Home
/

IBC News
/
IBC Monthly Digest: May 2025

IBC Monthly Digest: May 2025

Mohd Malik Chauhan

6 July 2025 10:40 AM IST

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

Case no. – C.A. No. 6613/2025

Case Title – Riju Ravindran v. Pankaj Srivastava

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

Case Title: TATA STEEL LTD VERSUS RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 542

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.

High Court

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

Case: NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors

Case No: MAT 469 of 2025

The Calcutta High Court has upheld a single bench order declining a plea challenging the move to shift the NCLT Kolkata premises located near the High Court, to a new building in the city's New Town area, as proposed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

A division bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Apurba Sinha Ray held: "The question, however, is not whether the shift in location is beneficial or detrimental per se, but whether this Court can, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, intervene in such matters of administrative discretion. The answer to that must be in the negative."

Winding Up Petitions Under Companies Act Not At Irreversible Stage, Should Be Transferred To NCLT For Revival Under IBC: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: Elecon Engineering Company Limited Versus M/s Inox Wind Limited & Anr.

Case Number: 2025:HHC:11215

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja has held that unless the corporate debtor's demise is inevitable or the winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act have reached an irreversible stage making revival impossible, every effort must be made to revive the company. Accordingly, all such winding-up petitions should be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) under 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act.

'Facilitates Resolution Process': Madras HC Upholds Circular Allowing Creditor To Recommend Resolution Professional In Application U/S 95 Of IBC

Case Title: Ashwani Kumar Bhatia Versus The Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.Nos.14792 and 36480 of 2024

The Madras High Court bench of Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy has held that the circular issued by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 21.12.2023 under section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), allowing the creditor to recommend the name of a Resolution Professional in an application filed under Section 95 of the Code cannot be deemed ultra vires the provisions of the Code, particularly Section 97, which states that in creditor-initiated insolvency proceedings, the insolvency professional is to be nominated by the IBBI. This circular enhances the efficiency of the entire process.

Penalty Orders U/S 270A Of Income Tax Act Cannot Be Issued After Approval Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 Of IBC: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Technovaa Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Gandhinagar & Ors.

Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21289 of 2022

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N.Ray has held that Penalty orders under Sections 270A, 271(1)(c), and 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Income Tax Act) cannot be issued after the approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). Once the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, all claims, including statutory dues, stand extinguished, and no further proceedings in respect of such dues can be initiated.

NCLAT

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

Case Title: Apresh Garg Versus Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 396 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1822, 1977, 6619 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 fact that a majority of consortium lenders are considering debt restructuring with the Corporate Debtor does not preclude an individual member from independently initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) as per the facility agreement.

State Entitled To Secured Creditor Status Under IBC Due To Statutory Charge Created U/S 48 Of GVAT Act: NCLAT

Case Title: State Tax Officer Versus Premraj Ramratan Laddha & Ors.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 720 of 2021 & I.A. No. 3172 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 after completion of the assessment of the Corporate Debtor under Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) Act before Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), a charge in view section 48 of the GVAT Act is created by operation of law on the property of the Corporate Debtor in favour of the State Tax Officer therefore the dues of the State is entitled to be treated as a secured creditor under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

NCLAT Upholds Admission Of CIRP Against Pushp Ratna Realty

Case Title: Jayshree Agnihotri vs. Nirmal Kumar Jain & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2112-2113 of 2024 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2335 of 2024

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

Case Title: Asha Basantilal Surana v/s State Bank of India & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 84 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 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

Case Title: Rolta Pvt. Ltd. Versus Varanium Cloud Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 357 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 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

Case Title: Mr. Ramprasad Vishvanath Vs Mr. Dinesh Kumar Deora and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 442 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 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

Case Title: Vashishth Builders And Engineers Limited And Vashisth Estates Limited (In Consortium) Vs Trishul Dream Homes Limited And Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 732 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 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

Case Title: Indian Bank Vs Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia And Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 458 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 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

Case Title: Sashi Kanta Jha and Anr. Versus Devi Prasad and Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 214 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 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

Case Title: Max Publicity & Communication Pvt. Ltd. Versus Enviro Home Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 456 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) 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

Case Title: Harish Raghavji Patel & Anr. Versus Ajit Gyanchand Jain, IRP of Rajesh Cityspaces Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 682 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 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

Case Title: Mrs. G.V. Marry vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.165/2024

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

Case Title: Mr. Rajesh Bhatia v. Canara Bank Asset Recovery Managment Branch & Anr.

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.143/2024

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

Case Title: M/s Drilltech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s DLF Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 394 of 2025

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

Case Title: Saurabh Jhunjhunwala (Suspended Board of Director of Fairdeal Supplies Limited.) Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 648 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 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.

NCLT

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

Case Title: M/s Unified Credit Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s DS Home Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Petition IB/70/ND/2024

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

Case Title: M/S Imperial Banqeuts & Dining Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Petition IB/370/ND/2024

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

Case Title: Anurada Chemicals v/s Synaptics Labs Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: Company Petition IB/134/9/2024

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

Case Title: Kiranakart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v/s Hyretail Technologies Pvt. Ltsd.

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 301/CHD/HRY/2023

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.

Insolvency Proceedings Can't Be Initiated By Operational Creditor When Complaints Regarding Defects Remain Unresolved: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Schneider Electric India Private Limited V/s M/s Sarkun Solar Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 778 (ND)/ 2022

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 an Operational Creditor can't initiate insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment, when complaints regarding defects in products remain unresolved.

Order Of DRT Setting Aside NPA Classification Does Not Negate Existence Of Financial Debt Or Occurrence Of Default: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited V/s M/s New Tech Imports Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 823 (ND)/ 2022

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 an order of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) setting aside NPA classification does not negate existence of financial debt or occurrence of default, which are the two primary factors for admitting a Section 7 petition under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (“the code”) .

Income Tax Department Cannot Be Considered As A Secured Creditor In Liquidation Proceedings: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Canara Bank v. Mr. B. Ramana Kumar (Liquidator of Krishna Energy Pvt. Ltd.) & Income Tax Department

Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 190/2025 ; IA Nos.532 & 533/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, comprising Shri Jyoti Kumar Tripathi (Member-Judicial) and Shri Ravichandran Ramasamy (Member-Technical), disposed of the application filed by the Canara Bank of India under Section 60(5) of the IBC r/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules 2016 against the Income Tax Department, seeking a refund of Rs 1.12 Cr. into the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor. The NCLT ruled that the income tax dues are the sovereign dues and cannot be declared as secured debt solely because of the reason that the attachment was made seeking recovery of dues.

Investors Can't Be Considered As Allottees In Absence Of “Agreement To Sell” Or “Allotment Letter”: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Sujata Shekhar Shah & Ors. V/s Mirador Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/3892(MB) 2024 IN C.P. (IB)/2054(MB)2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Mumbai bench of Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) and Shri K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) dismissed an interlocutory application filed by investors of a corporate Debtors, seeking impleadment as allottees in the real estate project. The Tribunal held that in the absence of an “agreement to sell” or an “allotment letter” investors can't be considered as allottees under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the code”).

Operational Creditor Not Entitled To Interest Under MSME Act When Contract Prohibits It : NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Kuldeep Kumar Contractors V/s M/s NBCC (India) 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). The Tribunal held that when the terms of contract prohibits the charging of interest, the Operational Creditor cannot claim such interest on the amount due even if entitled under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”).

Insolvency Proceedings Can't Be Initiated Against Corporate Debtor For Non-Payment Of Debt When Creditor Owes Larger Amount To Debtor: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Future Consumer Limited V/s Aussee Oats India Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 538 (MB)/ 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench of Justice V. G. Bisht (Judicial Member) and Shri Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) dismissed a section 7 petition on the ground that Financial Creditor cannot seek insolvency of a debtor alleging default in payment of a financial debt when such creditor owes more than the amount claimed to be in default to such debtor.

Payment Made Against Specific Invoice Can't Be Adjusted Against Back-Dated Invoices: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Uniwoth Enterprises LLP V/s Starco Metaplast Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: CP (IB) No. 176 (ND)/ 2023

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 when a payment is made by the Corporate Debtor against a specific invoice raised by the Operational Creditor, it can't be adjusted against back-dated invoices.

Resolution Professional Can't Exclude Voting Share Of Members Who Abstain From Voting When Calculating Requisite Majority: NCLT Mumbai

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

The National Company Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench comprising of Ms. Lakshmi Gurung (Member (Judicial) and Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Member (Technical) disposed a Section 60(5) application filed by the Applicant against the approval of the Resolution Plan, stating that the same lacked the desired voting percentage to be approved as a resolution plan.

Existence Of Proceedings Under MSMED Act Or S.138 NI Act Doesn't Amount To Pre-Existing Dispute U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai

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.

Guarantor's Liability Cannot Exceed Contractual Cap By Adding Interest On Principal Amount For Delayed Payment: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Seeta Neeraj Shah Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.

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

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Justice Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) and Sh. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Technical Member) has held that the guarantor's liability cannot exceed the limit specified in the contract of guarantee. When the corporate debtor defaults, the guarantor is bound only to the extent of the capped amount that is Rs. 25 crore in the present case, as consciously agreed upon by the parties. This cap cannot be exceeded by adding interest on the principal amount for delayed payment.

IBC Monthly Digest: May 2025

Mohd Malik Chauhan

'Facilitates Resolution Process': Madras HC Upholds Circular Allowing Creditor To Recommend Resolution Professional In Application U/S 95 Of IBC

Tags