![IBC Weekly Round-Up [24th March - 30th March 2025]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/08/01/1500x900_552807-weekly-digest-of-ibc-cases.webp "IBC Weekly Round-Up [24th March - 30th March 2025]")
Nominal Index: 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...
Nominal Index:
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.
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.
NCLAT
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.
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 shareholder
