NCLAT set aside the admission of a Section 9 petition after finding that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider a clear pre-existing dispute evidenced in the Section 8 reply and related emails.

NCLAT held that delay in submitting an EoI, when duly condoned without altering eligibility norms, does not constitute a material irregularity and restored the CoC-approved resolution plan.

The Karnataka High Court held that liquidation cannot extinguish a workman’s vested entitlement to back wages crystallised under an award, and ordered release of the deposited amount with interest.

The Supreme Court held that affidavit defects in a Section 7 IBC filing are curable and cannot justify rejection unless the Adjudicating Authority first issues mandatory notice under Section 7(5)(b).

NCLT Kolkata held that breach of a settlement agreement cannot revive an extinguished operational debt and therefore cannot be used to trigger CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC.

The outgoing Chief Justice of India disclosed that a retired High Court Chief Justice had attempted to influence a judicial member of the NCLAT in a corporate matter. As the implicated judge retired before a formal inquiry could be commenced, the issue has been placed before the new CJI Surya Kant for administrative action.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India on 21 November 2025 issued the Second Guidelines for preparing a structured panel of Insolvency Professionals for appointments from January to June 2026. The framework standardises eligibility, zonal distribution, AFA validity, sorting criteria, and acceptance obligations, aiming to reduce delays and strengthen the efficiency of appointments under the IBC.

The IBBI issued draft guidelines on 19 November 2025 to standardise valuation under the IBC, introducing uniform documentation requirements and asset-specific valuation formats to enhance transparency, consistency, and reliability in insolvency proceedings. Stakeholder comments are invited until 10 December 2025.

The Supreme Court clarified that Chartered Accountants cannot be required to possess 25 years of experience to be eligible for appointment as Technical Members in tribunals, declaring the requirement unconstitutional and extending parity with earlier rulings concerning advocates.

The Appellate Tribunal held that a PRA who fails to submit a plan within time loses locus to challenge CoC decisions, and only timely, substantively relevant objections may be considered under Section 31 scrutiny.