REEDNews

The IBBI Disciplinary Committee suspended a Resolution Professional for gross negligence after he failed to seek timely CIRP extension and delayed the liquidation application despite CoC directions, holding such delay to be a breach of statutory duty under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Supreme Court held that verified and admitted homebuyer claims in a CIRP cannot be downgraded as belated claims for mere refunds. Once recognised under the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and confirmed under Section 31, such homebuyers are entitled to possession and conveyance of their units in accordance with the binding plan.

The Appellate Tribunal reiterated that service of a Section 95(4)(b) demand notice is a mandatory statutory precondition for initiating insolvency against personal guarantors; however, once receipt and knowledge are admitted, technical service objections cannot defeat the proceedings.

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 IBC, all earlier statutory dues, including government tax claims, stand extinguished and cannot be enforced post-approval.

NCLAT held that once CoC is constituted, CIRP withdrawal must comply with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A(1)(b), requiring 90% CoC approval—pre-CoC settlements cannot override this requirement.

NCLAT held that a financial debt can be recognized under IBC based on substance and evidence of lending, even without a formal loan agreement or sanction letter.

NCLAT ruled that Provident Fund claims filed after CoC approval cannot be entertained under IBC, emphasizing the clean slate principle and the finality of approved Resolution Plans.

NCLAT New Delhi ruled that an order admitting a Corporate Debtor to CIRP without granting a fair hearing must be set aside, and any subsequent settlement must comply with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s procedural safeguards.

NCLAT New Delhi held that a Section 9 IBC application must exceed the financial threshold excluding interest, and unsupported interest claims are not recoverable, rendering such petitions non-maintainable regardless of limitation.

NCLAT New Delhi ruled that Financial Creditor status under IBC requires documentary proof of disbursement, and claims not admitted before resolution plan approval cannot be reopened, upholding finality in the insolvency process.

NCLAT ruled that CIRP claims must be backed by valid documents and timely submitted, and agreements by disqualified directors or sister concerns lacking privity are unenforceable, thereby upholding the sanctity of the resolution plan.

The NCLAT, New Delhi, held that once the CIRP period expires without an approved resolution plan, the Resolution Professional is empowered to file for liquidation with the Committee of Creditors’ consent, and the CoC’s commercial wisdom—including abstention from voting—remains beyond judicial review under the IBC framework.

RBI’s 15-day banking rule mandates all banks to process key requests and claim settlements within 15 calendar days, strengthening transparency, accountability, and customer trust.

NCLAT held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to extend limitation for a Section 7 IBC application where prior DRT proceedings were validly instituted, rendering such applications time-barred.

NCLAT ruled that a borrower’s redemption right under amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act ends once the auction notice is issued, rendering subsequent sales immune from challenge under the IBC even during moratorium, thereby safeguarding secured creditor actions and public auction integrity.

The NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, held that an IRP cannot claim fees during the period CIRP proceedings are stayed and that closure due to settlement is not a withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC.

The NCLT, Mumbai Bench, ruled that once a resolution plan is CoC-approved and compliant under Section 30(2) IBC, the Adjudicating Authority cannot question the CoC’s commercial wisdom.

The NCLAT clarified that ESI contributions deducted from employees’ wages are trust property and cannot be included in the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the IBC.

NCLAT Chennai held that the concept of ‘symbolic possession’ has no legal standing under the IBC, and the Interim Resolution Professional must assume complete control of the Corporate Debtor’s assets once CIRP commences.

NCLAT ruled that email service and attempted physical delivery satisfy notice requirements under Rule 38 NCLT Rules, and upheld admission of a Section 7 IBC application once debt and default were established.

NCLAT held that a takeover agreement with share allotment and consistent asset treatment establishes ownership for the corporate debtor even without a registered sale deed, preventing the transferor from reclaiming possession during CIRP.

NCLAT held that directors who invested in illiquid, non-traded shares during imminent insolvency without due diligence were liable under Section 66(2) IBC and could be ordered to personally contribute to the liquidation estate.

NCLAT held that a Resolution Professional may terminate leave and licence agreements with one-month notice under Section 60(5) IBC and that the Adjudicating Authority may order eviction and recovery of dues despite objections under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

NCLAT held that illegal possession of corporate debtor assets does not prevent initiation of CIRP, and a Financial Creditor’s Section 7 application remains maintainable despite partial payments or asset occupation by others.

NCLAT ruled that Section 9 IBC applications cannot be maintained for defaults during the Section 10A suspension period and that Adjudicating Authorities lack power to modify default dates without a formal amendment by the applicant.

NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority cannot replace a Resolution Professional as liquidator without a specific IBBI recommendation, and a general advisory letter cannot serve as valid grounds for such action.

NCLAT ruled that EPFO’s delayed provident fund claim, initiated during the IBC moratorium without a valid Section 7A order, was unenforceable and refused to allow modification of the approved resolution plan to include such claims.

Delhi High Court ruled that an Insolvency Professional breaching IBC norms through excess fees, unapproved outsourcing, and delayed filings faces disciplinary suspension and recovery of improper payments.

NCLAT Chennai ruled that under Section 33(2) of the IBC, the Committee of Creditors’ decision to liquidate is conclusive and beyond judicial review after liquidation and creation of third-party rights.

NCLAT ruled that acknowledgment of debt in a company’s balance sheet extends limitation for Section 7 IBC proceedings, even without a formal loan agreement.

The Supreme Court ruled that speculative homebuyers with buyback or assured return agreements cannot invoke Section 7 of the IBC, affirming that only genuine allottees qualify to initiate insolvency proceedings.

The NCLAT Chennai Bench held that the Resolution Professional’s report under Section 99 of the IBC is recommendatory, and personal guarantors’ hearing rights apply only at Section 100 adjudication, validating proceedings without a Section 99 hearing.

The Calcutta High Court clarified that the IBC moratorium bars asset seizure under FEMA during CIRP and post-liquidation, except against personally liable directors or officers.

The NCLAT clarified that once a Resolution Plan is approved by the CoC, disputed or unverified homebuyer claims cannot obstruct its implementation, reaffirming the IBC framework.

NCLAT ruled that insolvency applications under Section 95 IBC cannot be mechanically admitted against personal guarantors and mandated an independent judicial assessment by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Supreme Court held that homebuyers with duly verified claims during CIRP cannot be treated as late claimants and are entitled to possession under the approved Resolution Plan.

NCLAT ruled that a purchaser who defaults on the agreed sale consideration cannot retain share certificates or subsidiary documents, reaffirming the RP’s authority under Sections 18 and 25 of the IBC to take custody of such assets.

NCLAT upheld that pre-existing contractual disputes bar Section 9 IBC petitions; both debt and default must be undisputed to trigger CIRP.

NCLAT affirmed that personal guarantees covering existing credit facilities are enforceable even without fresh disbursement, and pending recovery proceedings do not bar Section 95 insolvency action under the IBC.

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.