IBC Monthly Digest: September 2025
Mohd Malik Chauhan
5 Oct 2025 12:00 PM IST
Supreme Court Committee Of Creditors Continues To Exist Till Resolution Plan Is Implemented Or Liquidation Order Is Passed : Supreme Court Case No.: KALYANI TRANSCO Vs MS BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. | C.A. No. 1808/2020 and connected matters Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 954 In the JSW Steel matter, the Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the...
Supreme Court
Case No.: KALYANI TRANSCO Vs MS BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. | C.A. No. 1808/2020 and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 954
In the JSW Steel matter, the Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not become functus officio merely upon the approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court held that the CoC continues to have a role until the resolution plan is fully implemented or an order of liquidation is passed.
NCLT, NCLAT Vacancies Must Be Filled On War Footing; RERA Must Be Adequately Staffed : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. (and connected cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to fill up the vacancies at the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on a “war-footing.” The Court observed that dedicated IBC benches with additional strength should be constituted and services of retired judges may be utilized on an ad hoc basis until regular appointments are made.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan further directed the Union Government, within three months, to file a compliance report on measures taken to upgrade NCLT/NCLAT infrastructure nationwide. The Court also directed the States to ensure that RERA authorities are adequately staffed with infrastructure, experts, and resources, emphasizing that failure to do so may invite strict intervention by the Court.
Cause Title: AMIT NEHRA & ANR. VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 882
The Supreme Court has held that once a claim is verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP), it cannot be treated as “belated” to deny substantive relief under a resolution plan.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled in favour of the homebuyers, observing that their verified and admitted claims could not be downgraded to 'unverified' merely because of delayed filing, especially when such treatment wrongly denied them flat possession and confined them to a partial refund despite having paid substantial consideration. The Court directed the Resolution Applicant to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of the flat to the appellants within two months.
High Court
Delhi High Court Transfers Winding-Up Petitions Against Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt Ltd To NCLT
Case Name: Sh. Alok Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. M/s Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CO.PET. 740/2014
The Delhi High Court has transferred winding-up petitions filed against Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt Ltd to the NCLT.
The bench, presided over by Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, observed that since the present application is also related to the transfer of winding-up proceedings of the respondent company to the NCLT, it would be appropriate to transfer these petitions as well so as to enable the effective adjudication of the matters. Lastly, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to proceed further with the proceedings of NCLT in accordance with law.
Case Title: Chandra Prakash Jain v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Case No.: R/SCA No. 11944 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court last week stayed an order issued by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) which had suspended the registration of an insolvency resolution professional for six months pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.
The court passed the order after the petitioner questioned the procedure by which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. Justice Mauna M Bhatt issued notice on the petitioner's plea challenging an August 20 order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI whereby the petitioner's registration was suspended for 6 months from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of order.
Case Name: K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Case No.: W.P. No. 22949 of 2025
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar, has held that in the absence of disciplinary proceedings pending against a professional, the NCLT is bound to appoint the IRP proposed by the applicant under Sections 7 and 10 of the IBC, 2016. The Court observed that in an application under Sections 7 or 10, there is no statutory discretion available to the adjudicating authority to reject or substitute the IRP recommended by the corporate applicant.
Setting aside the impugned order of the NCLT, the Court clarified that the robust mechanism under Section 22 of the IBC empowers the CoC to replace the IRP by a 66% majority vote if needed. It directed the NCLT to pass a fresh order in accordance with the statutory scheme within six weeks.
NCLAT
Case Title:Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited Office Versus Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1155 of 2024 & I.A. No. 4134, 4135, 4136 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Operational Creditor. The Tribunal held that issuance of completion certificate containing a caveat that the defects in the work have to be rectified cannot be construed as an unconditional acceptance of work. Therefore, it held that the petition under section 9 of the IBC was rightly rejected by the NCLT over a pre-existing dispute.
Case Title: Trinity Auto Components Ltd. Versus Axis Bank Ltd.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1757 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an unresolved claim under the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) scheme constitutes a claim under Section 3(6) of the IBC and should be dealt with within the Code. The failure of the BIFR scheme does not create an independent cause of action; therefore, benefits under the BIFR scheme cannot be claimed after approval of the resolution plan.
Case Title:Vikram Bhawanishankar Sharma Member of the Suspended Board of Directors of Supreme Manor Wada Bhiwandi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number:Comp App. (AT) (Ins) No. 794 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2685 of 2023 & 1531 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that termination of a Concession Agreement by the Government of Maharashtra does not discharge the Corporate Debtor from its repayment obligations, especially when such termination has no relation to the default committed by the Corporate Debtor.
Case Title:Bijendra Prasad Mishra Versus M/s HS Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2364 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that a written contract is not a precondition to prove the existence of a legally payable debt. If other documentary evidence listed under Regulation 8(2) of the CIRP Regulations is available and clearly shows that the debt exists, it is sufficient to file an insolvency application.
Case Title:UNITECH MACHINES KARAMCHARI SANGH Versus Vivek Raheja and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1418 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that if the workmen or employees fail to prove that they actually worked after a layoff notice was issued by the corporate debtor, they are not entitled to claim any dues for the period after the layoff. Such dues can only be claimed if they continued to work despite the layoff notice.
Case Title:KNK Ship Management Versus Thrani Industries Ltd.
Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2149 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 9 of the IBC cannot be rejected on a hyper-technical plea that, since the claim was based on invoices, the demand notice should have been issued in Form 4 of Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, not in Form 3, especially when the notice included all invoices, which were not challenged by the Corporate Debtor as fake or fabricated.
Case Title:Maithan Alloys Limited Versus Easter Power Distribution Company
Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1514 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5492, 5493 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that once the Corporate Debtor is taken over by a Successful Auction Purchaser on a going-concern basis and a sale certificate is issued by the Liquidator, the purchaser cannot avoid its responsibility to pay true-up charges payable under law.
Case Title: Campbell Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vipul Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1407 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5503 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the principal amount mentioned in Part IV of the application under Section 7 of the IBC along with interest is paid in pursuance of an order of the NCLT, the financial creditor cannot seek restoration of the application merely on the ground that interest on the entire principal amount was not paid, which crossed 1 crore; therefore, the NCLT should have restored the application.
Case Title: Dr. Indu Singh Suspended Director of G.V. Meditech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Prime Tower – A Partnership Firm & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 704 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the Corporate Debtor entered into a settlement with the Operational Creditor to discharge its liability, for which an affidavit confirming the settlement was also filed, the Adjudicating Authority cannot, overlooking these facts, admit an application under Section 9 of the IBC.
Case Title: Juristical Legal Services Versus Three C Universal Developers Private Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1451 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that the rejection of the legal consultancy service provider's claim by the Resolution Professional, based on the absence of invoices for services in the Corporate Debtor's records, cannot be interfered with. Although the service provider was allotted flats/inventories in lieu of services, it is unclear whether this allotment was in discharge of services rendered to the Corporate Debtor or to its group companies, while the service provider claims it was for additional litigation services provided to the group companies but no evidence was presented for the same.
Case Title: Pooja Ramesh Singh Versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1808 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6593 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that internal adjustments among the Financial Creditors in the form of merger, demerger, or amalgamation do not affect the liability of the Corporate Debtor as guarantor, especially when all terms and conditions of the Guarantee Deed remain intact even after such adjustments.
Case Title: Rajratan Babulal Agarwal Versus State Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 244 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Corporate Debtor's submission before the Adjudicating Authority regarding entering into a One Time Settlement with the Financial Creditor itself amounts to an admission of debt and default.
Case Title: Mr. Satyabrata Mitra and Ors. Versus Earth Towne Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2171 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8108 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an application under section 7 of the IBC can be filed against multiple corporate debtors which are part of the same project.
Case Title: Expert Realty Professionals Private Limited Versus Logix Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 383 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice N Seshasayee and Mr Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the stage at which an application under Section 65 is considered is inconsequential; and if fraud in initiating insolvency proceedings is proved, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. The mere fact that a resolution plan was under consideration when the application under Section 65 was filed does not denude the Adjudicating Authority of its power to decide allegations of fraud and collusion.
Case Title: RAJENDER KUMAR PAHWA (SUSPENDED DIRECTOR OF GOODLUCK CARBON PRIVATE LIMITED) Versus CANARA BANK and ORS.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1980 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the corporate debtor, and approved by one consortium member subject to approval by all members, cannot bar the filing of an application under Section 7 of the IBC merely because the OTS is pending consideration before other lenders.
Claims Of EPFO Based On Inspection Conducted During CIRP Are Unenforceable: NCLAT
Case Title: CA Pankaj Shah Versus Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 17 of 2025 & I.A. No. 77 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the claims of the EPFO based on inspection conducted subsequent to initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) are unenforceable and cannot be admitted.
Case Title: Paresh K. Mehta Investment Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1197 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when there are specific pleadings under Section 9 of the IBC regarding part payments made by the Corporate Debtor, further supported by a written acknowledgment in the reply to the demand notice, the limitation period for filing the application is reset in terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Seeta Neeraj Shah and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 731 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the liability of the guarantor cannot be restricted to only the capped amount prescribed in respect of the principal borrower's liability, since the guarantor's liability to discharge repayment obligations upon invocation of the guarantee and the principal borrower's liability operate in separate spheres.
Case Title: Ajit Kumar Gupta Versus Uniexcel Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1686 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once the issue of whether share application money amounts to a financial debt has been decided by the Adjudicating Authority in earlier proceedings, the same question cannot be agitated in a subsequent application filed under Section 7 of the IBC as such a plea is barred by res judicata.
Case Title: Kiran Kumar Jain Versus Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: I.A. No. 4524 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 955 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra has held that it is for the creditors to decide whether to proceed against all or any one of the personal guarantors when there are multiple guarantors. Therefore, an application under Section 95 of the IBC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the creditor chose to proceed against only one of the personal guarantors.
Case Title: Jai Agarwal Versus Satyendra Prasad Khorania
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 30 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that mere bald assertions or allegations of fraud cannot invalidate an otherwise valid auction, especially when the unsuccessful bidder was given ample opportunity to log in to the system but failed to place a valid bid.
Case Title: MR. MANOJ AGGARWAL Versus KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 4 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that filing a second petition under Section 94 of the IBC, without disclosing that the earlier petition based on the same facts and cause of action had been dismissed, reflects mala fide conduct on the part of the litigant. Therefore, the second petition cannot be entertained unless sufficient explanation is provided for the delay in filing it after the dismissal of the first petition.
Case Title: Pankaj Tandon Versus Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through its Liquidator CA Rajeev Bansal
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 201 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to grant ex-post facto approval of criminal complaints filed against the Ex-management by providing adequate reasons.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank Versus Consortium of GSEC Limited and Rakesh Shah and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 943 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Margin Money deposited by the borrower as a precondition for sanction of Bank Guarantees, being payable towards the Bank Guarantees invoked by the beneficiary, ceases to be the Corporate Debtor's asset once such guarantees are invoked. Therefore, such appropriation of margin money is not hit by section 14 of the IBC.
Case Title: Hemant Sharma, Resolution Professional Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1039 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the claims of the creditor can be considered by the Resolution Professional even if guarantee based on which the claims were filed was not invoked.
Case Title: Shanti International, Through Amol Mittal v. Ram Singh Setia, Liquidator of Gajanan Solvex Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1063 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that a successful bidder is not entitled to claim exemptions from statutory compliances merely on the ground that the Appellant was a successful bidder of the corporate debtor.
Case Title: Deepak Raheja & Anr. Versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1039 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in earlier proceedings cannot operate as res judicata when no conclusive opinion was expressed, and the NCLT's order was set aside only for non-consideration of relevant materials and submissions.
Case Title: 5MF &G Private Limited Versus BMI Wholesale Trading Private Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 521 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that a petition withdrawn pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties can be revived if the corporate debtor fails to make payment as per the settlement terms, where the agreement clearly provides for such revival in case of default. The absence of express liberty granted by the NCLT in the withdrawal order is immaterial.
Case Title: Protech Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1054 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that refund of security amount which was given by Operational Creditor for carrying out the work contract cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of debt under section 19 of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Sh. Sumeet Juneja Versus Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (SASF) and Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2169 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice N. Seshasayee (Judicial Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that it is the bounden duty of the borrower to inform the creditor of any change in address. If demand notices and other important communications are sent to the previous address, the borrower cannot plead non-service when delivery of essential documents is established from the record.”
Case Title: Anil Singh Versus SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1069 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once an application under Section 65 of the IBC is filed and allegations of malicious or fraudulent initiation of the CIRP are raised, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to consider it on merits and cannot reject it solely on the ground of lack of locus.
Case Name: Ellison Oil Field Services Pvt. Ltd., CITOC Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1876 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6923 of 2024
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that the assignment of tax dues by the GST Department doesn't violate Article 265 or the GST Act if CIRP has been initiated.
Case Name: Future Consumer Ltd. Aussee Oats India Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1382 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5379 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has upheld the unilateral set-off by the corporate debtor against a financial creditor, even when the term sheet excluded such set-off.
Case Name: Nalinesh Kumar Paurush v. Shree Vishvamurte Tradinvest Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2024 & IA No. 6783 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Judicial) and Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), has held that a transactional audit report alone cannot be conclusive proof of fraudulent trading under section 66 of the IBC, 2016.
Case Name: Mathioli N, RP of MQ Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 412/2025 (IA No.1172/2025)
The NCLAT, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has held that Section 60(5) of the IBC can be invoked to replace a resolution professional (RP) if he deliberately avoids placing the agenda for his replacement before CoC.
Case Name: Mr. Shanod Sameer Das & Ors. vs. CA. Pankaj Bhattad, Resolution Professional of Gigeo Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1425, 1426 & 1427 of 2025
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has upheld the termination of the leave and license agreement by the resolution professional (RP) in the absence of RERA proceedings.
Case Name: Dnyaneshwar Shankar Unde, Proprietor of Swadarshan Dairy v. Shukla Dairy Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1269 of 2024
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Judicial), and Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has allowed the revival of the insolvency proceedings despite the absence of a revival clause in the settlement agreement.
The tribunal observed that the NCLT had itself granted the liberty to revive the application in case of failure of settlement and criticised the conduct of the respondent, noting that it cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold by first agreeing to pay and later defaulting. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored.
Case Name: State Bank of India v. Smt. Nandamuri Meenalatha & M/s. Vantage Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) Nos. 362 & 383 of 2025
The NCLAT, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has expunged stigmatic remarks against the SBI officials and counsel, holding that tribunals cannot make stigmatic observations or impose costs without giving an opportunity to be heard.
It held that before making any remark which may affect professionals' careers and future opportunities, they must be provided an opportunity to defend themselves. Since in this case there was no effective opportunity to present a defence, the stigmatic remarks stood expunged. The tribunal also modified the direction regarding communication of the order to the Chairman and Managing Director of SBI, making it a fresh order with observations to ensure diligence of subordinates assisting NCLT, Amaravati.
Accordingly, the appeal was partially allowed.
Recall Application Seeking Review Of NCLAT Judgment Is Not Permissible: NCLAT Chennai
Case Name: V. Venkata Sivakumar v. S. Hari Karthik, New Liquidator of The Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: Review App No. 03/2023 in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 155/2023 To Recall IA No. 677/2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra, has held that a recall application seeking review of the NCLAT's order is not permissible.
The bench observed that the recall application in essence sought review of the Tribunal's order, which is not permissible. It held that recall can only be exercised in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or where the court itself has committed a mistake — not as an alternative to an appeal. Since the appellant had the opportunity to appeal against the judgment, it could not seek recall. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Case Name: Deepak Raheja & Anr. v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 180 of 2025
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that a security trustee can file a section 7 application seeking initiation of the CIRP if there is a valid authorization from the assignee of the debt.
The tribunal observed that the instructions dated 15.03.2023 and 23.03.2023 clearly authorized the IDBI Trusteeship to initiate the CIRP proceedings. It further observed that the security trustee agreement remained valid as the assignee stepped into the shoes of the original lender, and the IDBI Trusteeship continued to act in its authorized capacity. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Case Name: The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Vineeta Maheshwari, Resolution Professional of Bloom Dekor Ltd.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1618 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5915 of 2024
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that EPFO dues of the pre-CIRP period cannot be claimed based on assessments made during the imposition of the moratorium.
The bench noted that though the assessment pertained to a period before CIRP admission, it was carried out after the imposition of the moratorium. Referring to its earlier ruling in CA Pankaj Shah (Supra), it reiterated that no assessment can be done post-moratorium under section 14 of the IBC. Thus, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Case Name: Ini Agri Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No. 218 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5507, 5509 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member-Judicial) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority cannot reject the main prayer without cogent reasons and allow the alternative prayers.
The tribunal observed that the NCLT dismissed the main prayer without any cogent reason and allowed the alternative prayer; hence, it would be correct to remand back the matter to the NCLT. Accordingly, the NCLAT set aside the impugned order and directed the NCLT to relook into it.
Case Name: Sudhir Dinanath Chatutvedi vs. True IPE LLP & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 540 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra, has held that the adjudicating authority cannot invoke section 60(5) of the IBC when ingredients of section 66 are not made out.
The NCLAT observed that there is no justification for allowing the application, especially when the adjudicating authority has itself observed that the ingredients of section 66 had not been made. The bench also noted that the relief sought was either not related to the appellant or pertained to the financial creditors and hence, was not sustainable.
Case Name: Deborshi Sadhan Bose v. Rakesh Duggar, Liquidator of E.C. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1267 of 2025
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that a suspended director cannot halt liquidation by submitting a third-party settlement offer after expiry of CIRP.
The appellant contended that it had given the higher offer and has also filed the application seeking direction to consider its offer. It was submitted that considering the higher offer is in accordance with the objectives of the CIRP. However, the NCLT kept the application pending and directed liquidation of the corporate debtor in furtherance of the application by the RP.
Case Name: Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Sumit Sharma, Erstwhile RP & Anr
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1359 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5309 of 2025
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that the distribution among financial creditors should be based on security interest or on a pro rata basis as per voting shares.
The bench observed that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that CoC has passed the resolution plan adopting the voting share as the distribution mechanism of the debt. Also, the appellant's objection was pending before the adjudicating authority, and the resolution plan was approved. Further, the bench discussed the ruling of the State Bank of India v. IDBI Bank Limited & Anr., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 321/2024, and upheld the distribution based on the pro-rata basis.
Right To Sue U/S 9 Of IBC Begins When MSME Arbitral Award Becomes Final: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Name: Haabia Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1027 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that the right to sue under section 9 of the IBC begins when the MSME award becomes final and operative.
The NCLAT observed that the date of issuance of the demand notice cannot be considered as the date for computing the limitation for the section 9 application. The tribunal mentioned that the application under section 9 has to be filed in accordance with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation from the date when the 'Right to Sue Accrues'. Here, the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were withdrawn in 2013, and on the same date, the award became final. Hence, the 'Right to Sue Accrues' when the award became final and operative.
Case Name: Pankaj Majithia, RP of Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Vikas Kasliwal & Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 958 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has observed that NCLT's reference to the IBBI order passed post reserving the judgment does not violate natural justice if the order is not contested by the resolution professional.
The tribunal observed that the appellant letter dated 04.07.2023 proved that he was aware of the notice, and it falsifies the stand of the appellant and also raises a question about his integrity. Considering the submission of the appellant with regard to IBBI, the bench noted that the appellant has not contended the IBBI order. And, since a fact is not denied, it hardly matters if the opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant or not.
Absence Of Charge Defeats Income Tax Department's Secured Creditor Status: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Name: Parag Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1395 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that in the absence of a charge, the Income Tax Department cannot be considered as a secured creditor.
The NCLAT observed that the statement made by the Income Tax Department's counsel that the department has no charge against the demand of income tax stood unchallenged. It further noted that the adjudicating authority erred in presuming that the Income Tax Department is a secured creditor on the basis of Rainbow Papers (Supra) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Supra). Considering these circumstances, the NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT's order.
Case Title: SMAS Auto Leasing India Pvt. Ltd. v. Gensol Engineering Ltd. Through Its CoC and IRP
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1042 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical), disposed of an appeal filed by SMAS Auto Leasing India Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad, which had admitted the section 7 application filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited against Gensol Engineering Limited.
The NCLAT held that since 152 of the 164 leased electric vehicles had already been repossessed by SMAS under Delhi High Court orders prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), they do not form part of Gensol's insolvency estate and can't be dealt with by the Interim Resolution Professional. Finding no further purpose in continuing the matter, the NCLAT disposed of the appeal.
Case Name: HDFC Bank v. Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1534 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5559, 5560 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that neither the registry nor the NCLT can dismiss a section 7 application without giving an opportunity to the party to cure the defects in the supporting affidavit.
The NCLAT observed that though the affidavit was sworn before the verification of the petition, the said defect is curable. Relying on the proviso to section 7(5)(b) of the IBC and the ruling in Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy & Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330, the tribunal held that it is the obligation of the adjudicating authority to give notice to rectify defects so that meritorious cases are not dismissed on technical grounds.
Case Name: The Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization v. Alok Kailash Saksena Liquidator of Gujarat Foils
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 807 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has held that the EPFO dues arising from the post-liquidation assessment under section 7A of the EPF Act are not admissible.
The bench observed that Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016, lays down that only those claims can be admitted that were existing at the time of the liquidation commencement date. Since the assessment of the EPFO claim was made after the liquidation commencement date, the claims were not in existence at the time of liquidation and are therefore inadmissible. The NCLAT upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal.
Case Name: Ajay Rana, Director of Erstwhile Company Sarika Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar Goel & Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1045 of 2023 & I.A. No. 3577, 3578 of 2023, 3403, 4010 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Judicial), and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has invalidated a CIRP order passed by the Adjudicating Authority based on a GST Department letter neither addressed to nor received by the corporate debtor.
The NCLAT observed that the letter relied upon by the operational creditor was not addressed to or received by the corporate debtor, making reliance on it for admission of the CIRP misplaced. It also held that in the absence of an agreement, interest based on unilateral invoices cannot be added to meet the threshold limit of ₹1 crore. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order admitting the CIRP was set aside.
Case Name: Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. Vs. Mr. Satyendra Sharma, RP of Arkin Creations Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1180 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Technical), Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Member-Technical), and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority has jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC to entertain an IA filed by the Resolution Professional seeking enforcement of an arbitral award. The tribunal noted that once the adjudicating authority has taken up any matter, the jurisdiction of all other forums to take up the matter ceases and under section 60(5) of the IBC, the adjudicating authority is empowered to direct the judgment debtor to pay the outstanding amount.
The bench also observed that the award had attained finality as it was not challenged by the appellant and was necessary for the revival of the company. It further held that the 90-day limit prescribed under the MSME Act to pass the award is not mandatory, and its non-compliance cannot render the award a nullity. Hence, the tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal.
Case Name: Dhara Cements (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dineshbhai Khimjibhai Patel
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 444 of 2024 & I.A. No. 1520, 1521, 4288 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has held that a corporate debtor in its own name cannot file an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC after initiation of CIRP and appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
Citing the ruling of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, the NCLAT observed that once an IRP is appointed, the management of the company stands suspended and it cannot maintain appeal in its name. The tribunal also noted that the IA seeking amendment to change the title was filed beyond the prescribed limitation under Section 61 of the Code. Finding no merit in the submissions of the corporate debtor, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Case Name: Mohit Arora (Suspended Director of Revital Reality Pvt. Ltd.) v. Manish Aneja & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1163 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has affirmed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Revital Reality Private Limited under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016. The Tribunal held that the non-obtaining of an Occupation Certificate cannot be used as a defence when default arises from incomplete construction and failure to deliver possession to homebuyers. Relying on the rulings of Shailendra Agarwal vs. Asit Upadhyaya & Ors. and Manish Kumar v. Union of India, it noted that failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuing default and default against any allottee is sufficient for Section 7 proceedings.
Rejecting the plea for reverse CIRP, the Tribunal noted that it was not possible as the Section 7 applicants had opposed continuation by the promoter. Observing the decade-long delay and continued non-completion, NCLAT directed the Resolution Professional to proceed with issuance of Form G for early resolution of the corporate debtor, as early conclusion of the CIRP is warranted.
Additional Documents Need Not Be Filed With Reply To Demand Notice U/S 8(2) Of IBC: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Name: Gannon Dunkerley & Company Ltd. v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1222 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), has ruled that Section 8 of the IBC does not permit placing on record any documents with a reply to the demand notice except those specifically mentioned in sub-section (2). The appeal arose from an NCLT Mumbai order refusing to take on record additional documents filed by the corporate debtor after its reply in a Section 9 proceeding. NCLAT noted that the corporate debtor had referred to certain correspondence in its reply and was only seeking to place those materials formally on record.
Referring to Rule 55 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 and paragraph 89 of Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) 10 SCC 330, the Appellate Tribunal held that additional documents can be filed at any time before passing of the final order and the NCLT had misapplied the law. It therefore set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to take the additional documents on record, clarifying that it was not ruling on their relevancy but only on their admissibility at this stage.
Liquidation Is Only Recourse When Sole Financial Creditor Is A Related Party: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Name: STROS-Sedlcanske Strojirny, a.s. v. Poonam Basak (IRP for STROS Esquire Elevators & Hoists Pvt. Ltd.)
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2159 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Mr. N. Seshasayee (Member-Judicial), Mr. Arun Baroka (Member-Technical), and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member-Technical), has held that liquidation is the only recourse where the sole financial creditor of a corporate debtor is also a related party. In the present case, the IRP found that the appellant was the only financial creditor and a related party, making the constitution of a Committee of Creditors impossible. The adjudicating authority had directed withdrawal of the CIRP application, but on appeal NCLAT noted that the corporate debtor was not a going concern and that the IBC does not provide for commencement of CIRP without a CoC.
While appreciating the appellant's reliance on Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Spade Financial Services Ltd. (2021) 3 SCC 475, the tribunal observed that it cannot overstep the legislative scheme by permitting a related-party sole financial creditor to constitute a CoC. Emphasising that tribunals cannot leave a party remediless, NCLAT set aside the impugned order and directed liquidation of the corporate debtor as the only viable option in the circumstances.
NCLT
Case Title:Canara Bank VERSUS M/S. S.S. ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: CP (IB) No 18/CB/2O24
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Cuttack bench of Deep Chourasia (Judicial Member) and Babulal Meena (Technical Member) has held that institution of criminal proceedings or allegations of fraud against officials of the financial creditor do not bar an application under section 7 of the IBC.
Case Title: Green Morning Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. Versus Lakshmi Infrastructure and Developers India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CP (IB)/23/9/AMR/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Amrawati bench of Shri Kishore Vemulapalli, Member (Judicial) and Shri Umesh Kumar Shukla, Member (Technical) has held that the Adjudicating Authority is not the appropriate forum for determination on the liability of the Corporate Debtor to pay interest under the MSME Act or Interest Act.
Case Name: Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari, Interim Resolution Professional of Mindlogicx Infratec Ltd. v. Union Bank of India.
Case No.: I.A. No. 586/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 126/BB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, comprising Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member-Judicial) and Radhakrishna Sreepada (Member-Technical), has held that an IRP/RP is not entitled to fees or expenses incurred during the stay of CIRP proceedings granted by NCLAT or Judicial Forum.
Case Name: Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari, Interim Resolution Professional of Mindlogicx Infratec Ltd. v. Union Bank of India.
Case No.: I.A. No. 586/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 126/BB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench, comprising Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member-Judicial) and Radhakrishna Sreepada (Member-Technical), has held that an IRP/RP is not entitled to fees or expenses incurred during the stay of CIRP proceedings granted by NCLAT or Judicial Forum.
Case Name: Mr. B. A. Chandrasherkara Setty and Ors v. M/s. Intec India Limited Ltd
Case No.: IA 625/2024 IN Company Petition No. (IB) – 2432/(PB)/2019
The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising Jyotsna Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Member-Technical), has held that the moratorium under section 14 of the IBC doesn't prevent reversal of funds mistakenly transferred to the corporate debtor's account.
Invocation Of Guarantee Does Not Preclude Financial Creditor From Initiating CIRP: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: UCO Bank Versus Vasupujya Enterprise Private Limited
Case Number: CP (IB) No. 141/MB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Cmde Siddharth Mishra (Technical Member) admitted a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against Vasupujya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a corporate guarantor of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd., holding that there is no bar under the IBC from simultaneously filing two applications under section 7 of the IBC against Borrower as well as the guarantor.
Case: Punjab National Bank v. [Corporate Debtor – Name not specified in excerpt]
Bench: Sanjiv Jain (Member-Judicial) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Member-Technical)
The NCLT, Chennai Bench, comprising Sanjiv Jain (Member-Judicial) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Member-Technical), has held that the discretion vested upon the adjudicating authority under section 7(5)(a) IBC cannot be used to impel the financial creditor to consider the settlement proposed by the corporate debtor.
NCLT Not Empowered To Interfere With Attachment Of Properties Under PMLA Proceedings: NCLT New Delhi
Case Name: Vikram Kumar (RP) v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: I.A. No. 4373 of 202 & I.A. 5680 of 2023 in C.P. IB No. 843 (ND) of 2018
The NCLT, New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has held that the NCLT lacks the authority to adjudicate upon an order issued by the adjudicating authority under PMLA or to direct the Enforcement Directorate to release the attachment.
It observed that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not apply to PMLA proceedings, and immunity under Section 32A operates only after approval of a resolution plan, which was not the case here. The bench relied on Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. (2019), Varrsana Ispat Ltd. v. Deputy Director, ED (2019), and Kiran Shah v. ED (2021) to hold that NCLT cannot interfere with matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of authorities under PMLA. The RP can only approach the adjudicating authority under PMLA where the matter is pending. Accordingly, the bench refused to stay or set aside the attachment.
Case Name: Velvin Packaging Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dunzo Digital Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CP (IB) No. 36/BB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, comprising Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Member-Judicial) and Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada (Member-Technical), has admitted the CIRP petition against Dunzo Digital Private Limited for Debt of Rs. 1.91 Crore.
The section 9 IBC petition was filed by Velvin Packaging Solutions, seeking initiation of the CIRP against Dunzo Digital Private Limited for default in payment of Rs. 2.29 Cr. inclusive of interest. The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor raised vague disputes without evidence and held that the post-default settlement did not extinguish the original cause of action.
Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Mag.T Exim Limited
Case No.: CP (IB) 199 (ND) 2025
The NCLT, New Delhi Bench, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has held that a deeper inquiry into the legality of the transfer of property or allegations of fraud cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Section 7 of the IBC.
The NCLT observed that the allegations and counter-allegations concerning the sale of mortgage property, collusion with Yes Bank, and the validity of the loan involve questions of fact and allegations of fraud. Therefore, it cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings u/s 7 of the IBC. Further, the bench ruled that the deeper inquiry with regard to allegations of fraud and legality of transfer should be adjudicated by the competent forum. It also observed that the default has not been established.
Case Title: IDBI Bank V/s Jain Infraprojects Limited
Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/999(KB)2025 in CP (IB) No.175(KB)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, bench of Siddharth Mishra (Technical Member) and Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member), Kolkata admitted a section 7 petition filed by IDBI Bank against Jain Infraprojects Limited, while granting the Corporate Debtor a two-month window for settlement.
Despite this, the Tribunal admitted the section 7 petition, holding that the dues were “too large to ignore”. It noted that the corporate debtor had shown substantial settlement efforts, by already resolving dues with 7 out of 11 consortium lenders and payments made to IDBI bank under successive OTS agreements. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries v. Axis Bank, the tribunal reiterated that admission Section 7 petition is discretionary, not mandatory. It noted that “with time “Vidharbha” affect may have been diluted to some extent, however, till date “Vidharbha” has not yet been overruled. Thus, the tribunal gave the corporate debtor an opportunity to settle dues with IDBI Bank and sought recall of admission order within two months.
Case Name: Central Bank of India v. Sasa Musa Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: I.A. (IB) No. 1322/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 157/KB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Member-Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra (Member-Technical), has permitted exclusion of time spent in complying with judicial orders and directions of the stakeholder body, saying that the liquidator cannot be penalized for an event outside his control.
The adjudicating authority observed that the mentioned period was consumed in judicial process, consideration of scheme u/s 230, SCC meetings, etc. And the liquidator could not have published the fresh auction notice until the leave of the tribunal and SCC approval. Further, the bench observed that regulation 47 of the liquidation regulations prescribes the model timeline, which is directory. Also, the adjudicating authority has time and again discussed that the time spent in the judicial orders, appellate proceedings, or directions of stakeholder bodies should be excluded in order to ensure that the liquidator is not penalized for events outside his control.
Equity Investment Made Through Commercial MoU Doesn't Qualify As Operational Debt: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Name: Neeta Zanvar v. Filatex Fashions Ltd
Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 30/9/HDB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, comprising Mr. Rajee Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical), has held that an equity investment with conditional repayment made through a commercial memorandum of understanding (MoU) doesn't qualify as operational debt.
The bench observed that the reading of the MoU suggests that the investment was made towards the acquisition of equity shares and not towards any supply of goods or services. And the plain reading of section 5(21) provides that the claim arising out of equity investment or share subscription doesn't qualify as the operational debt. Further, the bench observed that the promise of a refund in case of non-performance doesn't alter the nature of the debt, and the commercial MoU lacks the character of the operational relationship.
Case Name: Axis Bank Limited v. Euro Tech Maritime Academy Private Limited
Case No.: IA(IBC)/226/KOB/2025 & CP(IBC)/10/KOB/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, comprising Mr. Vinay Goel (Member-Judicial) and Madhu Sinha (Member-Technical), has held that the IBC proceedings are not barred by the pending writ petition or administrative classification of accounts as NPA or fraudulent.
The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor has acknowledged the debt and restructuring but failed to maintain financial discipline. It also noted that the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court were related to the classification of the account as a fraud account, which has nothing to do with the present proceedings. Considering the documents on record and rejection of the stay by the High Court, the NCLT admitted the Section 7 application.
Any Defect In Title Of Security Does Not Vitiate Duly Executed Personal Guarantee: NCLT Mumbai
Case Name: Rinki Prakash Kumar vs. The Bank of Maharashtra Limited
Case No.: IA (I.B.C)/3594(MB)/2025 in CP(IB)/1138(MB)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, Court VI, comprising Justice Nimesh Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Sameer Kakar (Member-Technical), has held that any defect in the title of the security does not vitiate the personal guarantee, duly executed, specifically when the person admits the execution.
The bench observed that the company availed the loan facility and the personal guarantee was executed by the applicant. Any defect in the title of the security cannot vitiate the guarantee, and since no appeal was filed against the admission of the section 95 petition, the order attains finality. Hence, the present petition was dismissed.
Case Name: Dhanuka Udyog Private Limited v. Kamala Board Box Private Limited
Case No.: C.P. (IB) No. 293/KB of 2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Member-Judicial) and Siddharth Mishra (Member-Technical), has held that if the default is committed prior to or during the section 10A period and liability to pay interest is accrued during the section 10A period and continued thereafter, such interest could be counted to meet the threshold of Rs. 1 Cr.
Relying on the ruling of Beetel Teletech Ltd. v. Arcelia IT Services Pvt. Ltd., the bench observed that section 10A protection does not extend to a default that continued beyond the protected period. Even if the amount of the protected period is excluded, the amount is still above the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Cr., considering the interest due. Hence, the application is not hit by section 10A and is accordingly admitted.
Case Name: Dr. Badri Prasad and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Agarwal, RP of Furnace Fabrica (India) Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: IA(IBC)/93/KOB/2024 IN CP(IBC)/14/KOB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, comprising Justice Vinay Goel (Member-Judicial) and Madhu Sinha (Member-Technical), has held that any private agreement between the corporate debtors, borrowers, and guarantors is not binding on the financial institutions unless the institutions are parties to the agreement and have explicitly consented to it.
The bench observed that the applicants have no locus standi to intervene in the CIRP, as they were not participants in it in any capacity. Referring to the supremacy of creditors' rights under the IBC, it held that any private agreement, including an unregistered MoU, cannot defeat the statutory process or impair the rights of the secured creditor. The application was therefore dismissed.
Case Name: Mrs. Neha Bhasin, Interim Resolution Professional for Victory Electric Vehicles International Ltd.
Case No.: IA 2483/2025 in CP (IB) 723/ND/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-IV, comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Member-Technical), has held that if there is a stay on the meetings of CoC, then the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor is sufficient for the withdrawal of the CIRP.
The tribunal observed that Section 12A and Regulation 30A prescribe approval of 90% of the CoC for withdrawal of the application, and in this case the applicant had rightly complied, as the sole financial creditor had issued a no-objection. Considering the settlement between the parties and the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor, the adjudicating authority allowed the application with 100% approval of the CoC.
Case Name: State Bank of India v. Summit Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: IA (IBC)/1025/2024 in CP (IB)/320/9/HDB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical), has held that the lease dues incurred during the corporate insolvency resolution period prior to the vesting date are payable to the financial creditor and don't belong to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
The tribunal observed that the resolution plan provides that the balance in the corporate debtor's account as of the vesting date is to be transferred to the SBI. It ruled that the non-payment of the dues before the vesting date doesn't extinguish the liability of the SRA, especially when it has admitted the dues in the affidavit.
Case Name: Paramount Consultant & Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhat Telecom India Ltd.
Case No.: IA (I.B.C)/3132 (MB) 2025 In C.P. (IB)/1874 (MB) 2019
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, comprising Justice Sushil Mahadeorao Kochkey (Member-Judicial) and Prabhat Kumar (Member-Technical), has held that personal guarantors cannot seek disclosure of resolution plan details under section 60(5) or Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules.
The adjudicating authority observed that there is no provision in the IBC that talks of sharing the resolution plan with anyone except the members of the CoC and the suspended Board of Directors. Relying on the ruling of Glas Trust Company LLC v. Buju Raveendran, Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024, it held that inherent power cannot override express provisions of law and dismissed the application.
Case Name: M.K. Metals vs. Kundan Industries Ltd.
Case No.: C.P.(IB)-738(MB)/C-III/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-III, comprising Justice Lakshmi Gurung (Member-Judicial) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Member-Technical), has held that a settlement agreement entered between the parties merely for the purpose of acknowledging the debt and structuring the repayment schedule doesn't necessarily change the nature of the debt when it is concreted with sufficient evidence.
Relying on the ruling of Ahluwalia Contracts India Ltd. vs. Jasmine Buildmart Private Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1164/2023], the tribunal observed that such a settlement does not alter the character of the debt. The bench further held that the dues mentioned under the settlement agreement cannot be regarded as operational debt under section 5(21) of the IBC and dismissed the petition.
Case Name: Mrs. Neha Bhasin, Interim Resolution Professional for Victory Electric Vehicles International Ltd.
Case No.: IA 2483/2025 in CP (IB) 723/ND/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-IV, comprising Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Member-Technical), has held that if there is a stay on the meetings of CoC, then the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor is sufficient for the withdrawal of the CIRP.
The tribunal observed that Section 12A of the IBC and Regulation 30A require approval of 90% of the CoC for withdrawal of an application. In this case, since the sole financial creditor (HDFC Bank) filed an unconditional no objection for withdrawal of the CIRP, the requirement stood fulfilled. Considering the settlement between the parties and the unconditional consent of the sole financial creditor, the adjudicating authority allowed the application with 100% approval of the CoC.
Date: 05.09.2025
On 04.09.2025, the National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association made an urgent representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, expressing serious concern over the persistent infrastructure challenges faced by the NCLT, New Delhi Bench.
The representation highlighted that the closure of the 8th floor of Block 3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road—housing Court Nos. IV, V and VI—due to severe roof seepage has brought the functioning of the Tribunal to a near standstill. All courts under the New Delhi Bench are now operating on a half-day basis, resulting in severe disruption of judicial proceedings and denial of citizens' access to legal remedies under Article 39A of the Constitution of India.
The Bar Association also stated that even prior to this issue, the space from which the NCLT currently operates (6th, 7th, and 8th floors) has been inadequate. Despite the Delhi High Court allotting the first floor of the building for the NCLT, ongoing construction and renovation have prevented it from being handed over to the Tribunal.
The Bar has requested the Ministry to take immediate steps to restore normal functioning of the Tribunal and warned that failure to act will compel it to take necessary measures to ensure restoration of judicial operations.
Case Name: Ashok Kumar Mandhani v. MBG Commodities Pvt Ltd & 7 others
Case Number: IA (CA)/208/2025, IA (CA)/209/2025, IA (CA)/210/2025 and IA (CA)/211/2025 in Company Petition 32/241/HDB/2025
The NCLT Hyderabad Bench of Mr. Rajeev Bhardwaj (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Sanjay Puri (Member-Technical) granted interim relief to the Petitioner under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, read with Sections 59 and 213. The Petitioner, a 71.79% majority shareholder before the impugned allotment, argued that the EGM held on 28.06.2025 was convened without notice and pushed through related-party loans and guarantees worth ₹25.05 crore. During the EGM, 2,49,95,000 shares were allotted to Respondents No. 5 and 6, reducing the Petitioner's stake from 71.79% to 47.87%.
Observing a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the Petitioner, the Bench restrained MBG Commodities Pvt Ltd and others from acting upon the EGM decisions. It further restrained Respondents No. 5 and 6 from exercising voting rights based on the changed shareholding pattern in light of the disputed allotment.