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.

The Appellate Tribunal held that Rule 11 jurisdiction cannot be used to recall an order decided on merits, as inherent powers extend only to correcting procedural lapses such as lack of notice or fraud.

The Appellate Tribunal held that the IBBI’s 18.07.2023 letter cannot supersede Section 34 IBC and that an RP has no vested right to be appointed as liquidator, rendering mid-process replacement unwarranted when liquidation has advanced with CoC backing.

The Appellate Tribunal reaffirmed that the Committee of Creditors held exclusive authority to select and recommend the Resolution Professional for appointment as liquidator under Section 34 of the IBC, leaving the Adjudicating Authority only with the power of formal appointment. It further held that the IBBI’s circular seeking to prevent an RP from also acting as liquidator could not override statutory provisions. This ruling strengthens creditor autonomy and prevents judicia

The Appellate Tribunal clarified that an Operational Creditor may claim set-off of admitted mutual dues while filing Form-B during CIRP, even during the moratorium, provided such dues are undisputed, quantifiable and arise from identifiable transactions.

The NCLAT ruled that IU uploads cannot extend limitation for independent invoices under Section 9 of the IBC. Each invoice forms a distinct cause of action, and partial payments or invoice-specific acknowledgments cannot revive claims barred by limitation, making the petition time-barred.

Section 32A immunity under the IBC does not override PMLA attachments that were validly imposed and attained finality before commencement of CIRP; only PMLA authorities can grant relief, and NCLT/NCLAT cannot order their release.

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.

DRAT Allahabad held that a guarantor who executed the guarantee cannot deny liability without producing contrary evidence.

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