NCLAT ruled that email service and attempted physical delivery satisfy notice requirements under Rule 38 NCLT Rules, and upheld admission of a Section 7 IBC application once debt and default were established.

NCLAT held that a takeover agreement with share allotment and consistent asset treatment establishes ownership for the corporate debtor even without a registered sale deed, preventing the transferor from reclaiming possession during CIRP.

NCLAT held that directors who invested in illiquid, non-traded shares during imminent insolvency without due diligence were liable under Section 66(2) IBC and could be ordered to personally contribute to the liquidation estate.

NCLAT held that a Resolution Professional may terminate leave and licence agreements with one-month notice under Section 60(5) IBC and that the Adjudicating Authority may order eviction and recovery of dues despite objections under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

NCLAT held that illegal possession of corporate debtor assets does not prevent initiation of CIRP, and a Financial Creditor’s Section 7 application remains maintainable despite partial payments or asset occupation by others.

NCLAT ruled that Section 9 IBC applications cannot be maintained for defaults during the Section 10A suspension period and that Adjudicating Authorities lack power to modify default dates without a formal amendment by the applicant.

NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority cannot replace a Resolution Professional as liquidator without a specific IBBI recommendation, and a general advisory letter cannot serve as valid grounds for such action.

NCLAT ruled that EPFO’s delayed provident fund claim, initiated during the IBC moratorium without a valid Section 7A order, was unenforceable and refused to allow modification of the approved resolution plan to include such claims.

Delhi High Court ruled that an Insolvency Professional breaching IBC norms through excess fees, unapproved outsourcing, and delayed filings faces disciplinary suspension and recovery of improper payments.

NCLAT Chennai ruled that under Section 33(2) of the IBC, the Committee of Creditors’ decision to liquidate is conclusive and beyond judicial review after liquidation and creation of third-party rights.