NCLAT ruled that CIRP cost contributions require mandatory CoC approval with 66% voting, and cannot be imposed without a valid resolution under the IBC.

NCLAT clarified that a resolution applicant cannot be disqualified under Section 29A of the IBC solely due to an advisory association with an allegedly ineligible person, especially in the absence of any concrete disqualification or NPA record.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a director of a company under liquidation has no legal standing to challenge recovery actions, and clarified that MSME revival schemes cannot override statutory frameworks under SARFAESI and the IBC.

NCLAT ruled that Section 9 IBC proceedings are barred when operational debt liability is disputed and tied to third-party certification or reconciliation.

DRAT Kolkata clarified that a Securitisation Application cannot be wholly dismissed if timely challenges to SARFAESI sale notices exist, even if some notices are time-barred.

The Delhi High Court ruled that legal heirs of a deceased guarantor must mandatorily make the Section 21 pre-deposit under the RDB Act before appealing DRT recovery orders, even if they weren’t parties to the original case.

NCLAT upheld the admission of a Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantors and clarified that objections related to ECLGS must be resolved by the Resolution Professional during the repayment plan formulation process.

The Supreme Court held that fabricated resignations and questionable share transfers cannot oust rightful shareholders. Upholding NCLAT’s order, it ruled such acts constitute oppression and mismanagement, affirming the importance of continuous cause of action in such disputes.

NCLAT held that Regulation 2B’s 90-day limit under the Liquidation Regulations is directory, allowing extension of Section 230 schemes if revival is feasible and CoC-supported.

REEDLAW Legal News Network | 2 August 2025 | Case Citation - REEDLAW 2025 SC 07014 REEDLAW Legal News Network  reports that the...