The NCLAT affirmed that financial default is triggered on expiry of contractual cure periods, and Section 10A protection does not cover defaults prior to 25 March 2020, upholding the NCLT’s CIRP admission.

The NCLAT affirmed that financial default is triggered on expiry of contractual cure periods, and Section 10A protection does not cover defaults prior to 25 March 2020, upholding the NCLT’s CIRP admission.

The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of litigation by a state authority during a public auction vitiates the sale and mandated refund of the deposited amount with 9% interest, affirming transparency and restitution principles.

The Supreme Court ruled that allegations of fraud in SARFAESI possession proceedings require judicial examination and cannot be rejected at the threshold on procedural objections.

The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of litigation by a state authority during a public auction vitiates the sale and mandated refund of the deposited amount with 9% interest, affirming transparency and restitution principles.

The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached ₹1,885 crore in assets linked to Reliance Anil Ambani Group entities in ongoing bank fraud and fund diversion investigations, taking cumulative attachments close to ₹12,000 crore.

The Supreme Court clarified that the NCLT has no jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to adjudicate trademark ownership or disputed intellectual property rights outside the CIRP. It was held that transactions cannot be invalidated without a specific statutory avoidance application and that any declaration beyond an approved resolution plan amounts to an impermissible judicial modification, reaffirming the limited and insolvency-centr

REEDLAW Legal News Network | Published on: 16 January 2026 | 🔗 Find Shareable Link at the End The REEDLAW Legal News Network reports: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), on 16 January 2026, published the updated panel of Insolvency Professional Entities (IPEs) and Insolvency Professionals (IPs) for appointment as Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs), Resolution Professionals (RPs), Liquidators, and Bankruptcy Trustees (BTs) under the Insolvency and B

The Supreme Court held that once insolvency begins, the IRP alone represents the Corporate Debtor in criminal cases, barred parallel proceedings, and protected the accused from custodial detention after filing of the charge sheet.

The Delhi High Court clarified that Article 226 cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence in disciplinary matters and upheld strict standards of accountability for Insolvency Professionals.