The NCLAT held that the Interim Resolution Professional’s withdrawal of fees without CoC ratification was impermissible and directed refund of such amounts, ruling that IRP fees must adhere to Regulation 33 of the CIRP Regulations and any unratified claim is illegal under the IBC framework.

The NCLAT, New Delhi, ruled that an approved resolution plan under the IBC supersedes all prior SICA rehabilitation schemes, declaring that any concessions not incorporated within such plan are extinguished and cannot be revived.

The Supreme Court ruled that an approved resolution plan under the IBC is final and binding on all stakeholders, disallowing any reopening of claims or questioning of the CoC’s commercial judgment.

NCLAT reaffirmed that suspended directors lack the locus to challenge approved resolution plans, holding that the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom under the IBC remains non-justiciable and immune from appellate interference.

The Delhi High Court held that winding-up proceedings pending before the High Court may be transferred to the NCLT under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless irreversible steps like asset sale have occurred, reaffirming the primacy of the IBC framework in corporate insolvency matters.

The Supreme Court ruled that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, it becomes legally binding on all stakeholders and extinguishes all unrecorded claims, ensuring finality and a “clean slate” for the corporate debtor’s revival.

The NCLAT, Principal Bench, clarified that directing the CoC to reconsider a resolution plan is not tantamount to approving it, emphasizing that the CoC’s commercial judgment governs the process unless there is material change warranting judicial intervention.

In IFCI Limited v. Ashok Kumar Sarawgi, RP for Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd., the NCLAT, New Delhi Bench, held that a corporate guarantor’s liability continues independently despite liquidation of the borrower, and plans excluding valid claims can be set aside.

In Mathioli N. v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, the NCLAT, Chennai Bench, ruled that the replacement of a Resolution Professional must follow Section 27 of the Insolvency Code and be placed before the CoC, ensuring procedural fairness and due process.

The NCLAT ruled that exclusion of assets as margin money by the Adjudicating Authority was beyond its jurisdiction, as it interfered with the CoC’s commercial wisdom and amounted to enforcing security during moratorium, contrary to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.