The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached ₹1,885 crore in assets linked to Reliance Anil Ambani Group entities in ongoing bank fraud and fund diversion investigations, taking cumulative attachments close to ₹12,000 crore.

The Supreme Court clarified that the NCLT has no jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to adjudicate trademark ownership or disputed intellectual property rights outside the CIRP. It was held that transactions cannot be invalidated without a specific statutory avoidance application and that any declaration beyond an approved resolution plan amounts to an impermissible judicial modification, reaffirming the limited and insolvency-centr

REEDLAW Legal News Network | Published on: 16 January 2026 | 🔗 Find Shareable Link at the End The REEDLAW Legal News Network reports: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), on 16 January 2026, published the updated panel of Insolvency Professional Entities (IPEs) and Insolvency Professionals (IPs) for appointment as Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs), Resolution Professionals (RPs), Liquidators, and Bankruptcy Trustees (BTs) under the Insolvency and B

The Supreme Court held that once insolvency begins, the IRP alone represents the Corporate Debtor in criminal cases, barred parallel proceedings, and protected the accused from custodial detention after filing of the charge sheet.

The Delhi High Court clarified that Article 226 cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence in disciplinary matters and upheld strict standards of accountability for Insolvency Professionals.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that admission of a Section 7 application is mandatory once debt and default are proved, restricting the Vidarbha discretion strictly to exceptional circumstances and restoring certainty to IBC jurisprudence.

The NCLAT held that once a Resolution Plan is approved, its terms attain finality and no creditor, including a dissenting secured creditor, can seek belated modification of its distribution.

The Supreme Court ruled that a promoter’s undertaking to infuse funds is not a guarantee under Section 126 of the Contract Act and cannot sustain a Section 7 IBC application without an express promise to discharge the debtor’s liability.

The NCLAT held that a Section 9 application could not be dismissed under Section 10A where post-exclusion operational debt independently met the IBC threshold, requiring adjudication on merits.

NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority cannot insert new or unapproved terms while approving a resolution plan, holding that unauthorised equity restructuring violates the jurisdictional limits under the IBC.