REEDNews

The NCLAT confirmed that a fully completed property transfer—backed by registered documents, payment and possession—left no surviving rights for the legal heir, thereby validating the Adjudicating Authority’s direction under Section 60(5) to execute the Sale Deed during resolution plan implementation.

NCLAT held that a bona fide pre-existing dispute bars Section 9 admission and the Adjudicating Authority’s role is limited to assessing plausibility.

NCLAT held that property under an unexecuted sale agreement remains part of the liquidation estate, and the Liquidator may recover the original title deeds.

NCLAT held that absence of proof of time-value disbursal, repayment triggers, or default prevented classification of the transaction as a financial debt under Section 5(8) IBC.

NCLAT held that recourse factoring supported by an irrevocable undertaking constitutes a financial debt under Section 5(8)(e), affirming admission of the Section 7 application.

NCLAT set aside the admission of a Section 9 petition after finding that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider a clear pre-existing dispute evidenced in the Section 8 reply and related emails.

NCLAT held that delay in submitting an EoI, when duly condoned without altering eligibility norms, does not constitute a material irregularity and restored the CoC-approved resolution plan.

The Karnataka High Court held that liquidation cannot extinguish a workman’s vested entitlement to back wages crystallised under an award, and ordered release of the deposited amount with interest.

The Supreme Court held that affidavit defects in a Section 7 IBC filing are curable and cannot justify rejection unless the Adjudicating Authority first issues mandatory notice under Section 7(5)(b).

NCLT Kolkata held that breach of a settlement agreement cannot revive an extinguished operational debt and therefore cannot be used to trigger CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC.

The outgoing Chief Justice of India disclosed that a retired High Court Chief Justice had attempted to influence a judicial member of the NCLAT in a corporate matter. As the implicated judge retired before a formal inquiry could be commenced, the issue has been placed before the new CJI Surya Kant for administrative action.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India on 21 November 2025 issued the Second Guidelines for preparing a structured panel of Insolvency Professionals for appointments from January to June 2026. The framework standardises eligibility, zonal distribution, AFA validity, sorting criteria, and acceptance obligations, aiming to reduce delays and strengthen the efficiency of appointments under the IBC.

The IBBI issued draft guidelines on 19 November 2025 to standardise valuation under the IBC, introducing uniform documentation requirements and asset-specific valuation formats to enhance transparency, consistency, and reliability in insolvency proceedings. Stakeholder comments are invited until 10 December 2025.

The Supreme Court clarified that Chartered Accountants cannot be required to possess 25 years of experience to be eligible for appointment as Technical Members in tribunals, declaring the requirement unconstitutional and extending parity with earlier rulings concerning advocates.

The Appellate Tribunal held that a PRA who fails to submit a plan within time loses locus to challenge CoC decisions, and only timely, substantively relevant objections may be considered under Section 31 scrutiny.

IBBI’s Discussion Paper dated 17 November 2025 proposes sweeping reforms to strengthen CIRP transparency, including mandatory inclusion of allottees in the Information Memorandum, enhanced disclosure of receivables and attached assets, observer participation in CoC meetings, and mandatory reasoning when recommending liquidation despite viable plans.

NCLT Hyderabad clarified that foreign citizenship does not exempt a personal guarantor from IBC obligations. Deemed rejection of repayment plans under Section 115(2) allows initiation of bankruptcy proceedings under Section 121.

IBBI’s Circular dated 18 November 2025 introduces heightened due-diligence duties for Resolution Professionals under Section 29A of the IBC. The directive mandates strict verification of eligibility, documentation of findings, and compulsory placement of a detailed compliance note before the CoC, reinforcing transparency and reducing post-approval litigation in CIRP.

The IBBI’s 17 November 2025 Discussion Paper proposes mandatory minimum shareholding requirements for directors and partners of Insolvency Professional Entities, aiming to strengthen governance, accountability, and professional independence across India’s insolvency ecosystem.

The Supreme Court ruled that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) issued in satisfaction of past dues are share capital and not financial debt, as their redemption is restricted under Section 55 of the Companies Act. With no default occurring, the CRPS holder lacked standing to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

The Supreme Court directed that a pending IBC appeal be transferred from the NCLAT Chennai Bench to the NCLAT Principal Bench to ensure fair adjudication, clarifying that allegations of attempted judicial influence would be addressed separately at the administrative level by the Chief Justice of India.

The NCLAT ruled that the statutory first charge created under Section 48 of the GVAT Act constitutes a security interest under the IBC, entitling the State Tax Department to priority distribution for undistributed amounts even after approval of the resolution plan.

The IBBI has proposed sweeping reforms to standardise valuation practices under the IBC, including uniform reporting formats, harmonised standards, recognition of intangibles and synergies, and a streamlined valuer appointment system.

The Allahabad High Court held that disputes relating to the restoration of a cancelled lease essential for the Corporate Debtor’s resolution process fall within the NCLT’s exclusive jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the IBC, rendering writ challenges non-maintainable.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that possession disputes during liquidation fall exclusively under the NCLT’s jurisdiction and writ petitions against such orders are non-maintainable.

The Bombay High Court ruled that consumer or recovery proceedings initiated during the IBC moratorium are void once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Code.

NCLAT clarified that a mere request for pass over cannot be treated as waiver of oral hearing and directed that the principles of natural justice must be strictly upheld in adjudicatory proceedings.

NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority cannot intervene in a CoC-approved sale under Regulation 29 of the CIRP Regulations when the sale process complies with the IBC framework and reflects the CoC’s commercial wisdom.

NCLAT held that EPFO claims arising during CIRP moratorium under Section 14 IBC are unenforceable and cannot be admitted against the Corporate Debtor.

NCLAT ruled that a suspended director has no locus during CIRP and clarified that moratorium under Section 14 IBC does not bar the Adjudicating Authority from allowing arbitral counterclaims.

NCLAT ruled that subsequent financial agreements cannot nullify existing corporate guarantees where sanction letters ensure their continuity, and insufficiency of stamp duty does not render a Section 7 IBC proceeding invalid.

NCLAT held that a Section 9 application under the IBC cannot proceed where a pre-existing dispute exists, including pending civil suits, and the Corporate Debtor’s notice of dispute bars the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

NCLAT ruled that a lease deed executed by unauthorised persons without consideration is invalid, and the Corporate Debtor cannot claim leasehold rights over the property for inclusion in the CIRP information memorandum.

NCLAT ruled that a bank cannot retain or adjust a Corporate Debtor’s Fixed Deposit towards the liabilities of a group company, holding that the general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act applies only to debts of the same customer.

NCLAT held that a reconstituted Committee of Creditors cannot revisit or overturn the commercial approval granted by the original CoC to a resolution plan and must act strictly within the remand directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC.

NCLAT upheld that inclusion of a strategic investor by an ARC does not breach Regulation 39(1B) and reaffirmed that an unsuccessful resolution applicant who accepted a refund cannot challenge the CoC-approved plan.

The NCLAT held that a statutory first charge under the Municipal Act qualifies as a “security interest” under the IBC, entitling municipal authorities to secured creditor status in liquidation proceedings.

The IBBI has mandated Insolvency Professionals to submit a standard undertaking before PMLA Special Courts when seeking restitution of ED-attached assets, aligning IBC and PMLA compliance frameworks for greater transparency and value realization.

The NCLAT held that an unsuccessful resolution applicant who did not submit a final plan during the challenge process has no locus to challenge the approved resolution plan, reiterating the sanctity of the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom under the IBC.

The Delhi High Court directed that winding-up proceedings which have not reached an irreversible stage must be transferred to the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to ensure effective resolution and value maximization.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that an auction purchaser under liquidation proceedings cannot be compelled to pay the previous electricity dues of the corporate debtor, reaffirming that Section 238 of the IBC overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act and Supply Code.

NCLAT upheld the admission of a Section 7 IBC petition, ruling that clear documentary proof of debt and default cannot be defeated by speculative disputes or unsubstantiated claims of tampering.

The NCLAT held that the Interim Resolution Professional’s withdrawal of fees without CoC ratification was impermissible and directed refund of such amounts, ruling that IRP fees must adhere to Regulation 33 of the CIRP Regulations and any unratified claim is illegal under the IBC framework.

The NCLAT, New Delhi, ruled that an approved resolution plan under the IBC supersedes all prior SICA rehabilitation schemes, declaring that any concessions not incorporated within such plan are extinguished and cannot be revived.

The Supreme Court ruled that an approved resolution plan under the IBC is final and binding on all stakeholders, disallowing any reopening of claims or questioning of the CoC’s commercial judgment.

NCLAT reaffirmed that suspended directors lack the locus to challenge approved resolution plans, holding that the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom under the IBC remains non-justiciable and immune from appellate interference.

The Delhi High Court held that winding-up proceedings pending before the High Court may be transferred to the NCLT under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless irreversible steps like asset sale have occurred, reaffirming the primacy of the IBC framework in corporate insolvency matters.

The Supreme Court ruled that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, it becomes legally binding on all stakeholders and extinguishes all unrecorded claims, ensuring finality and a “clean slate” for the corporate debtor’s revival.

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, clarified that directing the CoC to reconsider a resolution plan is not tantamount to approving it, emphasizing that the CoC’s commercial judgment governs the process unless there is material change warranting judicial intervention.

In IFCI Limited v. Ashok Kumar Sarawgi, RP for Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd., the NCLAT, New Delhi Bench, held that a corporate guarantor’s liability continues independently despite liquidation of the borrower, and plans excluding valid claims can be set aside.