The Supreme Court held that security-interest registration under Section 23 gives Section 26E priority over all dues, but provident fund liabilities legally retain first-charge status and must be discharged before allocation of sale proceeds to secured debt.

DRAT Allahabad held that a guarantor who executed the guarantee cannot deny liability without producing contrary evidence.

The outgoing Chief Justice of India disclosed that a retired High Court Chief Justice had attempted to influence a judicial member of the NCLAT in a corporate matter. As the implicated judge retired before a formal inquiry could be commenced, the issue has been placed before the new CJI Surya Kant for administrative action.

The Supreme Court clarified that Chartered Accountants cannot be required to possess 25 years of experience to be eligible for appointment as Technical Members in tribunals, declaring the requirement unconstitutional and extending parity with earlier rulings concerning advocates.

The Kerala High Court held that a pre-deposit under Section 18 SARFAESI cannot exceed the auction value of the concerned asset and that any reduction from the mandatory 50% threshold must be supported by written reasons.

The Allahabad High Court held that an auction purchaser buying property on an ‘as is where is’ basis assumes full responsibility for undisclosed liabilities and cannot seek relief for society dues discovered after the sale.

Kerala High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable in SARFAESI matters where an effective remedy before the DRT exists under Section 17.

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 17(5) of the SARFAESI Act, DRTs must dispose of securitisation applications within sixty days, extendable to four months with recorded reasons, and directed strict compliance with the statutory timeline.

RBI’s 15-day banking rule mandates all banks to process key requests and claim settlements within 15 calendar days, strengthening transparency, accountability, and customer trust.

NCLAT held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to extend limitation for a Section 7 IBC application where prior DRT proceedings were validly instituted, rendering such applications time-barred.