Nominal Index: Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025 Mr. Shailendra Singh, Resolution Professional of Foxdom Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr., ΙΑ NO. 4689 OF 2023 IN IB-102(ND)/2022 Himanshu Singh, Suspended Director of Kriti Prakashan Private Limited Versus HDFC Bank Limited and...
Nominal Index:
Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Resolution Professional of Foxdom Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr., ΙΑ NO. 4689 OF 2023 IN IB-102(ND)/2022
Himanshu Singh, Suspended Director of Kriti Prakashan Private Limited Versus HDFC Bank Limited and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2025
Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2012-2013 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7544 of 2024
Mr. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi vs. Mr. Sunil Gutte & 5 other, I.A. 1833 OF 2019 in C.P.(IB) No. 2295/MB/2018
J.K. PAPER FIBRE RESOURCES Through its Partner Mr. Jitendra K. Shah Versus Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 76 of 2025
Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285
SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284
M/s IL&FS Financial Services Limited vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, CP No.: IB 558(ND)/2024
M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019]
Manish Mukim v. Ms. Rakhi and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 617 of 2023
VISHNOO MITTAL VERSUS M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited The Ruby Versus Ashdan Properties Private Limited and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1566 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5973, 6380 of 2024
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. V Chief Engineer (Commercial), Ajmer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1411 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5124, 5125, 5126, 7549 of 2024
PTC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Munjal, RP of Nipman Fasteners Industries Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 444 of 2025
Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia Successful Resolution Applicant of MBL Infrastructure Ltd Versus IDBI Bank Limited and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 198 of 2025
M/s. Findoc Finvest Private Limited Registered Office Versus Mr. Surendera Raj Gang and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.249 of 2025
Mrs. Madhubala Chauhan Suspended director of Karni Developers & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 604 of 2024
M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. v. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2025
State Bank of India vs. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 62 of 2025 & I.A. No. 245 of 2025
Rajabhau Shinde Versus S.M. Electric Works Through Shri. Sunil Madhukar Saraf & Ors.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 826 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2989 of 2024
Debarata Ray Choudhuri v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1985 of 2024
Gaurav Jindal Versus Debashish Nanda, RP Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2076 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7357 of 2024
Mr. Pankaj Kalra (Suspended director of Essar Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Limited) Vs Greeka Greens Solution (India) Limited and Anr.,Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1783 of 2024
Paresh Rastogi and Ors. Versus M/Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024
Divyesh Desai RP of GPT Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Bhuj, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1103 of 2024 & I.A. No.3974 of 2024
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Institution) v. Sandeep Gupta & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2025
Dilipkumar Lokooram Arora, (Member of Suspended Board of Directors) Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Versus KTR Management Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2183 of 2024
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 592 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3167 of 2024 & 1166 of 2025
Vaibhav Goel & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330
Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr. (Suspended Director and Promoter of WSH Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors, I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024
Rajendra Bisht, Erstwhile promoter of M/s Ambassador Logistics Pvt Ltd. V M/s Satkar Logistics Pvt Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 285 of 2022
Ketan C Bagadia V Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, Liquidator of Nexus Electro Steel Ltd. Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Nexus Electro Steel Ld., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins)No.36/2025 (IA Nos. 127 & 128/2025)
Rakesh Arora & Anr. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Rockman Advertising & Marketing (India) Ltd. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1606 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5859 of 2024
M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited V. State Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 974 of 2023
Mr. Padmakumar K. C., Liquidator of M/s. Asten Realtors Private Limited vs. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited & Anr.
Aegis Resolution Service Private Limited, Resolution Professional of Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited V. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), IA 2111/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 892/MB/2022
Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited, C.P. (I.B) No. 444/MB/2020
Canara Bank V/s Mr. Bhavesh Mansukhbhai Rathod, The Interim Resolution Professional & Ors., C.P.(IB) No. 383/MB/2023
M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED VERSUS PRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS., CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 629 OF 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 361
Garden Silk Mills Limited v. Gayatri Industries, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3540 OF 2021 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2003
United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt Ltd. v. Varaha Infra Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 480 of 2025
Alphabet Inc. & Ors. vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr., Competition Appeal (AT) No. 04 of 2023
RAMESH KOTHARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION No. 7687 of 2025
AMW Auto Component Limited Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot 1, R/Special Civil Application No. 1593 Of 2025
M/s Jakson Limited vs. M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd., CP(IB) NO. 2582/ND/2019 and I.A. No. 4750/2024
IFCI Limited vs. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd., C.P. (I.B) No. 142/MB/2023
Keerthan Upadhya(Guarantor), CP(IB)/51(CHE)/2025
Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) / 891 (MB) 2024
Avil Menezes Liquidator of Parekh Aluminex Limited, IA No.492 of 2025 IN CP (IB)/1262/MB/C-II/2017
Himatsingka Seide Limited V/S Textile Professional LLP, CP (IB) No. 886/MB/2022
M/s. Sri Pavana Keerthi Hotels India Private Limited v. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, I.A. No. 250 of 2024 In C.P. (IB) No.153/7/HDB/2021
M/s, Q West Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Grevek Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd., C.P. 260/IB/MB/2024
M/s.Noveltech Feeds Private Limited v. M/s.Gold Chick Hatcheries & Foods Pvt Ltd, Company Petition (IB) No. 202/9/HDB/2022
Bank Of Maharashtra Stressed Asset Management Branch Vs Mrs. Kavita Ninad Mestry, CP (IB) No.1009/MB/2023 with IA (IBC) No.4914/2024
UCO BANK Versus SHANKAR PODDAR, I.A. (IB) No. 86/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 158/KB/2021
Aquarius H2O Dynamics Private Limited Versus M/s Riddhi Siddhi Metals, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2025
Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV Versus MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.), Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2279 of 2024
Supreme Court
IBC | Supreme Court Accepts Apology Of Tax Authorities For Asking Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Dues Not Covered By Approved Plan
Case Title: M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED VERSUS PRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS., CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 629 OF 2023
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 361
Giving the benefit of doubt and accepting their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court today disposed of a contempt petition filed against Chhattisgarh tax authorities for raising demand notices against a successful resolution applicant over claims in respect of a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan.
"we have no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by the respondents/authorities for a period prior to the date on which the learned NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan were totally contemptuous in nature. The respondents could not have raised the said demands inasmuch as they are not part of the Resolution Plan...However, we do not propose to proceed against the respondents/contemnors inasmuch as they are entitled to benefit of doubt", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih.
IBC | Once Resolution Plan Approved, Dues Not Part Of It Get Extinguished : Supreme Court Rejects Post-Resolution Income Tax Demand
Case Title: Vaibhav Goel & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330
The Supreme Court today (March 20) declined a claim raised by the Income Tax Department to include a tax demand in a Resolution Plan after it was approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Citing the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657, which held that all claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval
No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium : Supreme Court
Case Title: VISHNOO MITTAL VERSUS M/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314
The Supreme Court held that if the cause of action for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has arisen after the declaration of moratorium with respect to the company as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), then the proceedings under S.138 NI Act cannot be continued against the ex-director of the company.
Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency
Case Title – Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285
The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders.
IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court
Case Title: SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWAL VERSUS BHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284
In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”).
The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory statutes like the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium.
High Court
All Claims Which Are Not Part Of Resolution Plan Shall Stand Extinguished, No Person Entitled To Initiate Any Proceedings Over Such Claims: Bombay HC
Case Title: Garden Silk Mills Limited v. Gayatri Industries
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3540 OF 2021 in FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an Interim Application filed by the Appellant seeking the release of the bank guarantees, stating that all claims which are not part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any such claim.
Application U/S 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Against Sole Proprietorship Firms: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: RAMESH KOTHARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 7687 of 2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Prem Narayan Singh has held that since sole proprietorship firms are not included in the definition of the corporate person under section 3(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), an application under section 94 of the Code cannot be entertained.
Notice U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act Cannot Be Issued By Authority After Approval Of Resolution Plan U/S 31 Of IBC: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: AMW Auto Component Limited Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajkot 1
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 1593 Of 2025
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N.Ray has held that after approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), all liabilities prior to the approval of the plan stand extinguished. Therefore, the Income Tax Authority cannot be permitted to issue a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) seeking to revise the assessment after the approval of the Plan.
[Noida Sports City Scam] Allahabad HC Lays Down Guidelines Regarding Rights Of Other Members Of Consortium When One Member Goes Into Insolvency
Case Title: M/S Three C Green Developers Pvt. Ltd. And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31823 of 2019]
While directing CBI inquiry against officials of New Okhla Development Authority and various allottes/ builder involved in development of the Sporty City project in Noida, the Allahabad High Court laid down guidelines regarding the rights of other members of consortium, when one member goes into insolvency as the same is not provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Holding that the IBC is not indented to hamper projects of national importance, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar laid down the following guidelines:
NCLAT
Application For CIRP Not Maintainable If Default Occurred During Protected Period U/S 10A Of IBC
Case Title: Manish Mukim v. Ms. Rakhi and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 617 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), disposed of an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Kolkata Bench-II regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Consideration And Subsequent Rejection Of Resolution Plan By Committee Of Creditors Submitted After Due Date Cannot Be Questioned: NCLAT
Case Title: Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited The Ruby Versus Ashdan Properties Private Limited and Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1566 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5973, 6380 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the consideration and subsequent rejection of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors submitted after the due date cannot be questioned.
IBC Only Overrides Another Statue When There Is A Clear And Direct Conflict: NCLAT
Case Title: Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. V Chief Engineer (Commercial), Ajmer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1411 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5124, 5125, 5126, 7549 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member (Judicial), Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member (Technical) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Member (Technical) dismissed appeal filed against the impugned order of NCLT, Jaipur allowing Respondent to recover Fuel Surcharge (FS) and Special Fuel Surcharge (SFS) from Appellant for periods prior to the admission of the Company in Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP).
Adjudicating Authority Cannot Direct Committee Of Creditors To Consider Expression Of Interest Submitted After Due Date: NCLAT
Case Title: PTC Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Munjal, RP of Nipman Fasteners Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 444 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has decided not to accept Expressions of Interest (EoI) submitted after the due date, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct fresh consideration of such EoI by the CoC.
Successful Resolution Applicant Can Be Directed To Make Upfront Payment To Dissenting Financial Creditors If Resolution Plan Includes Such Provision: NCLAT
Case Title:Anjanee Kumar Lakhotia Successful Resolution Applicant of MBL Infrastructure Ltd Versus IDBI Bank Limited and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 198 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the Successful Resolution Applicant(SRA) can be directed to make an upfront payment to the dissenting financial creditors under the Resolution Plan when there is a clause in the Plan itself providing for such payment.
After Submission Of Final Revised Resolution Plan Within Stipulated Time Frame, Resolution Applicant Cannot Be Permitted To Modify It: NCLAT
Case Title: M/s. Findoc Finvest Private Limited Registered Office Versus Mr. Surendera Raj Gang and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.249 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that After submission of the final revised Resolution Plan within the stipulated timeframe, the Resolution Applicant cannot be permitted to modify it.
While Deciding Application U/S 7 Of IBC, Adjudicating Authority Is Not Required To Interfere With Terms Of Contract Between Parties: NCLAT
Case Title:Mrs. Madhubala Chauhan Suspended director of Karni Developers & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 604 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that while dealing with an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Authority is expected to interfere with the terms of the contract entered into between the concerned parties. All that is required to be seen is whether the debt and default is proven without adjudicating on whether the rate of interest was unreasonable or inflated.
Resolution Plan Can Be Approved Beyond 330-Day Time Limit If There Are Valid Grounds For Extension: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. v. Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 187 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical), and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from an order by the NCLT Ahmedabad Bench-II regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
CoC Cannot Remit Approved Resolution Plan Post-Submission To Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT
Case Title: State Bank of India vs. Santoshi Hyvolt Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 62 of 2025 & I.A. No. 245 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mita (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that once a resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and submitted to the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC cannot seek remit it back to the CoC for fresh consideration.
Adjudicating Authority Can Extend Time For Payment Of Sale Consideration Beyond 90 Days U/S 35 Of IBC Read With Rule 11 Of NCLT Rules: NCLAT
Case Title: Rajabhau Shinde Versus S.M. Electric Works Through Shri. Sunil Madhukar Saraf & Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 826 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2989 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the 90-day period for payment of sale consideration under Schedule 1, Clause 1(12) of the Liquidation Regulations, 2016, is mandatory and can only be extended by the Adjudicating Authority, not the Liquidator.
NCLAT Dismisses Senior Advocate's Plea Over Non-Payment Of Over ₹6 Crore In Fees By Company, Says Pre-Existing Dispute Bars Initiation Of CIRP
Case Title: Debarata Ray Choudhuri v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1985 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal arising from the final order by the NCLT New Delhi Bench-IV regarding the initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Allottee Cannot Be Considered Financial Creditor When Allotted Unit Is Cancelled At Their Request: NCLAT
Case Title: Gaurav Jindal Versus Debashish Nanda, RP Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2076 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7357 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an allottee of a unit cannot be considered a financial creditor if the allotted unit was canceled at their request and the loan taken to purchase the flat was settled with the lending bank.
Delivery Of Demand Notice To Last Known Address Of Personal Guarantor Shall Be Deemed Valid Service U/S 95(4) Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Paresh Rastogi and Ors. Versus M/Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 2053, 2054 and 2117 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that delivery of a demand notice to the last known address of the personal guarantor, as stipulated in the deed of guarantee, shall be deemed valid service for the purposes of Section 95(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted When Debt Is Discharged By Corporate Debtor After Receipt Of Demand Notice: NCLAT
Case Title: Mr. Pankaj Kalra (Suspended director of Essar Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Limited) Vs Greeka Greens Solution (India) Limited and Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1783 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that Insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) cannot be initiated if the debt in question has been discharged and settled between the parties after the issuance of demand notice under section 8 of the Code.
Lease Hold Rights Existing In Favor Of Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Terminated During Moratorium Period U/S 14 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Divyesh Desai RP of GPT Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Bhuj
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1103 of 2024 & I.A. No.3974 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an order terminating the lease cannot be passed during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), particularly when leasehold rights are assets of the corporate debtor which were in its possession.
Once CoC And Adjudicating Authority Approve Resolution Plan, Payment Terms Are Final: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Through Its Manager (Institution) v. Sandeep Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the Greater Noida Development Authority (GNIDA). The appellant challenged the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the approval of the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor, which had already been finalized. The tribunal emphasized that once the resolution plan had been approved by the CoC and adjudicating authority, the payment terms became final.
Reflection Of Genuine Pre Existing Dispute From Correspondences Between Parties Is Sufficient To Reject Application U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLAT
Case Title: Dilipkumar Lokooram Arora, (Member of Suspended Board of Directors) Sahara Hospitality Ltd. Versus KTR Management Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2183 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a pre-existing dispute regarding the claim exists between the parties, as clearly reflected in their correspondence, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), must be rejected.
Secured Creditor's Security Interest Becomes Part Of Liquidation Estate If Amount As Stipulated Under Regulation 21A(2) Is Not Deposited Within 90 days: NCLAT
Case Title: Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kuldeep Verma Liquidator of KS Oils Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 592 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3167 of 2024 & 1166 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that If a secured creditor who has chosen to realize its security interest under Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) fails to deposit the amount as stipulated under Regulation 21A(2) of the Liquidation Regulations within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date, the security shall become part of the liquidation estate.
NCLAT Clarifies Computation Of Limitation Under Section 61 Of IBC When Last Day Falls On A Holiday
Case Title: Atul Babulal Prajapati & Anr. (Suspended Director and Promoter of WSH Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt & Ors
Case Number: I.A. No.8554 of 2024 IN Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2273 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhusan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member) have held that for computing the 30 days' period under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), if the last day expires on a day when the office of the NCLAT is closed, that day and any succeeding day on which the NCLAT remains closed shall also be excluded.
Operational Creditor Can Only Trigger CIRP Process When There Is An Undisputed Debt And Default In Payment: NCLAT
Case Title: Rajendra Bisht, Erstwhile promoter of M/s Ambassador Logistics Pvt Ltd. V M/s Satkar Logistics Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 285 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member (Technical) dismissed appeal filed by the operational creditors due to the presence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and corporate debtor.
Rights Of Auction Purchaser Are Crystallized Upon Issuance Of Sale Certificate: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title: Ketan C Bagadia V Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, Liquidator of Nexus Electro Steel Ltd. Erstwhile Resolution Professional of Nexus Electro Steel Ld.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins)No.36/2025 (IA Nos. 127 & 128/2025)
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai comprising of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member (Technical) dismissed an appeal filed by the former director of the corporate debtor (Nexus Electro Steel Ltd.) challenging the impugned order of NCLT, Chennai and the auction process being undertaken by the liquidator.
Penalties U/S 65 Of IBC Can Be Imposed Against Those Who Fraudulently Initiate Insolvency Process: NCLAT
Case Title: Rakesh Arora & Anr. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Rockman Advertising & Marketing (India) Ltd. V. Acute Daily Media Pvt.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1606 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5859 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical) disposed an appeal filed by a majority shareholder of the corporate debtor stating that the Section 7 application filed by financial creditors was fraudulently filed in collusion with the corporate debtors' promoters.
For Initiating Proceedings U/S 7 Of IBC, Existence Of Financial Debt And Corresponding Default Is A Sine Qua Non: NCLAT
Case Title: M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited V. State Bank of India
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 974 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a Section 7 petition filed by the Appellant (M/s Santoshi Finlease Private Limited) and upholding the decision of Adjudicating authority, stating that the petition was filed with malicious intent.
When There Is No Privity Of Contract Between Operational Creditor And Corporate Debtor, Application U/S 9 Of IBC Cannot Be Admitted: NCLAT
Case Title:Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV Versus MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.)
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2279 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), cannot be admitted when there is no privity of contract between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. When the invoices were raised on the sister concern of the Corporate Debtor rather than on the Corporate Debtor itself, it clearly demonstrates the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties.
Adding Inflated Interest To Outstanding Liability Merely To Cross Threshold U/S 4 Of IBC Is Not Permissible: NCLAT
Case Title: Aquarius H2O Dynamics Private Limited Versus M/s Riddhi Siddhi Metals
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 39 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the interest cannot be added to the outstanding liability when there is no contract between the parties to this effect and no past practice justifying such action merely to cross the threshold of Rs. 1 crore under section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Consent Terms Can Only Be Legally Enforced If Ratified By Court: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt Ltd. v. Varaha Infra Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 480 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member - Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member - Technical), dismissed an appeal filed against an order passed by the NCLT, Jaipur. The bench held that once the entire debt had been liquidated by the corporate debtor, the corporate debtor could not be put into insolvency. The tribunal ruled consent terms can only be legally enforced if ratified by the court.
Google Abused Dominant Position Through Restrictive App Store Billing Policy But Didn't Deny Market Access: NCLAT Reduces Penalty From ₹936 Cr To ₹216 Cr
Case Title: Alphabet Inc. & Ors. vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr.
Case Number: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 04 of 2023
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has partially upheld the decision of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Google leveraged its dominance in the Play Store ecosystem to promote Google Play which violates section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Fresh Period Of Limitation U/S 18 Of Limitation Act Begins From Date When Balance Sheet Is Signed By Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
Case Title: IL&FS Financial Services Limited Versus Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Private Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1379 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) for the purpose of filing an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) begins from the date the balance sheet is signed by the authorized signatories of the corporate debtor, not from the date it is uploaded on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website.
Order Passed After Considering All Materials Essential For Determining Issue Cannot Be Recalled: NCLAT
Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 376 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority after considering all necessary materials essential for determining the issue cannot be recalled. Therefore, it cannot be said that such an order was obtained by playing fraud on the court on which ground only an order can be recalled.
When Corporate Debtor's One Time Settlement Proposal Is Rejected By Financial Creditor, Application U/S 7 Of IBC Must Be Admitted: NCLAT
Case Title: Nakul Bharana Versus National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Anr.
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1930 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7495 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that when a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the corporate debtor is rejected by the financial creditor and the debt remains unpaid, the application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), must be admitted.
Approved Resolution Plan Cannot Be Reopened For Belatedly Agitated Claims: NCLAT
Case Title: Shri Krishan V. H.S Oberoi Buildtech Private Ltd.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 128 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson), Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed a set of four appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 stating that the appellants had failed to exercise due diligence on protecting their rights with the prescribed timelines.
Promoter Undergoing CIRP Can Be Permitted To Complete Project For Benefit Of Homebuyer: NCLAT
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, Barun Mitra (Member (Technical) and Arun Baroka (Member (Technical), dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended directors of the Supertech Township Projects Ltd stating that the resolution plan of the corporate debtor must proceed strictly as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
No Straight Jacket Formula Can Be Laid Down For Adjudication Of Application U/S 12A Of IBC & Objections Therein: NCLAT
Case Title: Himanshu Singh, Suspended Director of Kriti Prakashan Private Limited Versus HDFC Bank Limited and Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 336 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that no straight jacket formula can be laid down for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority of a 12A application and the objections filed therein.
It further observed that the Adjudicating Authority has to see whether the claim has substantially been settled substantially or not. If it is satisfied that the amount has already been settled, it may consider this as one of the factors while allowing the application under section 12A.
Timely Implementation Of Resolution Plan Is The Underlying Objective Of The IBC: NCLAT
Case: Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India
Citation: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2012-2013 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7544 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited vs Union Bank of India, recently dismissed the appeal filed by Darwin Platform, upholding an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, which had reinstated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The case arose from the failure of the appellant to implement the resolution plan within the stipulated timeline, leading to the invocation of its Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG).
Operational Creditors Cannot Question Approval Of Resolution Plan That Provides Them With More Than Liquidation Value: NCLAT
Case Title: J.K. PAPER FIBRE RESOURCES Through its Partner Mr. Jitendra K. Shah Versus Sunit Jagdishchandra Shah
Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 76 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial Member), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) that Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be questioned by the Operational Creditors when they were provided more than the liquidation value under the Plan as per section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
NCLT
Third Parties Who Sold Land To Corporate Debtor Cannot Be Held Liable U/S 66 Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Jakson Limited vs. M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CP(IB) NO. 2582/ND/2019 and I.A. No. 4750/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has held that third parties who sold land to the Corporate Debtor cannot be said to fall within the ambit of expression “any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on the business of the Corporate Debtor” as used in Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). It observed that an application under the Section may be maintainable against the persons who were responsible for the management of the Corporate Debtor.
Accepting OTS Payments While Simultaneously Pursuing CIRP Proceedings Is An Attempt To Use IBC For Debt Recovery: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: IFCI Limited vs. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd.
Case Number: C.P. (I.B) No. 142/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench comprising Ms. Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Hon'ble Member (Technical) has held that the conduct of the Financial Creditor in accepting substantial 'one-time settlement' (OTS) payments while simultaneously pursuing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings represents an attempt to use the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) as a 'recovery mechanism', which goes against the very spirit and purpose of the Code. The Tribunal reiterated that the IBC is not intended to be used as a mechanism for debt recovery but rather as a process for resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
Threshold Limit For Initiating Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantors Shall Also Be ₹1 Crore: NCLT Chennai
Case Title: Keerthan Upadhya(Guarantor)
Case Number: CP(IB)/51(CHE)/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai bench of Shri. Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) Shri. Venkataraman Subramaniam (Technical Member) has held that the threshold limit for initiating the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under Sections 94 or 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), shall be the same as that for a Corporate Debtor under Section 4 of the Code, i.e., ₹1 crore.
Payment Received In Advance By Corporate Debtor For Future Supply Of Goods Is Considered Operational Debt Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CP (IB) / 891 (MB) 2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Justice V. G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has held that The payment received in advance by the Corporate Debtor for the future supply of goods constitutes an operational debt. An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) can be admitted if it exceeds the threshold limit prescribed under Section 4 of the Code.
Liquidator Must Not Restrict Sale Of Corporate Debtor's Assets Through Private Sale To Single Buyer, Must Strategise To Attract Multiple Buyers: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Avil Menezes Liquidator of Parekh Aluminex Limited
Case Number: IA No.492 of 2025 IN CP (IB)/1262/MB/C-II/2017
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri Anil Raj Chellan (Judicial Member) and Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Technical Member) while disallowing the Liquidator's application for the private sale of the Corporate Debtor's assets, it was held that the Liquidator must not restrict the private sale to a single buyer but should strategize to attract the maximum number of buyers to maximize realization from the asset sale.
Corporate Debtor Not Barred From Raising Pre-Existing Dispute Even When No Reply Was Given To Demand Notice Within 10 Days U/S 8 Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Himatsingka Seide Limited V/S Textile Professional LLP
Case Number: CP (IB) No. 886/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Hon'ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that failure to respond to a demand notice within 10 days under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) does not bar the Corporate Debtor from asserting the existence of a pre-existing dispute especially when such dispute was raised before the issuance of the demand notice.
Imposition Of Moratorium Bars Recovery Of Pre-CIRP Tax Dues During CIRP: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title: M/s. Sri Pavana Keerthi Hotels India Private Limited v. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Case Number: I.A. No. 250 of 2024 In C.P. (IB) No.153/7/HDB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench-I, consisting of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badrinath (Member - Judicial) and Shri Charan Singh (Member - Technical), disposed of an application filed by Resolution Professional (RP) against the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), and held that once the CIRP has commenced, proceedings for property tax arrears cannot be initiated against the Corporate Debtor. The tribunal also emphasized the overriding effect of the IBC, 2016, and upheld that the moratorium under section 14 bars all types of coercive action during the CIRP.
Petition U/S 7 Of IBC Against Corporate Guarantor Cannot Be Admitted Unless Valid Delivery Of Guarantee Invocation Notice Is Established: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: M/s, Q West Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Grevek Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.P. 260/IB/MB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Hon'ble Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that an insolvency application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) against the corporate guarantor of the corporate debtor cannot be admitted unless the delivery of the demand-cum-guarantee invocation notice is properly established. Only when the delivery is proven can the default on the part of the corporate guarantor be said to have arisen.
Any Default Falling Within Section 10-A Period Of IBC Must Be Excluded When Calculating Total Outstanding Debt: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title: M/s.Noveltech Feeds Private Limited v. M/s.Gold Chick Hatcheries & Foods Pvt Ltd
Case Number: Company Petition (IB) No. 202/9/HDB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench comprising of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial) and Sri Sanjay Puri, Member (Technical) dismissed Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor (Noveltech Feeds Private Limited) stating that the default amount falls within the Section 10-A period and there is presence of non-compliance of Rule 5 which is fatal to the initiation of insolvency proceedings.
Demand Notice Issued U/S 13(2) Of SARFAESI Act Without Obligating Guarantor To Make Payment Is Not An Invocation Of Guarantee: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Bank Of Maharashtra Stressed Asset Management Branch Vs Mrs. Kavita Ninad Mestry
Case Number: CP (IB) No.1009/MB/2023 with IA (IBC) No.4914/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai bench of Shri K. R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that Both the demand notice issued under Rule 7(1) of the Personal Guarantors Rules, 2019, and the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be considered as an invocation of the guarantee.
NCLT Kolkata Remits Repayment Plan U/S 114(3) Of IBC To Committee Of Creditors Due To Non Consideration Of Detective Report
Case Title: UCO BANK Versus SHANKAR PODDAR
Case Number: I.A. (IB) No. 86/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 158/KB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata bench of Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member ) has remitted the repayment plan remitted to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration on the ground that no discussion took place on the detective report, which disclosed that the personal guarantor had sold certain properties and acquired a new one. Despite this, the creditors approved the repayment plan without deliberating on the report.
NCLT Mumbai Dismisses Syska LED Lights' Plea For Withdrawal Of Insolvency Application U/S 12A Of IBC
Case Title: Debashis Nanda, Interim Resolution Professional, Syska LED Lights Private Limited vs. Sunstar Industries &Anr.
Case No.: IA.No.5979/2024 In C.P.(IB)/96(MB)/2024; Intervention Petition/9/2025; Intervention Petition/10/2025; Intervention Petition/16/2025; Intervention Petition/19/2025; Intervention Petition/24-27/2025; IA.No.822/2025; IA.No.564/2025; IA.No.1006/2025; IA 952/2025 IN CP (IB) No. 96/MB-II/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench comprising K.R. Saji Kumar (Judicial Member) and Anil Raj Chellan (Technical Member) has dismissed the withdrawal application filed under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC/Code) in the insolvency proceedings of Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd (Corporate Debtor).
NCLT Hyderabad Lays Out Structured Buy-Out Mechanism To Resolve Deadlock Between Shareholders In Escentia Group Case
Case Title: Escientia Life Sciences & ors Versus Escientia Advanced Sciences Pvt Ltd & Others
Case Number: CP No. 45/241/HDB/ 2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad bench of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Charan Singh (Technical Member) in a company petition seeking relief under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Companies Act) held that the actions of the Deccan Group amounted to grave acts of oppression and was not mere instances of internal shareholder disputes. The Tribunal further laid out a structured buy-out mechanism to resolve the deadlock between shareholders.
Outgoing Liquidator Entitled To Minimum Fee Of Rs. 2 Lakh As Per IBBI Regulations: NCLT Kochi
Case Title: Mr. Padmakumar K. C., Liquidator of M/s. Asten Realtors Private Limited vs. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited & Anr.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi bench comprising Shri. Vinay Goyal (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that if the liquidator is replaced, he is entitled to a minimum fee of Rs. 2 lakh as per Schedule II of of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 for the tenure he has worked.
Corporate Revival Under IBC Should Not Come At Cost Of Public Welfare Projects: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Aegis Resolution Service Private Limited, Resolution Professional of Radius & Deserve Land Developers Private Limited V. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA)
Case Number: IA 2111/2024 IN C.P. (I.B) No. 892/MB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai comprising of Ms. Reeta Kohli, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Hon'ble Member (Technical) dismissed an application filed by Aegis Resolution Services Private Limited acting as the Resolution Professional (RP) for Radius and Deserve Land Developers Private Limited. The application was filed against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority for seeking declaration of ownership and possession of the Corporate Debtor's property.
Information To The NeSL/Information Utility Is Not Mandatory For Ascertainment Of Default: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited
Case Number: C.P. (I.B) No. 444/MB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Ms. Reeta Kohli, Member (Judicial) and Ms. Madhu Sinha, Member (Technical) admitted the Section 7 application filed by Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd on seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Rajesh Buildspace Private Limited due to default in payment of interest.
Order Admitting CIRP Cannot Be Recalled In Absence Of Fraud Or Misrepresentation: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Canara Bank V/s Mr. Bhavesh Mansukhbhai Rathod, The Interim Resolution Professional & Ors.
Case Number: C.P.(IB) No. 383/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai comprising of Justice V.G. Bisht (Member (Judicial) and Prabhat Kumar (Member (Technical) partly allowed an interim application filed by Canara Bank in relation to the CIRP of Carnival Techno Park Pt. Ltd (CTPPL). The Tribunal rejected Canara Bank's plea to recall CIRP admission but allowed the forensic audit to investigate the legitimacy of RCFL claim and its classification as secured financial debt.
Nona Lifestyle Moves NCLT To Seek Initiation Of CIRP Against Zomato Over Alleged Non-Payment Of Dues
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (Judicial Member) and Reena Sinha Puri (Technical Member) today heard a petition filed by Nona Lifestyle, seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Zomato for alleged non-payment of dues of Rs. 1,64,83,194.
NCLT Doesn't Have Jurisdiction To Direct ED To Defreeze Corporate Debtor's Account Frozen Under PMLA: NCLT
Case Title: Mr. Shailendra Singh, Resolution Professional of Foxdom Technologies Pvt Ltd vs. Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr.
Case Number: ΙΑ NO. 4689 OF 2023 IN IB-102(ND)/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that the NCLT, which is the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/ the Code) does not have the power to issue directions to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to defreeze the account of the Corporate Debtor when the account was frozen as per the directions of the Adjudicating Authority under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction to deal with matters related to attachment and freezing of accounts under PMLA vests exclusively with the authorities designated under the PMLA.
Payments From Corporate Debtor's Account Post-CIRP Commencement Without IRP Approval Is Breach Of Moratorium: NCLT Mumbai Directs Refund
Case Title: Mr. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi vs. Mr. Sunil Gutte & 5 others
Case Number: I.A. 1833 OF 2019 in C.P.(IB) No. 2295/MB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench comprising Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Justice V. G. Bisht (Judicial Member) have held that any payments made from the Corporate Debtor's account after the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without the Interim Resolution Professional's (IRP) approval are in contravention of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code). The Tribunal directed Respondents to refund amounts totaling Rs. 10,01,80,000 and directed the Liquidator to notify IBBI for proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Code.
NCLT Admits Insolvency Proceedings Against Ansal Properties And Infrastructure U/S 7 Of IBC, Declares Moratorium
Case Title: M/s IL&FS Financial Services Limited vs. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: CP No.: IB 558(ND)/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan (Technical Member) has admitted insolvency proceedings under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/ Code) against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited. The Tribunal declared moratorium under section 14 of the Code.
