NOMINAL INDEX: Adroit Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sanjay Kukreja Vs. Amit Poddar Resolution Professional & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1274 of 2024 Super Floorings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Napin Impex Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1928 of 2024 & I.A. No.7115 of 2024 Mr. Tajinder Singh Bhathal vs. MRF Limited & Ors., Company Appeal...
NOMINAL INDEX:
Adroit Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sanjay Kukreja Vs. Amit Poddar Resolution Professional & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1274 of 2024
Super Floorings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Napin Impex Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1928 of 2024 & I.A. No.7115 of 2024
Mr. Tajinder Singh Bhathal vs. MRF Limited & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 94/2023 (IA No.1191/2023)
MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD. VERSUS FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 48/2025 (and connected cases), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19
CSA Corporation Pvt. Ltd Versus Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2024
Amit Dineshchandra Patel, Vrindavan Versus State Bank of India and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1826
Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Versus Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062 and 1065 of 2024
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. Arjun Agarwal, I.A.(IB) 1670/KB/2024 in C.P.(IB) 51/KB/2024
Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Limited, WRIT PETITION No.20620 OF 2024
Harpal Singh Chawla v. Vivek Khanna & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14708/2024
Drish Shoes Workers Union Versus Drish Shoes Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2281 of 2024 & I.A. No.8501 of 2024
Nabard Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd Versus Dharmendra Kumar, (Official Liquidator for IAP Company Pvt. Ltd.), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2196 of 2024
Indospirit Distribution Limited Vs Kristal Spirits India Pvt Ltd, COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(Ins) No.503 of 2024
Sumati Suresh Hegde & Ors. Versus Anand Sonbhadra, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 884 of 2024
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus VARUTHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, I.A. (IB) No. 2409/KB/2024 And I.A. (IB) (Plan) No. 21/KB/2024 In Company Petition (IB) No. 26/KB/2023
Rahat Hussain Versus Divyesh Desai & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2373 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8905 of 2024
M/s Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL), Versus M/s. Shyam Baba Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2023
State Bank of India Versus Gourishankar Poddar and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 689 of 2024
R.A.J. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Versus NEWERA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 83 of 2024
Ganesh Chandra Bamrana and Ors. vs. Rukmani Gupta, CRL. M.C. 6170/2022 & CRL. M.A. 24285/2022, CRL.M.C. 6178/2022 & CRL.M.A. 24297/2022
Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Versus Rakesh Verma Authorised Representative and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1924 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7124 of 2024
M/s Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus M/s Rockman Advertising and Marketing (India) Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1480 of 2024
Pawan Kumar Versus Central Bank of India & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1095 of 2024
Amit Yogesh Satwara Versus Incred Financial Services Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1584 of 2024
Mirra & Mirra Industries vs. Mrs. B. Usha Rani & Anr., RA (SA): 165/2018 and RA (SA):178/2018
Anup Kumar Liquidator of Independent TV …Appellant Versus Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors., I.A. No. 6903 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1913 of 2024
Comet Performance Chemicals Private Limited Versus Aarvee Denims and Exports Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1878 of 2024
New India Color Company Ltd. Versus Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. (In CIRP) & Anr, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1255 of 2022 & I.A. No. 3839 of 2022
UCO Bank Vs Smt. Nishu Goel, IB-355/ND/2024
Fortune Chemicals Limited vs. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1263 of 2022
Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Ors. v. Financial Software and Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Comp App (AT) (CH) No.84/2024
Canara Bank Versus Sh. Vivek Kumar, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 390 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1301, 1302 of 2023, 7105, 7610 of 2024
Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg Resolution Professional Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1365 of 2023
Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr.,RERA APPEAL 7/2024
M/s Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd., IA-3686/2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)- 652(PB)/2019
Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Kadi Division Vs. Pradeep Kabra, RP of Cengres Tiles Ltd.', Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 844 of 2024
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Mohit Kumar Legal Heir of Naresh Kumar, Personal Guarantor, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2242 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8422 of 2024
Go Airlines (India) Limited vs. Mr. Shailendra Ajmera Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Limited, I.A. (Liq.) 33/ND/2024 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. (IB) – 264/PB/2023
Anita Goyal Versus Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Anr, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2282 of 2024
Whatsapp LLC vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors., I.A No. 280 of 2025 IN Competition App. (AT) No. 1 of 2025
Anil Kumar (Resolution Professional in the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process of Sh. Mukund Choudhary) Versus Mukund Choudhary, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 38 of 2025
Mr. Akshay Kumar Bhatia vs. M/s. Cue Learn Private Limited, CP No.: IB 572(ND)/2022 & IA 5437/ND/2023
Marvel Landmarks Pvt Ltd. vs. Jay Nihalani & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2227 of 2024
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Presidia Araya Residents Welfare Association, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 97 of 2025
INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126
Dharamshi K. Patel & Anr. vs. Indian Bank & Ors., WP.No,712/2024 and WMP.Nos.730 & 732/2024
Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs Daphne Reita Rajan Sharma & Anr., RERA APPEAL 7/2024
HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023
In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, M&A/10/2020/01/CD
Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024
Amrit Rajani Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Anr., Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 375 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1261, 1262 of 2023
K. Lakshmi Narayana v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2105 of 2024
Ramesh Jadhav Vs. Vakati Balasubramaniam Reddy & Anr.',Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 173 of 2025
State Bank of India Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 321 of 2024
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VS. M/S MBL (MP) TOLL ROAD COMPANY LIMITED, CP (IB) No.423/(PB)/2023
Supreme Court
'IBC A Complete Code' : Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Exercising Writ Jurisdiction To Interdict CIRP
Case Title: MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD. VERSUS FAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 48/2025 (and connected cases)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19
Disapproving a High Court's order interdicting a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court recently observed that the IBC is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, and thus, the exercise of supervisory and judicial review powers by High Courts demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application.
Supreme Court Dismisses Builder's Plea To Confine Insolvency Process To Single Real Estate Project
Case Title – Harpal Singh Chawla v. Vivek Khanna & Ors.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 14708/2024
The Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal seeking to confine Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) to a single real estate project of the company located in Gurugram.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal against the decision of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi rejecting an application to confine the CIRP of the corporate debtor to a single project.
IBC | For Resolution Plan Involving Combination, Prior Approval Of Competition Commission Mandatory Before CoC Examination : Supreme Court
Case name: INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. V. GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126
The Supreme Court on January 29, by 2:1 majority, observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, containing a proposed combination(a merger or amalgamation of entities), should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
High Court
Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques After Commencement Of CIRP Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ganesh Chandra Bamrana and Ors. vs. Rukmani Gupta
Case Number: CRL. M.C. 6170/2022 & CRL. M.A. 24285/2022, CRL.M.C. 6178/2022 & CRL.M.A. 24297/2022
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishnonour of cheque cannot continue against individuals once a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is in effect.
Sole Financial Creditor Can't Entertain Request For One-Time Settlement Once CIRP Proceedings Have Commenced: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Mandava Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PTC India Financial Services Limited
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.20620 OF 2024
Telangana High Court has dismissed a Writ petition filed by Mandava Holdings Private Limited challenging the rejection of the one-time settlement (OTS) proposal offer made to PTC India Financial Services Limited so as to stop CIRP proceedings without considering the RBI framework for compromise settlement and technical write-offs.
The petitioner contended that PTC India Financial Services Limited was wrong in approving the resolution plan without considering the settlement offer and prayed that the rejection letter issued in 2023 be set aside and consequently reconsider the proposal of OTS.
NCLAT
Workers' Claims For Layoff Period Dues Under Industrial Disputes Act Cannot Be Decided By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT
Case Title: Drish Shoes Workers Union Versus Drish Shoes Ltd.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2281 of 2024 & I.A. No.8501 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that non-computation of salary after lay off by the Resolution Professional cannot be faulted with since the Resolution Professional has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly observed that whether the Workers are entitled to claim their dues for the layoff period under provisions of Industrial Dispute Act is not in the domain of the Adjudicating Authority.
Adjudicating Authority While Dismissing Appeal For Non-Prosecution Cannot Add Direction To Dismiss It On Merits As Well: NCLAT
Case Title: Nabard Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd Versus Dharmendra Kumar, (Official Liquidator for IAP Company Pvt. Ltd.)
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2196 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when the appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution, it cannot be said to be dismissed on merits as well. In this case, the NCLT while dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution added a direction that the appeal is dismissed on merits as well.
Period From 15.03.2020 To 28.02.2022 Shall Stand Excluded As Per SC Judgment In 'Re:Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation': NCLAT
Case Title: Indospirit Distribution Limited Vs Kristal Spirits India Pvt Ltd
Case Number: COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(Ins) No.503 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) has held that period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in light of the Supreme Court judgment in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation for the purpose of calculating the limitation period while filing an application under section 9 of the code.
Eviction Of Tenant From Corporate Debtor's Property Can Be Sought Under Tenancy Law, Not U/S 60(5) Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Sumati Suresh Hegde & Ors. Versus Anand Sonbhadra
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 884 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that eviction of tenant from the property of corporate debtor can only be sought under the Act in which tenancy was created and such power of eviction cannot be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the Code.
No Title To Immovable Property Can Be Transferred On Basis Of Unregistered Instrument: NCLAT
Case Title: Rahat Hussain Versus Divyesh Desai & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2373 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8905 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the fact that the property is shown in the records in the name of the Corporate Debtor, Liquidator has every right to take possession of the shop on which the Appellant could not prove any title. The Appellant on the basis of the unregistered agreement to sell, cannot claim to have acquired any title.
Successful Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Compelled To Pay Pre-CIRP Electricity Dues Before Restoring Electricity Connection: NCLAT
Case Title: M/s Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL), Versus M/s. Shyam Baba Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 346 of 2023
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Successful Auction Purchaser cannot be insisted to pay Pre-CIRP electricity dues which dues were payable by the Corporate Debtor, before restoring electricity connections. Dues if any would have to be paid as per waterfall mechanism under section 53 of the code.
Unilateral Revocation Of Guarantee Does Not Discharge Guarantor From His Obligations When Such Revocation Was Not Accepted By Creditor: NCLAT
Case Title: State Bank of India Versus Gourishankar Poddar and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 689 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member ) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that unilateral revocation of guarantee by the Respondent No.1 does not absolve him from his obligations under the guarantee agreement when the Financial Creditor has not agreed to such revocation. The terms of contract agreement also clearly show that the contract was irrevocable.
Initiation Of Arbitration Proceedings Before Issuance Of Demand Notice Is Sufficient To Reject Application U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: R.A.J. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Versus NEWERA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 83 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that initiation of arbitration proceedings before the issuance of demand notice under section 8 of the code evidences a pre-existing dispute which can be a ground to reject application under section 9 of the code.
Authorised Representative Can Be Replaced By Following Procedure Provided Under Regulation 16(3A) Of CIRP Regulations: NCLAT
Case Title: Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Versus Rakesh Verma Authorised Representative and Anr.'
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1924 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7124 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the Authorised Representative can be replaced by following the procedure engrafted under Regulation 16(3A) of the CIRP Regulations therefore the application of an individual homebuyer seeking replacement of the Authorised Representative before the Adjudicating Authority cannot be entertained.
Admission Order Of Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Recalled If Fraud Or Malicious Intent Is Proved U/S 65 Of Code: NCLAT
Case Title: M/s Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus M/s Rockman Advertising and Marketing (India) Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1480 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when CIRP proceedings are initiated fraudulently or maliciously, the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction under the IBC to consider the allegations of fraudulent and malicious initiation of CIRP proceedings in terms of Section 65 and recall the CIRP admission order.
Initiation Of Recovery Proceedings Before DRT Does Not Preclude Financial Creditor From Filing Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title:Pawan Kumar Versus Central Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1095 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that initiation of recovery proceedings before the DRT does not prohibit financial creditors from filing an application under section 7 of the code.
When Entire Liability Is Not Discharged After Selling Pledged Shares, Application U/S 7 IBC Can Be Filed To Claim Remaining Amount: NCLAT
Case Title: Amit Yogesh Satwara Versus Incred Financial Services Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1584 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when the entire liability of the corporate debtor after selling the pledged shares is not discharged, an application under section 7 of the IBC can be filed for claiming the remaining amount.
166 Days Delay In Re-Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned In Absence Of Genuine And Plausible Explanation: NCLAT
Case Title: Anup Kumar Liquidator of Independent TV …Appellant Versus Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Ors.
Case Number: I.A. No. 6903 of 2024 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1913 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a delay of 166 in re-filing an appeal cannot be condoned in the absence of a plausible and genuine explanation offered for the same.
Interest On Operational Debt Cannot Be Claimed Unless There Is An Express Agreement: NCLAT
Case Title: Comet Performance Chemicals Private Limited Versus Aarvee Denims and Exports Limited
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1878 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that as per section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, interest on invoices cannot be claimed by the operational creditor in the absence of any stipulations in the agreement to this effect.
Commercial Wisdom Of CoC In Opting For Liquidation And Rejecting Resolution Plan Of Ineligible Applicant Is “Non-Justiciable”: NCLAT
Case Title: Fortune Chemicals Limited vs. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1263 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in rejecting a resolution plan and opting for liquidation is “non-justiciable”. The Appellant-Director was disqualified under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, thereby rendering the him ineligible to be a Resolution Applicant under Sections 29A(e) and 29A(j) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Tribunal held that the decision of the CoC to reject the Appellant's Resolution Plan cannot be interfered with.
Appeal U/S 61 Of IBC Is Not Maintainable After Dissolution Of Corporate Debtor U/S 54: NCLAT
Case Title:New India Color Company Ltd. Versus Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. (In CIRP) & Anr
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1255 of 2022 & I.A. No. 3839 of 2022
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that an appeal under section 61 of the IBC cannot be entertained after the dissolution of the corporate debtor under section 54 of the code.
Appeal U/S 421 Of Companies Act Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Order Permitting AGM, No Substantive Rights Affected: NCLAT
Case Title: Nagaraj V. Mylandla & Ors. v. Financial Software and Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Comp App (AT) (CH) No.84/2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has recently held that an appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, against an interlocutory order permitting holding of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) without affecting the substantive rights of the appellants is not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural orders which do not determine substantive rights cannot be appealed under Section 421.
NCLAT Upholds Status Of Canara Bank As Financial Creditor For Providing Loans To Homebuyers Of CD, Distinguishes Value Infracon Judgment
Case Title: Canara Bank Versus Sh. Vivek Kumar
Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 390 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1301, 1302 of 2023, 7105, 7610 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) upholds the claims of the Canara Bank for the loans advanced to the corporate debtor on behalf of the Homebuyers on the ground that a specific clause was mentioned in the tripartite agreement executed between the parties that in case of default made by the borrower, the builder was obligated the refund the entire amount to the bank.
Claims Filed Subsequent To Cut-Off Date Shall Be Dealt With As Per Resolution Plan Approved By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT
Case Title: Amit Nehra & Anr. Versus Pawan Kumar Garg Resolution Professional Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1365 of 2023
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that claims filed subsequent to cut off date shall be dealt with as per Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority.
Claims Arising Under Section 11E Of Central Excise Act Cannot Be Treated As Secured Debt: NCLAT
Case Title: 'Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Kadi Division Vs. Pradeep Kabra, RP of Cengres Tiles Ltd.'
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 844 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that claims arising under section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be treated as a secured debt.
It also held that “the 'Secured Interest' as defined under the Code excludes charges created by Operation of law. Section 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from the provisions of 'Gujarat VAT Act, 2003' and therefore the decision in the matter of 'State Tax Officer v. Rainbow', (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.”
Delay Beyond 15 Days In Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned As Per Proviso To Section 61(2) Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Mohit Kumar Legal Heir of Naresh Kumar, Personal Guarantor
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2242 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8422 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that delay in filing an appeal beyond 15 days as per section 61(2) proviso of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be condoned.
Case Title: Anita Goyal Versus Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. & Anr
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.2282 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that an application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code) against the personal guarantor is maintainable before the NCLT under section 60(1) of the code even if no CIRP or Liquidation process is initiated or pending against the corporate debtor before the NCLT.
NCLAT Stays Ban on WhatsApp's Data-Sharing Policy; Orders Meta To Pay 50% Of ₹213 Crore Penalty
Case Title: Whatsapp LLC vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
Case Number: I.A No. 280 of 2025 IN Competition App. (AT) No. 1 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has granted partial relief to WhatsApp from the Competition Commission India's (CCI) order against its 2021 privacy policy update.
The CCI had banned WhatsApp from sharing user data with Meta for advertising purposes for 5 years and imposed a Rs. 213.14 crore penalty for violating sections 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act by using its dominant position to “coerce” users into accepting the update.
Period Of Moratorium U/S 101 Of IBC Cannot Be Extended Beyond 180 Days: NCLAT
Case Title: Anil Kumar (Resolution Professional in the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process of Sh. Mukund Choudhary) Versus Mukund Choudhary
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 38 of 2025
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the period of moratorium beyond 180 days as provided under section 101 of the IBC cannot be extended.
It further held that “when the statutory scheme is clear and unambiguous, there is no role of any interpretive process to find out the jurisdiction of NCLT to extend the period of Moratorium when statute provides a date for cessation of the Moratorium it cannot be extended by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal against the statutory intendment under Section 101(1).”
Adjudicating Authority Can Recall Orders Obtained Through Fraud Under Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules: NCLAT
Case Title: Marvel Landmarks Pvt Ltd. vs. Jay Nihalani & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2227 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has observed that where the Adjudicating Authority has been made to rely on distorted facts which the Adjudicating Authority became aware of belatedly, the Adjudicating Authority can always invoke its inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process.
Issue Of Maintainability Of Application U/S 7 Of IBC Can Be Decided Separately By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT
Case Title: Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Presidia Araya Residents Welfare Association
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 97 of 2025
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that the issue of maintainability of application under section 7 of the code can either be decided separately or with other substantive issues.
Resolution Applicant Whose Plan Was Rejected By CoC Can Participate In Freshly Issued Invitation For Expression Of Interest: NCLAT
Case Title: Adroit Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Sanjay Kukreja Vs. Amit Poddar Resolution Professional & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1274 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that once resolution plan including revised plan submitted by the resolution applicant is disapproved by the CoC, a fresh plan can be submitted by the same resolution applicant in a freshly issued invitation to expression of interest.
Last Payment Made By Corporate Debtor Within Period Of Limitation Amounts To Acknowledgment U/S 19 Of Limitation Act: NCLAT
Case Title: Super Floorings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Napin Impex Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1928 of 2024 & I.A. No.7115 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when there is clear acknowledgment by the corporate debtor of last payment made which payment was within the period of three years, the operational creditor was clearly entitled for the benefit of extension of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act and both the conditions which are required to be fulfilled under Section 19 were fulfilled.
NCLAT Directs Revival Of Company Petition After Appellant Was Deprived Of Remedies Under Article 21 Of Constitution
Case Title: Mr. Tajinder Singh Bhathal vs. MRF Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 94/2023 (IA No.1191/2023)
The NCLAT Chennai bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), considering the peculiar situation where the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn three days after the company petition under section 59 of the Companies Act was dismissed, directed the revival of company petition. The Tribunal observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India safeguards the right to judicial remedies, which includes the right to pursue legal remedies before competent courts for the redressal of grievances.
Rejection Of Belated And Contingent Claims By Resolution Professional Cannot Be Faulted: NCLAT
Case Title: CSA Corporation Pvt. Ltd Versus Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1497 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the claims have been filed belatedly after 548 days and that too the claims arise from damages and breach of contract which according to the Appellant is admittedly contingent, the RP's action to reject the claim by way of a reasoned reply to the Appellant cannot be put to fault.
Section 95 Application Can Be Filed By Creditor In His Individual Capacity Or Jointly With Other Creditors Or Through RP: NCLAT
Case Title: Amit Dineshchandra Patel, Vrindavan Versus State Bank of India and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1826
The NCLAT Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical member) has held that Section 95 of IBC clearly provides that a Section 95 application can be filed by a creditor in his individual capacity or jointly with other creditors or through a RP. It nowhere lays down any prescription that if the credit facility has been extended by more than one financial creditor, the Section 95 application is required to be filed collectively.
After Initiation Of Moratorium U/S 14 Of IBC, No Assessment Proceedings Can Be Continued By EPFO: NCLAT
Case Title: Employees Provident Fund Organization Regional Office Versus Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062 and 1065 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical member) has held that after initiation of moratorium under Section 14, sub-section (1), no assessment proceedings can be continued by the EPFO. When an order of liquidation is passed, moratorium under section 33 kicks in which does not prohibit initiation or continuation of assessment proceedings.
Commercial Wisdom Of CoC To Distribute Amount Based On Security Interest Under Resolution Plan Cannot Be Interfered With: NCLAT
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Pratim Bayal, Resolution Professional of Birla Tyres Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1472 of 2023
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that commercial wisdom of the CoC to distribute the amount under the Resolution Plan based on security interest of the respective financial creditors cannot be interfered with provided provisions of the code are complied with.
CCI Imposes ₹40 Lakh Penalty On Goldman Sachs For Failure To Notify Investment In Biocon Biologics U/S 6(2) Of Competition Act
Case Title: In re: Proceedings against Goldman Sachs (India) Alternative Investment Management Private Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002
Ref. No.: M&A/10/2020/01/CD
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has penalized Goldman Sachs INR 40 lakh under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002, for failing to notify its investment in Biocon Biologics Limited.
Creditors Are Not Barred From Enforcing Personal Guarantee Signed On Their Behalf By Trust: NCLAT
Case Title: Shantanu Jagdish Prakash Versus State Bank of India and Anr.
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1609 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that creditors are not barred from enforcing a personal guarantee even if they were not party to the trusteeship deed signed on their behalf between a trust and the personal guarantors.
Decision To Liquidate Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Faulted When Revival Is Not A Viable Option: NCLAT
Case Title: Amrit Rajani Versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number: Comp. Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 375 of 2023 and I.A. No. 1261, 1262 of 2023
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that when it becomes clear that revival is not a viable option, a decision taken by the CoC to liquidate the corporate debtor cannot be faulted.
NCLAT Upholds Rejection Of Application U/S 9 Of IBC Against Hindustan Unilever Limited
Case Title: K. Lakshmi Narayana v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2105 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has dismissed the appeal against the order rejecting the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed against Hindustan Unilever Limited on the ground that the claims were below the threshold limit, time-barred and there was a pre-existing dispute.
Withdrawal Of Liquidation Application Can Be Permitted When CoC Allows RP To File Application Seeking Extension Of CIRP Time Period: NCLAT
Case Title: 'Ramesh Jadhav Vs. Vakati Balasubramaniam Reddy & Anr.'
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 173 of 2025
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when the CoC has already taken decision to file an application for extension of CIRP time period and granting permission to publish Form G for third time, withdrawal of liquidation application by Adjudicating Authority can be permitted.
Liquidation Proceeds Must Be Distributed Amongst Secured Creditors Based On Admitted Claims U/S 53 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: State Bank of India Versus IDBI Bank Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 321 of 2024
The NCLAT New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mita (Technical Member) has held that liquidation proceeds must be distributed as per section 53 of the IBC based on admitted claims of the respective secured creditors and cannot be distributed on the basis of security interest of different Secured Creditors.
Assets Of Subsidiary Can't Be Treated As Assets Of Holding Company In CIRP: NCLAT Sets Aside Order Directing Fresh Valuation Of Assets
Case Title: State Bank of India, Singapore Branch vs. Shantanu Prakash & Ors.
Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1351 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4802, 4803, 4804, 4805, 6007 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has observed that the assets of a subsidiary company cannot be treated as part of the assets of its holding company in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority does not have the jurisdiction to direct fresh valuation of such assets when they are owned by the subsidiary and not the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT
Limitation Period To Reset When Part-Payment Of Debt Is Made By Personal Guarantor U/S 19 Of Limitation Act: NCLT Delhi
Case Title: UCO Bank Vs Smt. Nishu Goel
Case Number: IB-355/ND/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Delhi comprising of Justice Subrata Kumar Dash (Member Technical) and Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Member Judicial) dismissed an appeal filed by the personal guarantors of the principal debtor M/s VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. stating that the appeal falls within the ambit of limitation period as prescribed under Section 19 of Limitation act, 1963 and that the Liquidator can institute a Section 95(4) proceedings against the personal guarantors.
Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant Has No Locus To Challenge Approval Of Resolution Plan By CoC: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED Versus VARUTHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: I.A. (IB) No. 2409/KB/2024 And I.A. (IB) (Plan) No. 21/KB/2024 In Company Petition (IB) No. 26/KB/2023
The NCLT Kolkata bench of Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and D. Arvind (Technical Member) has held that Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant has no locus standi to challenge the approval of Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors(CoC).
NCLT Holds Financial Lease With Transfer Of Ownership & Interest For Default As “Financial Debt”, Admits GDA's Claim As “Financial Creditor”
Case Title: M/s Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: IA-3686/2022 in Company Petition No. (IB)- 652(PB)/2019
The NCLT, New Delhi, Principal bench comprising Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar (Hon'ble President) and Avinash K. Srivastava (Technical Member) has allowed the claim of Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) as a financial creditor in the Red Mall case and directed its inclusion in the Committee of Creditors. The claim was rejected by the Resolution Professional who held GDA as an Operational creditor in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.NOIDA v. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr.
NCLT Dismisses Actor Akshay Kumar's Insolvency Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Against Ed-Tech Company
Case Title: Mr. Akshay Kumar Bhatia vs. M/s. Cue Learn Private Limited
Case Number: CP No.: IB 572(ND)/2022 & IA 5437/ND/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has dismissed petition filed by Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar, seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings against Cue Learn Private Limited, an ed tech company. The Tribunal noted that the claim in question pertained to a breach of contract and was at best, a claim for liquidated damages. “Such claims require adjudication before a competent civil court and do not constitute crystallized debts that can be pursued under the insolvency resolution process”, the Tribunal remarked.
NCLT New Delhi Orders Liquidation Of Go Airlines (India) Limited
Case Title: Go Airlines (India) Limited vs. Mr. Shailendra Ajmera Resolution Professional of Go Airlines (India) Limited
Case Number: I.A. (Liq.) 33/ND/2024 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. (IB) – 264/PB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Justice Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has ordered the liquidation of Go First Airlines, marking the conclusion of a 20-month-long insolvency process after no viable resolution plan emerged. The tribunal upheld the decision by the Committee of Creditors to liquidate Go Airlines, which approved the liquidation with a 100% vote.
Application U/S 95(1) Of IBC Against Personal Guarantor Not Maintainable In Absence Of CIRP Proceedings Against Corporate Debtor: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. Arjun Agarwal
Case Number: I.A.(IB) 1670/KB/2024 in C.P.(IB) 51/KB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench comprising Justice Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for initiating insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor is not maintainable before the NCLT if no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or liquidation proceeding has been initiated or is pending against the Corporate Debtor.
Pre-Existing Dispute Between Financial Creditor And Corporate Debtor Doesn't Bar Petition U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLT
Case Title: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED VS. M/S MBL (MP) TOLL ROAD COMPANY LIMITED
Case Number: CP (IB) No.423/(PB)/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi bench comprising Chief Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar (President) and Avinash K. Srivatava (Technical Member) has held that a pre-existing dispute between the Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor does not bar a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to be entertained.
Other News
RBI Cancels NBFC Registration Of X10 Financial Services Ltd
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in a significant development has cancelled registration of X10 Financial Services Ltd, a non-banking financial company (NBFC), on account of irregularity in its digital lending operations. The company, located in Mumbai, was providing loans through several service providers which mostly included mobile apps likeWecash Technology, XNP Technology, Yarlung Technology, Xinrui International, Omelette Technology, Mad-Elephant Network Technology and Huidatech Technology.
Amendments Needed In IBC To Provide NOC To Successful Resolution Applicants When Plan Over Attached Property Is Approved: Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi
On Friday, 17th January 2025, a roundtable discussion titled "Understanding the Synergy Between PMLA and IBC" was held at India International Centre, New Delhi by the Insolvency Law Academy (ILA) in collaboration with NM Law Chambers.
The event brought together legal professionals, policymakers, and academicians to explore the intersection of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The discussion featured three distinguished panelists, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate and Former Attorney General for India; Mr. Karnal Singh, Former Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED); and Mr. Sumant Batra, Insolvency Lawyer and Founder, Insolvency Law Academy.
DRAT
Sale Arising From Collusive Suit Where Bank Isn't Party Does Not Bind Either Bank Or Auction Purchaser: DRAT Chennai
Case title: Mirra & Mirra Industries vs. Mrs. B. Usha Rani & Anr.
Case Number: RA (SA): 165/2018 and RA (SA):178/2018
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Chennai bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan (Chairperson) has held that a sale arising from a collusive suit, where the bank was not a party to the proceedings, does not bind the bank or the auction purchaser of the property under SARFAESI proceedings.
