NCLAT upheld that consent terms signed post-mediation are enforceable, rejecting later claims of coercion or incomplete annexures, reinforcing the binding nature of settlements in company disputes.

A Section 9 CIRP petition was ruled non-maintainable where dispute existed over invoice reconciliations and appropriation of payments, as insolvency cannot adjudicate contested claims.

The Appellate Tribunal held that delayed payment of confirmed auction consideration in liquidation attracts mandatory interest and bidders cannot seek exemption after accepting “as-is-where-is” sale conditions.

NCLAT, New Delhi upheld CIRP under Section 9 IBC, ruling that advance payment for undelivered goods constitutes operational debt, and the absence of pre-existing dispute validates insolvency proceedings.

Executing unsecured high-value transactions during ongoing insolvency, without reasonable expectation of recovery and contrary to commercial prudence, was held to constitute fraudulent and wrongful trading under Section 66 IBC.

The appellate tribunal clarified that bankruptcy proceedings against a personal guarantor cannot be allowed to continue merely for failure to file a repayment plan, particularly where parties mutually extend time to file a compliant proposal. Any earlier admission under Section 123 must be recalled, and the process must revert to the statutory stage under Section 106 IBC.

The appellate tribunal held that disputed receivables cannot be enforced in liquidation through summary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC. It clarified that financial statement entries do not constitute admission of liability, requiring the Liquidator to pursue contractual or judicial remedies.

The Appellate Tribunal held that Section 7 claims cannot rely on RP acknowledgments from prior CIRP to revive limitation. Limitation is calculated from the statutory default date, and petitions filed beyond this period remain time-barred.

The Appellate Tribunal held that Rule 11 jurisdiction cannot be used to recall an order decided on merits, as inherent powers extend only to correcting procedural lapses such as lack of notice or fraud.

The Appellate Tribunal held that the IBBI’s 18.07.2023 letter cannot supersede Section 34 IBC and that an RP has no vested right to be appointed as liquidator, rendering mid-process replacement unwarranted when liquidation has advanced with CoC backing.