NCLAT held that statutory notices sent to the last known address are presumed valid under Section 27 and affirmed the permissibility of simultaneous insolvency proceedings against corporate debtors and their personal guarantors.and affirmed the permissibility of simultaneous insolvency proceedings against corporate debtors and their personal guarantors.

NCLAT confirmed that dissenting financial creditors are entitled to receive their entire liquidation value upfront and in priority over assenting creditors if provided in the resolution plan.upfront and in priority over assenting creditors if provided in the resolution plan.

NCLAT held that an appeal against NCLT’s directions on liquidator remuneration becomes infructuous once the SCC fixes the fees, leaving no cause for further adjudication.

NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can enforce an MSME Act arbitral award during CIRP under Section 60(5) of the IBC, overriding objections under the Arbitration Act.

NCLAT ruled that once a loan amount is disbursed to a corporate debtor, lenders cannot claim ownership, as such funds become part of the debtor’s assets under CIRP.

NCLAT held that CoC exclusively determines CIRP fees and expenses, and once approved, subsequent challenges are barred, reinforcing CoC’s autonomy under IBC.

NCLAT held that delay in implementing an approved resolution plan justifies PBG encashment and CIRP revival, reinforcing timely compliance as a core IBC mandate.

NCLAT held that a Section 7 IBC petition is invalid if based on a loan assignment that breaches RBI guidelines, rendering the financial debt claim unenforceable.

NCLAT held that after CIRP begins, withdrawal under Section 12A cannot rely on a settlement with a single creditor if other admitted claims exist, emphasising CoC’s supremacy.

NCLAT ruled that a Section 9 IBC petition is inadmissible if the default falls during the Section 10A bar period and recalculated claims fall below ₹1 crore; continuing CIRP after settlement is misuse.