NCLAT upheld that consent terms signed post-mediation are enforceable, rejecting later claims of coercion or incomplete annexures, reinforcing the binding nature of settlements in company disputes.

A Section 9 CIRP petition was ruled non-maintainable where dispute existed over invoice reconciliations and appropriation of payments, as insolvency cannot adjudicate contested claims.

The Appellate Tribunal held that delayed payment of confirmed auction consideration in liquidation attracts mandatory interest and bidders cannot seek exemption after accepting “as-is-where-is” sale conditions.

NCLAT, New Delhi upheld CIRP under Section 9 IBC, ruling that advance payment for undelivered goods constitutes operational debt, and the absence of pre-existing dispute validates insolvency proceedings.

Banks cannot enforce credit card recovery or impose charges where electronic transactions are disputed unless prior authorization is proven through verifiable and accountable authentication mechanisms.

Executing unsecured high-value transactions during ongoing insolvency, without reasonable expectation of recovery and contrary to commercial prudence, was held to constitute fraudulent and wrongful trading under Section 66 IBC.

The Supreme Court held that security-interest registration under Section 23 gives Section 26E priority over all dues, but provident fund liabilities legally retain first-charge status and must be discharged before allocation of sale proceeds to secured debt.

The appellate tribunal clarified that bankruptcy proceedings against a personal guarantor cannot be allowed to continue merely for failure to file a repayment plan, particularly where parties mutually extend time to file a compliant proposal. Any earlier admission under Section 123 must be recalled, and the process must revert to the statutory stage under Section 106 IBC.

The appellate tribunal held that disputed receivables cannot be enforced in liquidation through summary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC. It clarified that financial statement entries do not constitute admission of liability, requiring the Liquidator to pursue contractual or judicial remedies.

The Appellate Tribunal held that Section 7 claims cannot rely on RP acknowledgments from prior CIRP to revive limitation. Limitation is calculated from the statutory default date, and petitions filed beyond this period remain time-barred.