The proposed IBC amendments aim to strengthen revival mechanisms by permitting partial asset sales and granting insolvency tribunals a 120-day second opportunity for resolution after the expiry of the 330-day statutory limit, thereby prioritising business continuity over liquidation.

The Bombay High Court held that, after the amalgamation of a non-banking financial company with a bank, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over pending recovery suits, applying a purposive interpretation of Section 31 of the RDB Act.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the IBC, the limitation for filing an appeal before the NCLAT starts from the date of pronouncement of the NCLT order, and that appeals filed without a certified copy or timely condonation are defective and time-barred.

NCLAT has reaffirmed that Section 95 IBC applications must be filed within three years from the issuance of the recovery certificate, under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and that the twelve-year limitation for suits does not apply to insolvency matters.

The NCLAT reaffirmed the absolute discretion of the Committee of Creditors to adopt or forego the Swiss Challenge Mechanism under the IBC and RFRP, validating its non-justiciable commercial approval of a compliant resolution plan.