The Calcutta High Court held that a secured creditor may invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act even after sale, and the District Magistrate’s role is executory, limited to ensuring physical possession, without adjudicatory powers.

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 Rajasthan High Court ruled that the District Magistrate’s role under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely ministerial, limited to verifying compliance and facilitating possession, without authority to adjudicate disputes.

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.

Allahabad High Court ruled that borrowers have no vested right to extension under OTS; failure to comply within 180 days lapses the settlement, enabling banks to cancel and auction secured assets.

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.