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.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld DRAT’s discretion under Section 19(20) of the RDB Act to reduce interest granted by DRT, ruling that a reasoned exercise of such discretion cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

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.

The Supreme Court restored a conviction in a cheque dishonour case, holding that statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act remain unless rebutted with credible evidence, and financial capacity allegations cannot defeat enforceability.