The Delhi High Court held that an arbitrator’s earlier judicial role does not warrant disqualification and that all excluded or unresolved claims stand extinguished once a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC is approved, ensuring finality for the corporate debtor.

The IBBI Disciplinary Committee suspended a Resolution Professional for gross negligence after he failed to seek timely CIRP extension and delayed the liquidation application despite CoC directions, holding such delay to be a breach of statutory duty under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Supreme Court held that verified and admitted homebuyer claims in a CIRP cannot be downgraded as belated claims for mere refunds. Once recognised under the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and confirmed under Section 31, such homebuyers are entitled to possession and conveyance of their units in accordance with the binding plan.

The Appellate Tribunal reiterated that service of a Section 95(4)(b) demand notice is a mandatory statutory precondition for initiating insolvency against personal guarantors; however, once receipt and knowledge are admitted, technical service objections cannot defeat the proceedings.

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 IBC, all earlier statutory dues, including government tax claims, stand extinguished and cannot be enforced post-approval.

NCLAT held that once CoC is constituted, CIRP withdrawal must comply with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A(1)(b), requiring 90% CoC approval—pre-CoC settlements cannot override this requirement.

NCLAT held that a financial debt can be recognized under IBC based on substance and evidence of lending, even without a formal loan agreement or sanction letter.

NCLAT ruled that Provident Fund claims filed after CoC approval cannot be entertained under IBC, emphasizing the clean slate principle and the finality of approved Resolution Plans.

NCLAT New Delhi ruled that an order admitting a Corporate Debtor to CIRP without granting a fair hearing must be set aside, and any subsequent settlement must comply with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s procedural safeguards.

NCLAT New Delhi held that a Section 9 IBC application must exceed the financial threshold excluding interest, and unsupported interest claims are not recoverable, rendering such petitions non-maintainable regardless of limitation.