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.

NCLT New Delhi dismissed a Section 9 petition, holding that a security amount provided for performance under a commercial agreement is not operational debt and Section 9 petitions are maintainable only if debt meets operational and statutory threshold criteria.

Post-CIRP transfer of a Corporate Debtor’s vehicle through registration change based on a sham pre-CIRP agreement was held void ab initio, with the NCLT reiterating the absolute bar imposed by Section 14(1)(b) of the IBC and warning of penal consequences for suspended directors.

NCLAT confirmed that principal borrower’s acknowledgment extends limitation for Section 7 proceedings against corporate guarantors, overriding prior limitation bar and COVID-19 exclusion.

A redevelopment agreement terminated before CIRP does not survive as an asset of the corporate debtor, and Section 14 moratorium cannot be used to revive extinguished contractual rights or block statutory redevelopment approvals.

Initiation of a company-wide CIRP against a real estate developer is legally unsustainable where the debt and default arise from a single project, NCLAT holds, reiterating that project-wise insolvency remains the governing norm under the IBC.

The Appellate Tribunal held that a private sale conducted through a Swiss Challenge process during liquidation is unsustainable in the absence of prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority and where the process is structured with unreasonable timelines and restrictive EMD conditions that stifle competition.

The Supreme Court directed the transfer of a pending NCLAT company appeal to the Principal Bench to ensure fair and expeditious adjudication. Broader administrative and public-interest concerns raised in a writ petition were treated as a representation for the Chief Justice of India’s consideration.

Kerala High Court held that once a Section 7 or 10 application is admitted, the NCLT must appoint the proposed IRP under Section 16(2) IBC if statutory eligibility is satisfied, and cannot reject appointment merely due to multiple assignments.

NCLAT held that once a resolution plan authorises the CoC to pursue avoidance applications, a suspended director has no locus to oppose substitution of the Resolution Professional, and no separate hearing is required.