NCLAT New Delhi ruled that Financial Creditor status under IBC requires documentary proof of disbursement, and claims not admitted before resolution plan approval cannot be reopened, upholding finality in the insolvency process.

NCLAT ruled that CIRP claims must be backed by valid documents and timely submitted, and agreements by disqualified directors or sister concerns lacking privity are unenforceable, thereby upholding the sanctity of the resolution plan.

The NCLAT, New Delhi, held that once the CIRP period expires without an approved resolution plan, the Resolution Professional is empowered to file for liquidation with the Committee of Creditors’ consent, and the CoC’s commercial wisdom—including abstention from voting—remains beyond judicial review under the IBC framework.

RBI’s 15-day banking rule mandates all banks to process key requests and claim settlements within 15 calendar days, strengthening transparency, accountability, and customer trust.

NCLAT held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to extend limitation for a Section 7 IBC application where prior DRT proceedings were validly instituted, rendering such applications time-barred.

NCLAT ruled that a borrower’s redemption right under amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act ends once the auction notice is issued, rendering subsequent sales immune from challenge under the IBC even during moratorium, thereby safeguarding secured creditor actions and public auction integrity.

The NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, held that an IRP cannot claim fees during the period CIRP proceedings are stayed and that closure due to settlement is not a withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC.

The NCLT, Mumbai Bench, ruled that once a resolution plan is CoC-approved and compliant under Section 30(2) IBC, the Adjudicating Authority cannot question the CoC’s commercial wisdom.

The NCLAT clarified that ESI contributions deducted from employees’ wages are trust property and cannot be included in the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the IBC.

NCLAT Chennai held that the concept of ‘symbolic possession’ has no legal standing under the IBC, and the Interim Resolution Professional must assume complete control of the Corporate Debtor’s assets once CIRP commences.