REEDNews

NCLAT held that Adjudicating Authorities can grant ex-post facto approval for criminal complaints filed by liquidators against ex-management if necessary to protect the corporate debtor’s assets and connected to prior authorized proceedings.

Bank of Baroda has classified the loan accounts of Reliance Communications and Anil Ambani as fraudulent, citing forensic audit findings of irregularities and suspected fund diversion amid ongoing IBC proceedings and regulatory scrutiny.

Supreme Court affirms that NCLT can examine fraud and gift deed validity in oppression and mismanagement cases, overturning NCLAT’s restrictive interpretation.

NCLAT clarified that a non-obstante clause in a corporate guarantee capping liability does not bar the guarantor from paying default interest beyond the capped amount, reinforcing contractual obligations.

NCLAT ruled that refund of security deposit does not extend limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act; therefore, the Section 9 IBC application was time-barred.

The Supreme Court Collegium, on 1 September 2025, recommended the appointment of 26 individuals as judges of the Allahabad High Court, including four women and a balanced representation from the Bar and judiciary.

In a judgment pronounced today, the Supreme Court ruled that revisional courts cannot recall summoning orders in Section 138 NI Act cases and clarified that SICA protection cannot shield against cheque dishonour prosecutions.

In an order passed today, NCLAT New Delhi ruled that repeated Section 94 IBC petitions after prior dismissal amount to misuse of the insolvency process and cannot stall SARFAESI recovery or invoke moratorium.

NCLAT New Delhi held that a defective affidavit under Section 7 IBC does not invalidate the petition and must be allowed to be rectified before rejection.

NCLAT Delhi held that a successful bidder in liquidation is entitled only to operational reliefs; excessive statutory, tax, or regulatory claims cannot be granted merely by acquisition.

Bombay High Court ruled that IBC resolution plans cannot limit SRA’s statutory powers under the Slum Act, affirming the authority to replace defaulting developers.

Bombay High Court held that assignment of stressed loans to operational creditors is unlawful under RBI norms and that CPC compromises cannot validate agreements prohibited by law.

MP High Court ruled that Section 94 IBC cannot be invoked by personal guarantors of sole proprietorship or partnership firms, validating SARFAESI recovery proceedings.

Gujarat High Court ruled that approval of an IBC resolution plan extinguishes all pre-existing tax liabilities, overriding the Income Tax Department’s powers under Section 263.

Delhi High Court stayed IBBI’s disciplinary order against an insolvency professional, holding that violation of natural justice and possible bias warranted judicial intervention at this stage.

NCLAT clarified that an application under Section 95 of the IBC against a personal guarantor is maintainable even when no CIRP or liquidation proceedings are pending against the corporate debtor.

NCLAT clarified that a Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted when email correspondence and unresolved account reconciliation indicate a pre-existing dispute between the parties.

NCLAT ruled that a Section 9 IBC petition can be revived if a settlement agreement explicitly provides for restoration in the event of default.

NCLAT held that petitions alleging fraudulent CIRP under Section 65 cannot be dismissed for lack of locus and must be evaluated on merits by the Adjudicating Authority.

NCLAT ruled that late EoIs cannot be entertained once CoC opts for liquidation, reaffirming that such decisions fall under the commercial wisdom of the CoC.

NCLAT held that statutory notices sent to the last known address are presumed valid under Section 27 and affirmed the permissibility of simultaneous insolvency proceedings against corporate debtors and their personal guarantors.and affirmed the permissibility of simultaneous insolvency proceedings against corporate debtors and their personal guarantors.

NCLAT confirmed that dissenting financial creditors are entitled to receive their entire liquidation value upfront and in priority over assenting creditors if provided in the resolution plan.upfront and in priority over assenting creditors if provided in the resolution plan.

NCLAT held that an appeal against NCLT’s directions on liquidator remuneration becomes infructuous once the SCC fixes the fees, leaving no cause for further adjudication.

NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can enforce an MSME Act arbitral award during CIRP under Section 60(5) of the IBC, overriding objections under the Arbitration Act.

NCLAT ruled that once a loan amount is disbursed to a corporate debtor, lenders cannot claim ownership, as such funds become part of the debtor’s assets under CIRP.

NCLAT held that CoC exclusively determines CIRP fees and expenses, and once approved, subsequent challenges are barred, reinforcing CoC’s autonomy under IBC.

NCLAT held that delay in implementing an approved resolution plan justifies PBG encashment and CIRP revival, reinforcing timely compliance as a core IBC mandate.

NCLAT held that a Section 7 IBC petition is invalid if based on a loan assignment that breaches RBI guidelines, rendering the financial debt claim unenforceable.

NCLAT held that after CIRP begins, withdrawal under Section 12A cannot rely on a settlement with a single creditor if other admitted claims exist, emphasising CoC’s supremacy.

NCLAT ruled that a Section 9 IBC petition is inadmissible if the default falls during the Section 10A bar period and recalculated claims fall below ₹1 crore; continuing CIRP after settlement is misuse.

Allahabad High Court upheld YEIDA’s statutory power to cancel land allotment, ruling that Section 14 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act overrides executed lease deeds and partial payment claims.

NCLT Hyderabad held that Section 7 IBC petition is not maintainable against a SEBI-registered stock broker, as such entities qualify as Financial Service Providers excluded from IBC.

NCLAT held that legal consultancy fee claims in CIRP must be supported by credible proof beyond invoices or engagement letters, as unsupported claims cannot be admitted under IBC.

NCLAT held that an SRA under the IBC has only procedural liberty, and not an enforceable right, to seek renewal of expired leases, as the decision to grant renewal lies exclusively with the State Government.

NCLAT ruled that interest on lease rent cannot be recovered as CIRP cost under the IBC without an express contractual clause, holding that unilateral invoice claims lack enforceability.

NCLAT ruled that a Section 9 petition under the IBC is not maintainable solely for recovery of disputed interest after the principal debt has been paid, as invoices cannot override written supply agreements.

The NCLAT held that Section 7 IBC proceedings cannot be initiated against an NBFC merely due to registration status, and liability depends on proof of financial services. Admission was set aside and matter remanded to NCLT.

The NCLAT declared that any sale of a company’s sole immovable asset under an OTS without Tribunal approval and shareholder consent is invalid, affirming the NCLT’s order directing majority shareholders to complete the OTS in the company’s interest.

The IBBI has tightened the Continuing Professional Education framework for Insolvency Professionals, mandating 30 credit hours annually, graded in-person learning, and structured credit allocations for publications, research, and professional development.

The IBBI has released a discussion paper proposing the deletion of Clause 6 from the Insolvency Professionals’ Code of Conduct to avoid duplication, simplify compliance, and align with liquidation and bankruptcy regulations.

The IBBI released a discussion paper on 12 August 2025 to rationalise assignment limits for Insolvency Professionals. The proposed framework introduces unified caps across IRP, RP, and Liquidator roles to curb delays, ensure fair distribution of assignments, and provide equitable opportunities for new IPs.

NSIC signed MoUs with Axis Bank, IndusInd Bank, Karnataka Bank, AU Small Finance Bank, and Dhanlaxmi Bank on 11 August 2025 under its MSME Credit Facilitation Program. The collaboration is expected to expand financial inclusion, strengthen credit accessibility, and foster growth in the MSME sector.

The RBI announced a major reform in cheque settlement, introducing real-time clearance from October 4, 2025. The new system will reduce settlement to hours through a phased rollout, ensuring faster liquidity and modernizing India’s banking system.

The proposed IBC amendments aim to strengthen revival mechanisms by permitting partial asset sales and granting insolvency tribunals a 120-day second opportunity for resolution after the expiry of the 330-day statutory limit, thereby prioritising business continuity over liquidation.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the IBC, the limitation for filing an appeal before the NCLAT starts from the date of pronouncement of the NCLT order, and that appeals filed without a certified copy or timely condonation are defective and time-barred.

NCLAT has reaffirmed that Section 95 IBC applications must be filed within three years from the issuance of the recovery certificate, under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and that the twelve-year limitation for suits does not apply to insolvency matters.

The NCLAT reaffirmed the absolute discretion of the Committee of Creditors to adopt or forego the Swiss Challenge Mechanism under the IBC and RFRP, validating its non-justiciable commercial approval of a compliant resolution plan.

NCLAT held that a secured creditor’s failure to comply with Regulation 21A results in the secured assets forming part of the liquidation estate, allowing the Liquidator to validly sell them through auction.

NCLAT has reaffirmed that mere allegations against a Successful Resolution Applicant, if not impacting statutory compliance under Section 30(2) of the IBC, cannot be a ground to question the CoC’s commercial wisdom in approving a resolution plan.

The Supreme Court held that the Section 14(1)(d) moratorium under the IBC does not prevent the corporate debtor from voluntarily surrendering leased property during CIRP where the CoC, exercising its commercial wisdom, decides retention is unnecessary, thereby upholding the binding nature of CoC decisions.