A redevelopment agreement terminated before CIRP does not survive as an asset of the corporate debtor, and Section 14 moratorium cannot be used to revive extinguished contractual rights or block statutory redevelopment approvals.

Initiation of a company-wide CIRP against a real estate developer is legally unsustainable where the debt and default arise from a single project, NCLAT holds, reiterating that project-wise insolvency remains the governing norm under the IBC.

The Appellate Tribunal held that a private sale conducted through a Swiss Challenge process during liquidation is unsustainable in the absence of prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority and where the process is structured with unreasonable timelines and restrictive EMD conditions that stifle competition.

The Supreme Court directed the transfer of a pending NCLAT company appeal to the Principal Bench to ensure fair and expeditious adjudication. Broader administrative and public-interest concerns raised in a writ petition were treated as a representation for the Chief Justice of India’s consideration.

Kerala High Court held that once a Section 7 or 10 application is admitted, the NCLT must appoint the proposed IRP under Section 16(2) IBC if statutory eligibility is satisfied, and cannot reject appointment merely due to multiple assignments.

NCLAT held that once a resolution plan authorises the CoC to pursue avoidance applications, a suspended director has no locus to oppose substitution of the Resolution Professional, and no separate hearing is required.

NCLAT held that a Section 7 IBC application is barred under Section 10A if the date of default stated in the demand notice falls within the COVID-19 exclusion period, and cannot be modified by oral extensions or subsequent demands.

NCLAT held that disputes relating to shareholding and immovable property lie outside insolvency jurisdiction, and that disclosure of pending High Court litigation in the Information Memorandum is adequately ensured through the duties of the Resolution Professional.

NCLAT held that a rejected prospective resolution applicant lacks locus standi to challenge the CIRP or seek re-issuance of the Information Memorandum, and alleged defects therein cannot invalidate the resolution process absent a violation of Section 30(2) IBC.

NCLAT held that amendment of the date of default in a pending Section 95 personal guarantor insolvency application is permissible even at an advanced stage, as it facilitates effective adjudication without finally deciding limitation or foreclosing statutory defences.