operational Debt under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”).

Corporate Applicant Can't Take Shield Of CIRP To Avoid Legally Recoverable Government Dues: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal Bench of Shri Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) dismissed a Section 10 application filed under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the code”) holding that the Corporate Applicant cannot take the shield of CIRP to avoid the legally recoverable government dues.

Demand Notice Sent To Wrong Address Invalidates Insolvency Petition: NCLT Hyderabad

The National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad Bench of Shri. Rajeev Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjay Puri (Technical Member) dismissed a petition filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy code (“the Code”), holding that if demand notice u/s 8 of the code is not sent to the correct address, it does not meet the mandatory requirements of law.

Receiver Of Goods Who Has Made Advance Payments Is Also An Operational Creditor: NCLT Chandigarh

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh bench of Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri Ashish Verma (Technical Member), held that the receiver of goods who has made advance payments for the goods purchased is also an Operational Creditor.

Case Title: Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Shree Bhimeshwari Ispat Private Limited

Case Number: IA 141/2023 IN CP (IB) No. 4550/MB-II/2018

Case Title: M/s International Electricals v. Aryan Electricals Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) 1211/MB /2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, comprising Shri Prabhat Kumar (Member- Technical) and Justice V. G. Bisht, has allowed an application filed by an operational creditor under section 9 of the IBC seeking initiation of the CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the proceedings under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act or section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act don't constitute a pre-existing dispute under section 9 of the IBC. The tribunal also observed that a partner of a firm is authorized to issue a demand notice and initiate proceedings under section 9 of the IBC in the name of the firm.

Loan Taken From "Special Window For Affordable & Mid-Income Housing Fund" To Be Recognised As 'Interim Finance' U/S 5(15) Of IBC: NCLT, Delhi

Case Title: M/s Conquerent Control Systems Private Limited V/s M/s Ansal Crown Infrabuild Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 783 (ND)/ 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (“Tribunal”), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member), allowed the claim of the applicant as Interim Finance holding that Loan provided by SWAMIH Fund (Special Window for Affordable and Mid-Income Housing) qualifies to be recognised as 'Interim Finance' under Section 5(15) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”).

SWAMIH is a government-backed initiative in India, designed to provide funding to revive stalled residential projects. It acts as a "last-mile funding" solution by providing capital to complete construction.

Claims For Interest Based On RERA Order Do Not Translate Into Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: M/s GENESIS COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/s OPULENT INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD

Case Number: IA 1796(ND)/2024 in CP No.: IB 304(ND)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) comprising of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram, Member (Judicial) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Member (Technical) dismissed a Section 60(5) application filed by the Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta against Mr. Devendra Umrao, the Resolution professional (RP) of M/s Opulent Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd.

Case Title: Seeta Neeraj Shah Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.

Case Number: IA/4194/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 119/MB/2021

Speculative Investment Without Commercial Effect Of Borrowing Not A 'Financial Debt': NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M.K. Jain & Ors. vs. M/s. Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: IB-348(ND)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench-III, comprising Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) have dismissed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, filed by M.K. Jain and family (Financial Creditors) against Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) for default of Rs. 12.3 crore. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was a speculative investor and could not claim status and benefits as a 'financial creditor' under Explanation (i) of Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC as he was not interested in the financial well-being growth and vitality of the Corporate Debtor.

Submission Of Default Record Not Compulsory For Initiating CIRP: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Ganesh Ramkisan Rajale v. Panchtatwa Milk Industries Private Limited

Case Number: C.P. (IB)/6(MB)2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, consisting of Shri Sameer Kakar (Member - Technical) and Shri Nilesh Sharma (Member - Judicial), passed an order and admitted the Corporate Debtor into the CIRP under section 9 of the IBC. The tribunal addressed the issue of mandatory submission of the record of default from an information utility under Regulation 20(1A) of the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017. The bench held that furnishing the record of the default is not mandatory even after amendment of Regulation 20 by insertion of Regulation 20 (1A) of the IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations.

Petition Filed U/S 9 Of IBC Based On Arbitral Award Cannot Be Entertained After 3 Yrs From Date Of Award: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Haabia Resources Private Limited V/S Vidyut Metallics Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 1090/MB/2022 [With IA(IBC) No. 2362/MB/2023]

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), based on an Arbitral Award passed in favor of the Operational Creditor, cannot be admitted after three years from the date of the Award, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) read with Section 238A of the Code.

Third Parties Who Sold Land To Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Held Liable U/S 66 Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s Jakson Limited vs. M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd

Case Number: CP(IB) NO. 2582/ND/2019 and I.A. No. 4750/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has held that third parties who sold land to the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to fall within the ambit of expression “any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on the business of the Corporate Debtor” as used in Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). It observed that an application under the Section may be maintainable against the persons who were responsible for the management of the Corporate Debtor.

No Automatic Right To Interest Under IBC, Regulation 16A(7) Of CIRP Regulations Does Not Mandate Interest On Principal Amount: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Klassic Wheels Limited Hirkesh Vs Amit Vijay Karia and Anr.

Case Number: IA/5159/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 715/MB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Justice Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) and Mr. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member) has held that there is no provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) for automatic interest on the principal amount. Specifically, Regulation 16A(7) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 does not provide for interest to be charged on the principal. Therefore, such interest cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially at a belated stage when the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is nearing completion.

Absence Of Creditor's Name In Balance Sheet Does Not Negate Acknowledgment Of Debt: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: State Bank of India v. S R Timber Products Private

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 27/KB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, special bench, consisting of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Member - Judicial) and Shri Sameer Kakar (Member - Technical), has allowed an application filed by the State Bank of India under Section 7 of the IBC seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor.

Disbursal Against Time Value Of Money Constitutes Financial Debt: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Horizon Commtrade Limited v. Jasmine Commodities Private Limited

Case Number: Company Petition (IB) No. 271/KB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata bench, consisting of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Member - Judicial) and Cmde Siddharth Mishra (Member - Technical), has allowed an application filed under Section 7 of the IBC seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The bench held that the financial debt exists where money is disbursed against the consideration for time value of money. The bench also observed that once the “debt” and “default” are admitted or established, the petition must be admitted.

Insufficiently Stamped Agreements Do Not Present A Bar To Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: M/s Embassy Services Private Limited v. Redwoods Infrastructure Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 65/BB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, consisting of Shri. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Member (Judicial), and Shri. Radhakrishna Sreepada, Member (Technical), admitted a petition filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Redwoods Infrastructure Private Limited. The tribunal reiterated that insufficiently stamped/unstamped agreements do not present a bar to a Section 7 application. The tribunal also observed that the mere fact that the debt is disputed does not affect the application, as long as the debt is due.

Absence Of Record In Information Utility Negates Claim Of Pre-Existing Dispute: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: Pan Oceanic Seed Solutions Private Limited v Camson Seeds Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 163/BB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru comprising of Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada, (Member (Technical) admitted a Section 9 application filed by the operational creditor (PAN Oceanic Seed Solutions Private Limited) due to the presence of operational debt and non-repayment despite repeated reminders from the Corporate Debtor.

Defaults Occurring Out Of Settlement Agreements Are Not “Operational Debts” U/S 5(21) Of IBC: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Enerture Technlogies Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 63 (ND)/ 2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member), rejected a section 9 Petition filed by the operational creditor under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the code), holding that Default occurring out of settlement agreements are not “operational debts” under Section 5(21) of the Code.

Application U/S 19(2) Of IBC Is Not Maintainable Against Third Party: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited V/s M/s Andes Town Planners Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 317 (ND)/ 2022, IA 3738/2023, Intervention P 28/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh bench of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi(Technical Member), has held that an application under section 19(2) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), filed by the Resolution Professional (“RP”) to collect information for effective conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) is not maintainable against third party to the proceedings.

Fraud Or Malicious Intent U/S 65 Of IBC Is Proven If Terms Of Loan Extended By Financial Creditor Are Designed To Cause Default: NCLT

Case Title: M/s Saivi Finance Private Limited V/s M/s AKJ Metals Private Limited

Case Number: IA/1044/ND/2024 and CP(IB)/24/ND/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) held that a Petition under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) is proved to have been filed with Fraud or Malicious intent under Section 65 of the Code if terms of the loan extended by Financial Creditor are designed to cause default by the Corporate Debtor.

Acknowledgement Of Debt By Corporate Debtor Extends Limitation Period For Personal Guarantor As Well: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Title: Manveen Kaur, Personal Guarantor of M/s Bimbh Knit Fab Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP(IB) No.207/Chd/Pb/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh bench of Shri Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Shri Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member), has held that acknowledgement of debt by the principal borrower would extend the limitation period under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) for the personal Guarantor as well for initiation of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under Section 94 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Based On Arbitral Award Cannot Be Admitted Before Expiration Of 120 Days From Date Of Award: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd. V/s Avyukta Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 613 (ND)/ 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member), has held that a Petition under Section 7 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), based on Arbitral Award passed in favour of the Financial Creditor, cannot be admitted unless the time period for filing objections (120 days) against the Award as per Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has expired.

Interest Accrued Before MSME Registration Cannot Be Included In Operational Debt For Plea U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Versus Susee Automotive Private Limited

Case Number: IA (I.B.C) No. 1116/MB/2024 AND CP (IB) No. 1107/MB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) cannot override the threshold limit prescribed under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). Therefore, interest accrued on the delayed payment to an MSME prior to its registration under the MSMED Act cannot be included as part of the operational debt while filing an application under Section 9 of the Code.

Third Parties Who Sold Land To Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Held Liable U/S 66 Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: M/s Jakson Limited vs. M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd

Case Number: CP(IB) NO. 2582/ND/2019 and I.A. No. 4750/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has held that third parties who sold land to the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to fall within the ambit of expression “any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on the business of the Corporate Debtor” as used in Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). It observed that an application under the Section may be maintainable against the persons who were responsible for the management of the Corporate Debtor.

Accepting OTS Payments While Simultaneously Pursuing CIRP Proceedings Is An Attempt To Use IBC For Debt Recovery: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: IFCI Limited vs. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd.

Case Number: C.P. (I.B) No. 142/MB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench comprising Ms. Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Hon'ble Member (Technical) has held that the conduct of the Financial Creditor in accepting substantial 'one-time settlement' (OTS) payments while simultaneously pursuing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings represents an attempt to use the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) as a 'recovery mechanism', which goes against the very spirit and purpose of the Code. The Tribunal reiterated that the IBC is not intended to be used as a mechanism for debt recovery but rather as a process for resolution of the Corporate Debtor.

Threshold Limit For Initiating Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantors Shall Also Be ₹1 Crore: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Keerthan Upadhya(Guarantor)

Case Number: CP(IB)/51(CHE)/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai bench of Shri. Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) Shri. Venkataraman Subramaniam (Technical Member) has held that the threshold limit for initiating the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under Sections 94 or 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), shall be the same as that for a Corporate Debtor under Section 4 of the Code, i.e., ₹1 crore.

Payment Received In Advance By Corporate Debtor For Future Supply Of Goods Is Considered Operational Debt Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB) / 891 (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 The payment received in advance by the Corporate Debtor for the future supply of goods constitutes an operational debt. An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) can be admitted if it exceeds the threshold limit prescribed under Section 4 of the Code.

Liquidator Must Not Restrict Sale Of Corporate Debtor's Assets Through Private Sale To Single Buyer, Must Strategise To Attract Multiple Buyers: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Avil Menezes Liquidator of Parekh Aluminex Limited

Case Number: IA No.492 of 2025 IN CP (IB)/1262/MB/C-II/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Judicial Member) and Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Technical Member) while disallowing the Liquidator's application for the private sale of the Corporate Debtor's assets, it was held that the Liquidator must not restrict the private sale to a single buyer but should strategize to attract the maximum number of buyers to maximize realization from the asset sale.

Corporate Debtor Not Barred From Raising Pre-Existing Dispute Even When No Reply Was Given To Demand Notice Within 10 Days U/S 8 Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Himatsingka Seide Limited V/S Textile Professional LLP

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 886/MB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Hon'ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that failure to respond to a demand notice within 10 days under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) does not bar the Corporate Debtor from asserting the existence of a pre-existing dispute especially when such dispute was raised before the issuance of the demand notice.

Imposition Of Moratorium Bars Recovery Of Pre-CIRP Tax Dues During CIRP: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. Sri Pavana Keerthi Hotels India Private Limited v. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case Number: I.A. No. 250 of 2024 In C.P. (IB) No.153/7/HDB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench-I, consisting of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath (Member - Judicial) and Shri Charan Singh (Member - Technical), disposed of an application filed by Resolution Professional (RP) against the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), and held that once the CIRP has commenced, proceedings for property tax arrears cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal also emphasized the overriding effect of the IBC, 2016, and upheld that the moratorium under section 14 bars all types of coercive action during the CIRP.

Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Against Corporate Guarantor Cannot Be Admitted Unless Valid Delivery Of Guarantee Invocation Notice Is Established: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: M/s, Q West Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Grevek Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: C.P. 260/IB/MB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Hon'ble Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that an insolvency application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) against the corporate guarantor of the corporate debtor cannot be admitted unless the delivery of the demand-cum-guarantee invocation notice is properly established. Only when the delivery is proven can the default on the part of the corporate guarantor be said to have arisen.

Any Default Falling Within Section 10-A Period Of IBC Must Be Excluded When Calculating Total Outstanding Debt: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s.Noveltech Feeds Private Limited v. M/s.Gold Chick Hatcheries & Foods Pvt Ltd

Case Number: Company Petition (IB) No. 202/9/HDB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench comprising of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial) and Sri Sanjay Puri, Member (Technical) dismissed Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor (Noveltech Feeds Private Limited) stating that the default amount falls within the Section 10-A period and there is presence of non-compliance of Rule 5 which is fatal to the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Demand Notice Issued U/S 13(2) Of SARFAESI Act Without Obligating Guarantor To Make Payment Is Not An Invocation Of Guarantee: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Bank Of Maharashtra Stressed Asset Management Branch Vs Mrs. Kavita Ninad Mestry

Case Number: CP (IB) No.1009/MB/2023 with IA (IBC) No.4914/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that Both the demand notice issued under Rule 7(1) of the Personal Guarantors Rules, 2019, and the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be considered as an invocation of the guarantee.

NCLT Kolkata Remits Repayment Plan U/S 114(3) Of IBC To Committee Of Creditors Due To Non Consideration Of Detective Report

Case Title: UCO BANK Versus SHANKAR PODDAR

Case Number: I.A. (IB) No. 86/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 158/KB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member ) has remitted the repayment plan remitted to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration on the ground that no discussion took place on the detective report, which disclosed that the personal guarantor had sold certain properties and acquired a new one. Despite this, the creditors approved the repayment plan without deliberating on the report.

NCLT Mumbai Dismisses Syska LED Lights' Plea For Withdrawal Of Insolvency Application U/S 12A Of IBC

Case Title: Debashis Nanda, Interim Resolution Professional, Syska LED Lights Private Limited vs. Sunstar Industries &Anr.

Case No.: IA.No.5979/2024 In C.P.(IB)/96(MB)/2024; Intervention Petition/9/2025; Intervention Petition/10/2025; Intervention Petition/16/2025; Intervention Petition/19/2025; Intervention Petition/24-27/2025; IA.No.822/2025; IA.No.564/2025; IA.No.1006/2025; IA 952/2025 IN CP (IB) No. 96/MB-II/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench comprising K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has dismissed the withdrawal application filed under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC/Code) in the insolvency proceedings of Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Debtor).

NCLT Hyderabad Lays Out Structured Buy-Out Mechanism To Resolve Deadlock Between Shareholders In Escentia Group Case

Case Title: Escientia Life Sciences & ors Versus Escientia Advanced Sciences Pvt Ltd & Others

Case Number: CP No. 45/241/HDB/ 2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad bench of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Charan Singh (Technical Member) in a company petition seeking relief under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Companies Act) held that the actions of the Deccan Group amounted to grave acts of oppression and was not mere instances of internal shareholder disputes. The Tribunal further laid out a structured buy-out mechanism to resolve the deadlock between shareholders.

Outgoing Liquidator Entitled To Minimum Fee Of Rs. 2 Lakh As Per IBBI Regulations: NCLT Kochi

Case Title: Mr. Padmakumar K. C., Liquidator of M/s. Asten Realtors Private Limited vs. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited & Anr.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi bench comprising Shri. Vinay Goyal (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that if the liquidator is replaced, he is entitled to a minimum fee of Rs. 2 lakh as per Schedule II of of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 for the tenure he has worked.

Corporate Revival Under IBC Should Not Come At Cost Of Public Welfare Projects: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Aegis Resolution Service Private Limited, Resolution Professional of Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited V. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA)

Case Number: IA 2111/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 892/MB/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai comprising of Ms. Reeta Kohli, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Hon'ble Member (Technical) dismissed an application filed by Aegis Resolution Services Private Limited acting as the Resolution Professional (RP) for Radius and Deserve Land Developers Private Limited. The application was filed against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority for seeking declaration of ownership and possession of the Corporate Debtor's property.

Information To The NeSL/Information Utility Is Not Mandatory For Ascertainment Of Default: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited

Case Number: C.P. (I.B) No. 444/MB/2020

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Ms. Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Member (Technical) admitted the Section 7 application filed by Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd on seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited due to default in payment of interest.

Order Admitting CIRP Cannot Be Recalled In Absence Of Fraud Or Misrepresentation: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Canara Bank V/s Mr. Bhavesh Mansukhbhai Rathod, The Interim Resolution Professional & Ors.

Case Number: C.P.(IB) No. 383/MB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai comprising of Justice V.G. Bisht (Member (Judicial) and Prabhat Kumar (Member (Technical) partly allowed an interim application filed by Canara Bank in relation to the CIRP of Carnival Techno Park Pt. Ltd (CTPPL). The Tribunal rejected Canara Bank's plea to recall CIRP admission but allowed the forensic audit to investigate the legitimacy of RCFL claim and its classification as secured financial debt.

Nona Lifestyle Moves NCLT To Seek Initiation Of CIRP Against Zomato Over Alleged Non-Payment Of Dues

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (Judicial Member) and Reena Sinha Puri (Technical Member) today heard a petition filed by Nona Lifestyle, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Zomato for alleged non-payment of dues of Rs. 1,64,83,194.

NCLT Doesn't Have Jurisdiction To Direct ED To Defreeze Corporate Debtor's Account Frozen Under PMLA: NCLT

Case Title: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Resolution Professional of Foxdom Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr.

Case Number: ΙΑ NO. 4689 OF 2023 IN IB-102(ND)/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that the NCLT, which is the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/ the Code) does not have the power to issue directions to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to defreeze the account of the Corporate Debtor when the account was frozen as per the directions of the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction to deal with matters related to attachment and freezing of accounts under PMLA vests exclusively with the authorities designated under the PMLA.

Payments From Corporate Debtor's Account Post-CIRP Commencement Without IRP Approval Is Breach Of Moratorium: NCLT Mumbai Directs Refund

Case Title: Mr. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi vs. Mr. Sunil Gutte & 5 others

Case Number: I.A. 1833 OF 2019 in C.P.(IB) No. 2295/MB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench comprising Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Justice V. G. Bisht (Judicial Member) have held that any payments made from the Corporate Debtor's account after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without the Interim Resolution Professional's (IRP) approval are in contravention of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). The Tribunal directed Respondents to refund amounts totaling Rs. 10,01,80,000 and directed the Liquidator to notify IBBI for proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Code.

NCLT Admits Insolvency Proceedings Against Ansal Properties And Infrastructure U/S 7 Of IBC, Declares Moratorium

Case Title: M/s IL&FS Financial Services Limited vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited

Case Number: CP No.: IB 558(ND)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has admitted insolvency proceedings under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/ Code) against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited. The Tribunal declared moratorium under section 14 of the Code.

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

Case Title: M/s.Isthara Parks Private Limited v M/s.Valmar Projects LLP & Ors.

Case Number: CP (113) No.216/9/IIDB/2023

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

Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava

Case Numbers: IA No. 660, 820 of 2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 149/BB/2023

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

Case Title: Mr. Anil Syal vs. Mr. Ajay Gupta & Anr.

Case Number: IA-3964/2024 In IB-589(PB)/2020

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

Case Title: M/S Transline Technologies Limited v. Experio Tech Private Limited

Case no: CP IB NO. 236/(ND)/2023

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

Case Title: Kumar Jivanlal Patel (Makadia) Vs. Patel Oils & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number: Cont.A. - 6/2017

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad bench comprising Justice Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sameer Kakar (Technical Member) have held that NCLT has the power to punish for its contempt under section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

NCLT Mumbai Approves ACME Cleantech's Resolution Plan For Reliance Big Private Limited

Case Title: In the Application of Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra (Resolution Professional of Reliance Big Private Limited)

Case Number: IA No. 54 of 2024 IN CP(IB) No. 845 (MB) of 2022

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.

Limitation Period To Reset When Part-Payment Of Debt Is Made By Personal Guarantor U/S 19 Of Limitation Act: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: UCO Bank Vs Smt. Nishu Goel

Case Number: IB-355/ND/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Delhi comprising of Justice Subrata Kumar Dash (Member Technical) and Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Member Judicial) dismissed an appeal filed by the personal guarantors of the principal debtor M/s VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. stating that the appeal falls within the ambit of limitation period as prescribed under Section 19 of Limitation act, 1963 and that the Liquidator can institute a Section 95(4) proceedings against the personal guarantors.

Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant Has No Locus To Challenge Approval Of Resolution Plan By CoC: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus VARUTHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: I.A. (IB) No. 2409/KB/2024 And I.A. (IB) (Plan) No. 21/KB/2024 In Company Petition (IB) No. 26/KB/2023

The NCLT Kolkata bench of Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and D. Arvind (Technical Member) has held that Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus standi to challenge the approval of Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors(CoC).

NCLT Holds Financial Lease With Transfer Of Ownership & Interest For Default As “Financial Debt”, Admits GDA's Claim As “Financial Creditor”

Case Title: M/s Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: IA-3686/2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)- 652(PB)/2019

The NCLT, New Delhi, Principal bench comprising Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar (Hon'ble President) and Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member) has allowed the claim of Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) as a financial creditor in the Red Mall case and directed its inclusion in the Committee of Creditors. The claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional who held GDA as an Operational creditor in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.NOIDA v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.

NCLT Dismisses Actor Akshay Kumar's Insolvency Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Against Ed-Tech Company

Case Title: Mr. Akshay Kumar Bhatia vs. M/s. Cue Learn Private Limited

Case Number: CP No.: IB 572(ND)/2022 & IA 5437/ND/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has dismissed petition filed by Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar, seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings against Cue Learn Private Limited, an ed tech company. The Tribunal noted that the claim in question pertained to a breach of contract and was at best, a claim for liquidated damages. “Such claims require adjudication before a competent civil court and do not constitute crystallized debts that can be pursued under the insolvency resolution process”, the Tribunal remarked.

NCLT New Delhi Orders Liquidation Of Go Airlines (India) Limited

Case Title: Go Airlines (India) Limited vs. Mr. Shailendra Ajmera Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Limited

Case Number: I.A. (Liq.) 33/ND/2024 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. (IB) – 264/PB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Justice Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has ordered the liquidation of Go First Airlines, marking the conclusion of a 20-month-long insolvency process after no viable resolution plan emerged. The tribunal upheld the decision by the Committee of Creditors to liquidate Go Airlines, which approved the liquidation with a 100% vote.

Application U/S 95(1) Of IBC Against Personal Guarantor Not Maintainable In Absence Of CIRP Proceedings Against Corporate Debtor: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. Arjun Agarwal

Case Number: I.A.(IB) 1670/KB/2024 in C.P.(IB) 51/KB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for initiating insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor is not maintainable before the NCLT if no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or liquidation proceeding has been initiated or is pending against the Corporate Debtor.

Pre-Existing Dispute Between Financial Creditor And Corporate Debtor Doesn't Bar Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLT

Case Title: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VS. M/S MBL (MP) TOLL ROAD COMPANY LIMITED

Case Number: CP (IB) No.423/(PB)/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi bench comprising Chief Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Avinash K. Srivatava (Technical Member) has held that a pre-existing dispute between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor does not bar a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to be entertained.

Other News

RBI Cancels NBFC Registration Of X10 Financial Services Ltd

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in a significant development has cancelled registration of X10 Financial Services Ltd, a non-banking financial company (NBFC), on account of irregularity in its digital lending operations. The company, located in Mumbai, was providing loans through several service providers which mostly included mobile apps likeWecash Technology, XNP Technology, Yarlung Technology, Xinrui International, Omelette Technology, Mad-Elephant Network Technology and Huidatech Technology.

Amendments Needed In IBC To Provide NOC To Successful Resolution Applicants When Plan Over Attached Property Is Approved: Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi

On Friday, 17th January 2025, a roundtable discussion titled "Understanding the Synergy Between PMLA and IBC" was held at India International Centre, New Delhi by the Insolvency Law Academy (ILA) in collaboration with NM Law Chambers.

The event brought together legal professionals, policymakers, and academicians to explore the intersection of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The discussion featured three distinguished panelists, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate and Former Attorney General for India; Mr. Karnal Singh, Former Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED); and Mr. Sumant Batra, Insolvency Lawyer and Founder, Insolvency Law Academy.

DRAT

Sale Arising From Collusive Suit Where Bank Isn't Party Does Not Bind Either Bank Or Auction Purchaser: DRAT Chennai

Case title: Mirra & Mirra Industries vs. Mrs. B. Usha Rani & Anr.

Case Number: RA (SA): 165/2018 and RA (SA):178/2018

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Chennai bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan (Chairperson) has held that a sale arising from a collusive suit, where the bank was not a party to the proceedings, does not bind the bank or the auction purchaser of the property under SARFAESI proceedings.

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.