The NCLAT ruled that while Regulation 39(1A) bars a resolution professional from unilaterally modifying a plan, it does not restrict the CoC’s authority to seek multiple revisions before approval, affirming the primacy of its commercial wisdom.

The NCLAT held that a Section 9 IBC application is barred when substantive pre-existing disputes exist over defective goods, as demonstrated through communications, warranty obligations, and an indemnity bond, reaffirming the Mobilox test.

The NCLAT ruled that recall of a CoC inclusion order cannot be sought on the basis of publicly available documents unless there is demonstrable fraud, and that related party status must meet the strict evidentiary standard under Section 5(24) of the IBC.

NCLAT held that a delay by the liquidator in communicating asset details may justify relaxation of the mandatory 90-day timeline under Regulation 21A of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations.

NCLAT ruled that CIRP cost contributions require mandatory CoC approval with 66% voting, and cannot be imposed without a valid resolution under the IBC.

NCLAT clarified that a resolution applicant cannot be disqualified under Section 29A of the IBC solely due to an advisory association with an allegedly ineligible person, especially in the absence of any concrete disqualification or NPA record.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a director of a company under liquidation has no legal standing to challenge recovery actions, and clarified that MSME revival schemes cannot override statutory frameworks under SARFAESI and the IBC.

NCLAT ruled that Section 9 IBC proceedings are barred when operational debt liability is disputed and tied to third-party certification or reconciliation.

NCLAT upheld the admission of a Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantors and clarified that objections related to ECLGS must be resolved by the Resolution Professional during the repayment plan formulation process.

The Supreme Court held that fabricated resignations and questionable share transfers cannot oust rightful shareholders. Upholding NCLAT’s order, it ruled such acts constitute oppression and mismanagement, affirming the importance of continuous cause of action in such disputes.