SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col Gautam Mullick and Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No.13628 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 37
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld insolvency proceedings against two closely linked real estate companies, holding that a single insolvency petition can be maintained against multiple corporate entities under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the companies are intrinsically linked in the same project.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed appeals filed by the erstwhile directors of Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited and Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited, affirming the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal admitting the insolvency petition.
Case Title : Lotus 300 Apartment Owners Association vs IndusInd Bank
Case Number : Diary No(s).35516/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 40
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process against Hacienda Projects Private Ltd, the developer of the Lotus 300 housing project at Sector 107, Noida. It issued notice in appeals filed by the Lotus 300 Apartment Owners' Association challenging orders of the National Company Law Appellate tribunal.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing appeals by IndusInd Bank Ltd, which had claimed a default of about Rs. 33 crores.
Case Title : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) EPFO v. Chandra Prakash Jain
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 14819 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 43
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, declining to interfere with a ruling of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on the treatment of claims in liquidation.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran said it found “no good ground and reason” to interfere with the NCLAT judgment dated September 24, 2024. The dispute arose from the liquidation of Khushi Foods Limited, which began on October 9, 2019.
Supreme Court Dismisses Law Firm's ₹1.08-Crore Claim Against Insolvency-Bound Realty Company
Case Title : Juristica Legal Services LLP v. Three C Universal Developers Private Limited Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 13486 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 45
The Supreme Court of India has recently dismissed an appeal by a law firm seeking to recover more than Rs 1 crore in unpaid legal fees from a realty company undergoing insolvency, declining to interfere with findings that the claim was not backed by the record.
The appeal was filed by Juristica Legal Services LLP against Three C Universal Developers Private Limited, which is undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that the NCLAT had “not committed any error in law or fact” and dismissed the appeal.
Case : EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others |W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025
Case Title : Transcon Skycity Pvt Ltd vs Anchor Point Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No.10114/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 49
The Supreme Court of India has recently recorded a comprehensive settlement between Transcon Skycity Pvt. Ltd. and Anchor Point Developers Pvt. Ltd., bringing to an end a prolonged insolvency dispute arising out of a stalled real estate project.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan noted that the mediation conducted by former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka was successful and that a comprehensive mediation report had been submitted and taken on record.
Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Entrusting NBCC To Complete Stalled Supertech Housing Projects
Case Title : Apex Height Pvt Ltd vs Ram Kishore Arora & Ors
Case Number : C.A. No. 2626 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 54
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a batch of appeals challenging directions issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to involve NBCC (India) Ltd for completion of stalled housing projects of Supertech Ltd, declining to interfere with the appellate tribunal's approach.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the NCLAT's decision in evolving a mechanism to protect the interests of homebuyers and ensure completion of long-delayed projects did not warrant any interference.
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1810/2021
The Supreme Court on Friday held that the ownership and control of telecom spectrum cannot be determined by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code since it is a common good.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the spectrum is a material resource of the community in the constitutional sense. It said the spectrum must benefit the common good, so its control has to be secured for the citizens.
Case Title : B Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India and Anr
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 64
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the manner in which a bank classifies a loan as a non-performing asset for accounting or provisioning purposes does not determine the starting point of limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, particularly where the debt has been restructured and acknowledged in fresh agreements.
A Division Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended Managing Director of Metal Closure Pvt Ltd and upheld the maintainability of insolvency proceedings initiated by a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India.
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1810 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 63
The Supreme Court on Friday held that mere treatment of telecom spectrum as an “intangible asset” in the financial statements of telecom service providers (TSPs) does not bring it within the sweep of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), observing that spectrum remains a natural resource held by the Union of India in public trust.
“Merely because spectrum can be treated as an 'asset' on the basis of certain attributes, such as possession and usage, lease and assignment, claim and liability or credit and debt, it does not follow that ownership vests in the licensee or that such rights can be dealt with under the IBC as assets of the corporate debtor,” the Court observed.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar was dealing with a batch of appeals arising from insolvency proceedings involving Aircel Ltd, Aircel Cellular Ltd and Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
IBC Cannot Override Telecom Laws Governing Spectrum Trading and Licence Dues: Supreme Court
Case Title : State Bank of India v Union of India and Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1810 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 63
The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be invoked to override the statutory framework governing telecom spectrum, ruling that spectrum trading conditions and licence dues mandated under telecom laws must be honoured notwithstanding insolvency proceedings.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar framing the key issue observed, “The question for our consideration is whether telecom service providers (TSPs), called upon to pay the license dues by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) can invoke moratorium on the basis of voluntary corporate insolvency resolution process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for restructuring of their assets. The asset in question is the Spectrum allocated to the TSPs through auction.”
S. 7 IBC | Corporate Debtor's Inability To Pay Not Relevant For CIRP Plea Admission: Supreme Court
Case Title : Power Trust (Promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) v. Bhuvan Madan (Interim Resolution Professional of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2211/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 73
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reaffirmed that the Adjudicating Authority cannot refuse to admit a financial creditor's plea under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on the ground of the corporate debtor's inability to pay.
The only question at the admission stage is whether a financial debt exists and whether there has been a default. The inability of the corporate debtor to pay is not required to be examined at this stage.
Dismissing an appeal filed by Power Trust, promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd., a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi clarified the limited scope of inquiry under the Code.
Byju's CoC Moves Supreme Court After NCLAT Refuses Impleadment In GLAS Trust Removal Plea
Today, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Byju's parent company Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, moved the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 24 February 2026.
On 24 February, the NCLAT had held that although the CoC may litigate in its own name under the IBC, it was not a necessary party to the plea seeking removal of GLAS Trust and accordingly upheld the Bengaluru National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) 26 August 2025 order dismissing the CoC's impleadment application.
Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Under Companies Act Cannot Stall IBC Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited. Versus Amit Chaturvedi and Ors. Case Number : C.A. 11417 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 87
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be kept in abeyance on the basis of a Scheme of Arrangement that has become redundant and inoperative for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court reiterated that once the statutory requirements of Section 7 are met, insolvency must proceed notwithstanding any parallel company law proceedings.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran framed the core issue as whether pendency of proceedings relating to a Scheme of Arrangement before the High Court could justify keeping a CIRP in abeyance.
NCLT, NCLAT Cannot Nullify Benami Act Confiscation In IBC Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title : S. Rajendran vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors Case Number : C.A. 7142 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 86
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that insolvency tribunals cannot nullify confiscation of property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, ruling that once property is confiscated under Section 27, it vests absolutely in the Central Government and falls outside the liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed appeals filed by liquidators who had sought to challenge attachment proceedings initiated under the Benami Act, holding that the IBC does not provide an indirect route to question sovereign action validly undertaken under a penal statute.
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against NCLAT Order Rejecting Insolvency Plea Against Voltas
Case Title : Air Wave Technocrafts Pvt Ltd vs Voltas Ltd
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 84
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision dismissing the insolvency plea filed by Air Wave Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd against Voltas Ltd, a Tata Group company engaged in air-conditioning and engineering services.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the civil appeal arising out of the NCLAT judgment of November 27, 2025, which had refused to admit insolvency against Voltas for for an operational debt of over Rs 1.20 crores.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With NCLAT Order Upholding CIRP Against Kirtiman Cements
Case Title : Jatinder Oberoi v. Narendra Singh Chhabra & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal 731-733 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 94
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment upholding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kirtiman Cements and Packaging Industries Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the Civil Appeal filed under Section 62 of the IBC, stating that it was not inclined to interfere with the NCLAT's judgment dated 17 December 2025.
Case Title : The CoC of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd vs Riju Raveendran & Ors
Case Number : C.A. 2594/2026
The Supreme Court of India on Friday continued NCLAT's interim direction restraining the NCLT from passing final orders in the plea before NCLT Bengaluru seeking removal of GLAS Trust from the Committee of Creditors of ed-tech Byju's parent Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd., while issuing notice on the CoC's appeal against rejection of its impleadment application.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued notice on the appeal and directed, “Court is directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The interim order earlier granted by NCLAT shall continue to operate till the next date of hearing.”
Courts Must Remain Vigilant Against Expanding 'Narrow Boundaries' Of IBC Review: Supreme Court
Case Title : Torrent Power Ltd vs Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors
Case Number : C.A. 11746/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 96
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s (SEML) resolution plan for SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd., cautioning courts against expanding judicial review under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Affirming the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order, which had upheld the National Company Law Tribunal's approval of the plan, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stressed that the IBC prioritises speed and commercial wisdom over prolonged litigation.
Supreme Court Refuses To Frame Guidelines On Parallel Insolvency Against Borrower and Guarantor
Case Title : ICICI Bank Ltd vs ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO.6094 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 92
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that while simultaneous Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRPs) against principal borrowers and corporate guarantors are legally permissible, it will not frame additional judicial guidelines regulating such proceedings, leaving any reform to Parliament and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals arising from orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had either rejected or permitted initiation of CIRP against principal borrowers and corporate guarantors for the same debt.
HIGH COURT
Case Title : Vikas Prakash Gupta v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and Anr. Case Number : W.P.(C) 8974/2025 and CM APPL.38317/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 125
Holding that prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings had already caused serious prejudice, the Delhi High Court has reduced a one-year suspension imposed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on insolvency professional Vikas Prakash Gupta to the period already undergone.
Justice Sachin Datta underscored that “Administrative authorities are required to act within a reasonable period, and any prolonged delay must be justified by cogent reasons.”
Liquidator Can Defend Pending Civil Suits Filed Before Liquidation Under IBC: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Anupam Dikshit v. S.Kumars Nationwide Limited
Case Number : Writ Petition No.5393 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 68
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a liquidator can be impleaded and can defend a civil suit instituted prior to the commencement of liquidation proceedings, observing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not bar the continuation of such pending suits.
“Since Liquidator can sue, I do not see any reason why Liquidator cannot defend an action on behalf of the corporate debtor” Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed.
Case Title : West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs Eastern Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. (In Liqn.)
Case Number : APO/141/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 48
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of a single judge of the court's original side, which upheld the official liquidator's decision treating the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (WBIDC) as an unsecured creditor in the liquidation of Eastern Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. The Court held that once charge documents were submitted prior to adjudication of claims, the official liquidator was bound to consider WBIDC as a secured creditor.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi heard the appeal arising from a single judge's order dated September 18, 2019.
Case Title : Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd vs Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd & Ors
Case Number : OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 237/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS). 92/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 150
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that once a decree holder lodges its claim arising out of an arbitral award before the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), it cannot pursue parallel execution proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A single bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling in a petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd, seeking enforcement of an arbitral award dated November 12, 2021 against Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd, while also seeking to proceed against its group entities at the execution stage.
Municipal Dues Cannot Be Recovered From Auction Purchaser After IBC Liquidation: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Mamta Binani & Anr. vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : WPO 2435 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
The Calcutta High Court has held that once liquidation proceedings commence under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, municipal dues must be dealt with strictly within the framework of the Code and cannot be enforced independently against auction purchasers through contractual clauses such as “as is where is” or “whatever there is."
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay examined whether the Kolkata Municipal Corporation could retrospectively revalue a property and levy tax for periods prior to its purchase in liquidation proceedings.
'Ruse To Exploit Mill Land': Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Revive Swadeshi Mills
Case Title : Grand View Estates Private Limited v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors
Case Number : I.A No. 6953 of 2025 in Company Petition No.385 of 2002
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 91
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed an application filed by Grand View Estates Pvt Ltd seeking a stay of winding up proceedings and revival of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd, holding that the proposal was not a genuine attempt to revive the textile company but an effort to exploit its valuable mill land for real estate development.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the revival plan was “nothing but a ruse to obtain the valuable land for exploitation in real estate market. At the core of the dispute lies 45 acres of land in the heart of city of Mumbai located in prime residential and commercial area which would command astronomical price given the potential of the property for development. The manner in which the Applicant has attempted to lay its hands on this valuable property of the company in liquidation leaves much to be desired,”
NCLAT
BREAKING | NCLAT Upholds NCLT Order, Rejects Actor Akshay Kumar's Insolvency Plea Against Cue Learn
Case Title : Akshay Kumar Bhatia v Cue Learn Private Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.454 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 31
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on Friday upheld an NCLT order refusing to start insolvency proceedings against Cue Learn Private Limited over a payment dispute arising from an endorsement deal with actor Akshay Kumar Bhatia.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey agreed that the disagreement between the parties could not be resolved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : V. Nagarajan v. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Case Number : IA No. 30/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 14 of 2022 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 30
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has dismissed an appeal filed by the liquidator of Cethar Limited, refusing to excuse a 495-day delay in amending an avoidance application filed during a company's insolvency proceedings.
The tribunal held that the delay amounted to “gross negligence” and could not be condoned by relying on Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a provision that allows courts to extend procedural timelines but limits such extension to 30 days.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain ruled that this power cannot override Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, which requires amendments to pleadings to be carried out within 14 days when no specific time is fixed.
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Admission Against Karanja Terminal Over ₹330 Crore Default
Case Title : Brig. Vikram Singh v. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1928-1931 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 29
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has upheld the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Karanja Terminal & Logistics Private Limited, a port operator, after rejecting its claim that a proposed settlement with lenders had stalled insolvency action.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra agreed with the National Company Law Tribunal that the corporate insolvency resolution process was rightly admitted.
Case Title : Subrata Sardar, Suspended Director of Vivek Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and Vivek Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.45 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 35
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently observed that a corporate guarantor cannot avoid insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by describing its guarantee obligation as a “contingent liability” in its balance sheets.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey.
Case Title : National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 532 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 36
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently held that receivables from refinance transactions extended by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) are third-party assets held in trust and cannot form part of the borrower's insolvency estate.
A coram of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that NABARD's statutory rights under Section 29 of the NABARD Act are not waived merely because it filed its claim in Form-C during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
NCLAT Closes Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against IRP After Accepting His Unconditional Apology
Case Title : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal v. Anil Kumar Khicha
Case Number : Contempt No. 1/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 37
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai, has closed contempt proceedings against an Interim Resolution Professional who “sat over” the tribunal's interim stay order and proceeded despite it, after accepting his unconditional apology.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain, in its order dated January 29, 2026, recorded that it had earlier directed that “the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 was directed to be kept in abeyance.”
Case Title : Puro Natural Sugars JV v. Shree Warana Sahakari Bank Ltd and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1003 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 38
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that once an approved resolution plan expressly extinguished securities and attachments of personal guarantors and attained finality, dissenting financial creditors could not continue recovery proceedings against such assets.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra allowed an appeal filed by Puro Natural Sugars JV and deleted portions of a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order that had restricted the scope of release of guarantor and third-party assets.
Case Title : IndusInd Bank Limited and Link Intime India Private Limited v Mrs. Neetu R. Menda
Case Number : CP (AT) /38/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 39
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the restoration of 5,000 equity shares of IndusInd Bank to their original holder, holding that the bank and its Registrar and Transfer Agent acted negligently in issuing duplicate share certificates to a third party.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra observed, “We note that the Appellant was negligent and had not followed the due procedure in issue of duplicate share certificates. The registered shareholder was nevour kept in the loop and was never informed. As per the law and guidelines prescribed, the duplicate share certificate could have been issued only to the registered shareholder, and not to any body else.”
Case Title : Maheshkumar Bachubhai Patel V Shubh Cottom & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1856/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 40
Holding that the claim was not time barred and that all the invoices had to be considered for determining the statutory threshold, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the admission of insolvency proceedings against Rajeshwari Cotspin Ltd.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “Thus, threshold has to be determined on basis of the invoices taking all the invoices and cannot confine to only last invoice of Rs. 19 lakhs.”
Case Title : Akshay Kumar Rout V Indo Laminates Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1455/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 41
Holding that the purchase of stamp paper and subsequent execution of a loan agreement cannot be any relevant consideration for rejecting a CIRP plea, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has set aside the dismissal of an insolvency plea.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the stamp paper was purchased on 12.02.2025 and agreement was executed on 01.03.2025 can not be any relevant consideration for rejecting Section 7 application. Observations in Para 23 and 24, as noted above, can not be basis for rejection of the application.”
Case Title : Chandresh Jajoo v Vikas Garg
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1713/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 42 To Read th
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that the issue of formation and determination of opinion by a resolution professional in respect of preferential, undervalued, extortionate, and fraudulent (PUFE) transactions cannot be examined at the threshold level on a stand-alone basis while the avoidance applications are pending consideration before the adjudicating authority.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed,
“We are of the considered view that the issue of formation of opinion and determination of opinion on PUFE transactions cannot be examined at the threshold level on a stand-alone basis dehors the avoidance applications.”
Case Title : Pink Rose Chemicals Pvt. Ltd & Ors Vs Premraj Ramratan Laddha & Ors Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2215/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 43
An ex parte order passed without issuing notice cannot be sustained, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held, setting aside a Mumbai NCLT order that had allowed a preferential transaction application in the liquidation of Euro Ceramics Ltd.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka said that omission to direct notice is larger than some procedural breach.
NCLAT Affirms NCLT New Delhi Order Rejecting Insolvency Plea Against Bajaj Appliances
Case Title : T.J. Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Bajaj Appliances Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1707 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 44
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently dismissed an insolvency plea against Bajaj Appliances Ltd., holding that a pre-existing dispute barred initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka upheld the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi's October 18, 2023, order rejecting the application filed by T.J. Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : Pragiti Construction V Committee of Creditor and Rajeev Ranjan Singh
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2330/2024 and 2331/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 45
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that a resolution applicant who is not a financial creditor cannot vote on and approve its own resolution plan, declaring such approval void ab initio as it violates Section 30(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey.
CoC Members Entitled Only To Fair And Liquidation Value, Not Full Valuation Reports: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 23/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 46
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has recently observed that a resolution professional is not required to share full valuation reports with lenders (CoC) during insolvency proceedings. The tribunal referred to Regulation 35(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which provides that after receipt of resolution plans, the resolution professional shall provide the fair value and the liquidation value to members of the Committee of Creditors after obtaining confidentiality undertakings. It held that the regulation does not mandate disclosure of the complete valuation reports.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed an appeal filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited.
Case Title : Mukul Somany Vs DBS Bank Ltd &Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 999/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 47
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently set aside the NCLT Kolkata's order admitting DBS Bank's Section 95 application against Mukul Somany, a personal guarantor of Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd, holding that the bank had not invoked the guarantee before initiating insolvency proceedings.
Limitation For IBC Appeal Runs From Pronouncement Date, Not Knowledge: NCLAT Dismisses CIRP Appeal
Case Title : Lalremsiem Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd
Case Number : 05.02.2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 48
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a private company as time-barred. It held that the limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, not from the date of knowledge.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed:
“For counting the statutory period of 30 days for filing the appeal, the same is to be counted from the day after the date of pronouncement of the impugned order. The date of knowledge of impugned order is immaterial for limitation computation.”
Authorisation, Stamping, and IU Defects Cannot Block Insolvency Petition: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title : Vinodkumar Nihalchand Parmar Vs Anuj Bajpai and Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1395/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 49
On 6 February, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi held that defects in authorisation, stamping, and Information Utility records cannot invalidate a Section 7 insolvency petition when the debt and default are acknowledged by the corporate debtor.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed the appeal of Vinodkumar Nihalchand Parmar, which challenged an NCLT Mumbai Bench order admitting the petition filed by Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. against Dee Plone Polyster Pvt Ltd.
Case Title : Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd Vs Padhe Constructions Pvt Ltd Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2372/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 50
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside an order of the NCLT Mumbai bench that had dismissed a CIRP plea filed by Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd against Pandhe Constructions Pvt Ltd as time-barred.
The appellate tribunal held that the NCLT misapplied the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation directions and failed to properly consider acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed:
“Therefore, the aforesaid factual and legal position would suggest that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 3 of 2020 in its correct prospective and has also failed to take into cognizance Section 18 of the Limitation Act as also the averments made by the financial creditor with regard to acknowledgment of debt by principal borrower, which has been duly recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in para 2.7 of the impugned order.”
Case Title : Jasvinder Singh Makan Vs Anish Kumar Sanghi
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2025/2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 735/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 51
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld an order holding that payments of Rs.19.66 lakh made to a suspended director of a company were preferential transactions under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Dismissing two appeals filed by Jasvinder Singh Makan, the tribunal said repayment of unsecured loans to a director during financial distress cannot be treated as a routine business transaction.
"Repayment of unsecured loans to a director at a time, when the Corporate Debtor was facing financial difficulty, and when a secured financial creditor had substantial outstanding dues, cannot be regarded as a routine business transaction. By receiving these payments, the Appellant clearly obtained a benefit which he would not have received in the same manner in the event of liquidation under Section 53 of the Code. We therefore are of the view that such transactions cannot be classified as ordinary business transaction" the bench of Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed.
Case Title : Religare Finvest Limited Vs Strategic Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 398/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 53
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently dismissed an appeal filed by Religare Finvest Limited against the National Company Law Tribunal's order rejecting its Section 7 insolvency plea against Strategic Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey held that insolvency proceedings cannot be initiated against a Financial Service Provider.
NCLAT Condones 3-Day Delay In Filing Appeal As NCLT Order Uploaded Eight Months After Pronouncement
Case Title : Pranav Varshney v. A. Viswanadha Sarma, RP (for Unibera Developers Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2031 of 2025 & I.A. No. 7931 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 52
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has condoned a delay in filing an appeal against an order passed in an interlocutory application after noting that the National Company Law Tribunal's order was uploaded nearly eight months after it was pronounced, and that the delay attributable to the appellant was only three days.
The order in an application filed in the insolvency proceedings of Unibera Developers Private Limited was pronounced by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, on March 11, 2025 but was uploaded on the tribunal website only on November 6, 2025. The appeal was filed on 9 November 2025.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey allowed the condonation application filed by Pranav Varshney.
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited Vs Roadwings International Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 46/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 54
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has recently held that the power of attorney issued to an officer of Srei Equipment Finance Limited to initiate and defend legal proceedings, including proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, remained valid despite the discharge of its administrator.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said, “In the present case, it therefore follows that the Administrator having issued POA to Sohan Jha and the POA having been ratified both by the IMC and the fresh Board of Directors, actions taken by the POA holder cannot be said be suffer from irregularities on grounds of lack of valid authorisation.”
Case Title : Harish Kumar Mittal Vs State Bank of India and Rajas Shreeram Bodas
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2363/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 55
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the admission of a personal insolvency petition filed by State Bank of India (SBI) against former Mercator Limited director Harish Kumar Mittal over dues of Rs. 236.19 crore, holding that his objection that his reply affidavit was not taken on record did not establish a violation of natural justice.
A three-member bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed Mittal's appeal against the order of the NCLT, Mumbai which had admitted the petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Rainbow Papers Ruling Not Ground To Reopen Approved Resolution Plan Over Belated Tax Dues: NCLAT
Case Title : State Tax Officer Vs Hasti Mal Kachhara & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1275/2023 & 1276/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 59
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has observed that the Supreme Court's ruling in Sales Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited does not permit reopening of an approved resolution plan at the instance of a government department that failed to challenge the rejection of its claim at the appropriate stage. In Rainbow Papers, the Supreme Court had held that statutory government dues could qualify as secured debts and could not be ignored in a resolution plan.
Dismissing twin appeals filed by the State Tax Officer, a Bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka underlined that finality of an approved resolution plan cannot be unsettled merely because the claim relates to government dues.
Case Title : Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. Vs Riju Ravindran & Ors Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) 475/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 60
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has held that a Committee of Creditors (CoC) can litigate in its own name under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, even though it does not possess juristic personality in the classical sense. The ruling came in proceedings involving Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of edtech firm Byju's.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain observed, “Therefore, since CoC is a statutory body and a decision- making entity, to deny it it's legal existence for all purposes merely because it is neither a juristic person might be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
NCLAT Directs YG Estates To Hand Over Supertech Ecociti, 34 Pavilion Maintenance To RWAs In 30 Days
Case Title : Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association v. Hitesh Goel (IRP) of Supertech Limited & Anr.
Case Number : I.A. No. 5459 of 2025 In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 406 of 2022 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 61
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently directed YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. to hand over maintenance of Supertech's Ecociti and 34 Pavilion projects in Noida to their registered apartment owners' associations within 30 days.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that since 99 percent of the homebuyers had taken possession and the associations were duly registered under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act, maintenance must be transferred under Section 14(5).
Direct Disbursement To Corporate Debtor Not Mandatory To Qualify As Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Vistra ITCL (India) Limited Vs Vithal Madhukar Dahake & 2 Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1110/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 62
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Tuesday observed that direct disbursement of funds to a corporate debtor is not mandatory for a debt to qualify as a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha observed,
“We carefully observe that the Section does not use the word “to the Corporate Debtor” after word “disbursed”. From the statutory language, the essential ingredients of financial debt are Existence of a debt, Disbursement of money, Consideration for time value of money and Commercial effect of borrowing.”
NCLAT Refuses To Condone Delay In Appeal; Limitation Starts From Pronouncement, Not Uploading
Case Title : RP for Trading Engineers International Ltd. Versus Uttrakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1475 of 2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 63
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has rejected an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an insolvency appeal by the Resolution Professional of Trading Engineers International Ltd., holding that in the facts of the case limitation commenced from the date the order was pronounced in open court and not from the date it was uploaded on the NCLT website.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra found that the National Company Law Tribunal's order dated June 11, 2025 had been pronounced in open court in the presence of the appellant and his counsel. The appeal was e-filed on August 28, 2025.
NCLAT Allows AMNS To Replace ArcelorMittal India In ₹1,300 Crore Essar Steel RTU Appeal
Case Title : ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No.1951 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1038 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 65
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has allowed ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited to be transposed as the appellant in a pending appeal arising from the Rs 1,300 crore Right to Use charges dispute linked to the Essar Steel insolvency resolution process.
The company will replace ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd., the original successful resolution applicant, in the proceedings. The tribunal clarified that the transposition will be subject to the applicant assuming all liabilities under the challenged order.
NCLAT Dismisses Dhoot Brothers' Plea, Upholds Insolvency Proceedings As Videocon Guarantors
Case Title : Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot Versus State Bank Of India
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1443 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 66
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed appeals filed by Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot and Pradeep Nandlal Dhoot, brothers of Videocon founder Venugopal Dhoot, clearing the way for insolvency proceedings against them in their capacity as personal guarantors to debt-ridden Videocon Industries Ltd.
A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that the applications moved by the State Bank of India under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were filed within limitation. The tribunal noted that the guarantees had been invoked in 2018 and the insolvency proceedings were initiated within three years of that invocation.
Case Title : Mosco International Commodities Private Limited Versus SBEC Sugar Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 860 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 67
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the dismissal of a Section 9 insolvency plea against SBEC Sugar Limited, holding that the Rs 1 Crore threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be satisfied on the date of filing the petition and not on the date of issuing the demand notice.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by Mosco International Commodities Private Limited after finding that the operational debt had fallen below Rs 1 Crore on the initiation date, that is, the date the Section 9 CIRP plea was filed.
120-Day Timeline For Personal Insolvency Resolution Process Is Directory, Not Mandatory: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title : Purushottam Behera v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 258 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 68
On 26 February, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, held that the 120-day timeline for completing the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is directory and not mandatory.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey set aside the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai, which had refused to extend the process beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority does not lose jurisdiction merely because the timeline under the IBBI Regulations has expired.
Project Segregation In CHD-Vann Real Estate Insolvency Justifies 525-Day CIRP Exclusion: NCLAT
Case Title : Hans Raj Bhogra Vs Rajesh Kumar Parakh
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 361/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 70
Holding that in a real estate insolvency involving multiple projects, the period till segregation of a project from the CIRP was liable to be excluded, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has allowed exclusion of 525 days in the CHD-Vann matter and set aside the NCLT's rejection of the plea.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed that the insolvency pertained to a real estate company with several projects, and different orders had been passed from time to time segregating projects from the CIRP. Since the last such segregation concerning CHD-Vann was allowed only on November 21, 2025, “the said period is required to be excluded,” the tribunal held.
Pre-March 2020 Defaults Not Covered By Section 10A Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title : Irfan Khan Suspended Director of M/s Western Energetics Pvt. Ltd vs, Rakesh Kumar Goswami Proprietor of Lamsyn Enterprises & Anr
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1392 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4976 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 69
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on 24 February, held that Section 10A of the IBC cannot bar Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiation where the debt had fallen due prior to 25 March 2020, clarifying that dishonour of cheques during the COVID-19 suspension period does not alter the original default date.
The Principal Bench, comprising Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, dismissed an appeal filed by Irfan Khan, suspended director of Western Energetics Pvt. Ltd., challenging the Jaipur Bench of the NCLT's initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Code.
No TDS Refund Set Off In Shri Jalaram Rice Industries Liquidation As No Claim Was Filed: NCLAT
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad Vs Kiran Shah
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1705/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 71
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad. It held that in the liquidation of Shri Jalaram Rice Industries Pvt Ltd, the department could not adjust a TDS refund against an earlier tax demand because it had not filed any claim in the liquidation proceedings. “Appellant having not filed any claim question of claiming set off does not arise,” the bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed.
Case Title : Arvind Kumar Vs Beacon Trusteeship Limited & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 171/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 72
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently upheld insolvency proceedings against real estate firm Arcturus Developers Pvt. Ltd., holding that its debentures were never converted into shares and continued to remain financial debt.
A Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra dismissed an appeal filed by the company's suspended director, Arvind Kumar. The case concerned 50,00,000 Optionally Convertible Debentures issued by the company in 2019 to raise funds.
NCLAT Replaces NCLT's Two-Week Deadline With 90 Days For Nobal Buildtech To Pay ₹90 Crore Settlement
Case Title : Harvinder Singh Sikka Vs Nobal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 256/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 63
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has given Nobal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 90 days to pay Rs 90 crore under a settlement, replacing the two-week window earlier granted by the New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal. The New Delhi Bench of the NCLT had revived the company's insolvency process on January 7, 2026 and later extended limited protection only until February 4, 2026. The company had sought more time to complete the settlement.
Modifying that order, a bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said sufficient cause had been shown to grant 90 days.
Pre-Existing Dispute In Ledgers: NCLAT Dismisses Drive India's Insolvency Appeal Against Essline
Case Title : Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. Through Its Authorized Representative Vs. Essline Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 197 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 73
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd.'s insolvency appeal against Essline Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., holding that a pre-existing dispute between the parties was real and documented long before the insolvency notice was issued.
A bench of Judicial Member Justices Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held:
“The present is a case where notice of dispute was issued by the Corporate Debtor immediately after receiving of the demand notice and materials brought in reply to Section 9 application clearly proves that the plea raised by the Corporate Debtor that it does not owe any amount to the Appellant was supported by its ledgers. In any view of the matter, there were correspondences between the parties as noted above which clearly reflect the pre-existing dispute between the parties.”
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Against Frost International, Says Bank Can't Be Faulted Over Unfiled Plan
Case Title : Uday J. Desai v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 187 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 74
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, on 27 February, dismissed an appeal filed by the ex-director of Frost International Ltd., rejecting the argument that Bank of India acted unfairly by not considering a restructuring under the RBI's Prudential Framework dated 7 June 2019 before initiating insolvency. \
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, upheld the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai order admitting the Section 7 application.
NCLT
Inconsistencies Between E-Auction Notice And Process Memo Vitiate Liquidation Sale: NCLT Amaravati
Case Title : State Bank of India vs IND TOB International Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC)/52/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 118
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Amaravati has prima facie held that inconsistencies between an e-auction sale notice and the auction process memorandum create serious ambiguity regarding the assets offered for sale and render the liquidation auction process legally unsustainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli was dealing with applications filed by the suspended directors of IND TOB International Pvt Ltd, which is undergoing liquidation. The company was admitted into liquidation in proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India in 2021.
Case Title : Indian Bank vs Nipun Verma
Case Number : C.P. (IB) No. 571/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 105
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that a delay in issuing a statutory demand notice does not invalidate personal insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code so long as the insolvency plea is filed within time.
The tribunal clarified that the limitation runs from the date of default and not from the date on which the demand notice is issued.
The ruling was delivered by a coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar while admitting a personal insolvency application filed by Indian Bank against Nipun Verma, the personal guarantor of Frost International Limited.
Case Title : Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
Case Number : I.A. No. 4135/2024 in C.P. No. 4087(IB)/MB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 115
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently directed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) to release payments due for work executed under its contracts with Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd., which had been withheld pursuant to a GST department garnishee notice. It held that pre-CIRP claims of the GST department stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan.
Case Title : The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise v. C.S Ramachandran and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/506/KOB/2025 In CP(IBC)/21/KOB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 113
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed the tax department's plea to include a Rs 6.06 crore belated GST claim in the insolvency process of SDF Industries Limited, holding that claims cannot be entertained after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel held that permitting the tax department to raise its claim at such a stage would reopen settled stages of the corporate insolvency resolution process and undermine the process.
Case Title : Pankaj Ramdas Majitha vs Yes Bank
Case Number : I.A. 384 OF 2025 IN CP No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 100
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently held that the unilateral liquidation and appropriation of a corporate debtor's fixed deposit by a bank during insolvency proceedings amounts to an impermissible recovery action barred by the moratorium.
“Section 14 of the Code imposes a complete bar on any action to recover, foreclose, or enforce any security interest against the assets of the Corporate Debtor once the CIRP has commenced and the moratorium under Section 14 has kicked in,” the tribunal observed.
Jet Airways Liquidation: NCLT Directs Distribution Of Sale Proceeds Despite Pending Workmen Claims
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Satish Kumar Gupta
Case Number : I.A. NO. 4757 OF 2025 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 2205 (MB) 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 109
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has directed the liquidator of Jet Airways (India) Ltd to proceed with the distribution of liquidation proceeds under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that indefinite deferment of distribution defeats the objective of timely value realisation.
A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar heard an application filed by State Bank of India on behalf of the assenting financial creditors. The application sought directions to the liquidator to distribute proceeds realised from the sale of Jet Airways' assets, including its Bandra-Kurla Complex property in Mumbai.
Case Title : Sai Infinium Limited v. Anand Multitrade
Case Number : IA 1520 (AHM) 2025 in C.P. (IB) 315 (AHM) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LlBiz NCLT (AHM) 108
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has directed issuance of contempt notices to Sai Infinium Limited and its representatives after holding that a recall plea contained “contemptuous” allegations against the Bench. The tribunal also rejected the recall plea..
A coram of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy made the observation while dismissing an application filed by the corporate debtor seeking recall of an ex parte order dated November 12, 2025.
Attachment During Insolvency Unenforceable, But NCLT Kochi Cannot Lift Consumer Forum Order
Case Title : Buildwell and Anr v. Joseph Velivil and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/85/KOB/2025 in IA(IBC)/325/KOB/2023 in CP(IB)/01/KOB/2021 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 107
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has recently held that an attachment ordered by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission during an insolvency moratorium is legally unenforceable but said it lacks jurisdiction to itself remove or set aside the attachment.
A bench led by Judicial Member Vinay Goel said the attachment could not survive the moratorium or the approval of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor, under which the claim had already been dealt with.
Case Title : Yash Manish Pethani vs Pankaj Ramandas Majithia
Case Number : CP No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 104
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has dismissed six applications seeking recognition as financial creditors in the insolvency of E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd. It held that a purported allotment in a proposed real estate project, without proof of disbursement, does not create a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt rejected applications filed by six individuals, including Yash Manish Pethani and members of the Adani family, against the resolution professional of E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd.
NCLT Ahmedabad Extends Blu-Smart Mobility Insolvency Process By 90 Days
Case Title : Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Blu-Smart Mobility Limited
Case Number : IA/124 (AHM) 2026 in C.P. (IB)/205 (AHM) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 103
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has granted an additional 90 days to complete the insolvency process of Blu-Smart Mobility Limited, extending the deadline beyond January 24, 2026.
The insolvency proceedings against the company had begun on July 28, 2025, after the tribunal admitted a petition filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : Canara Bank Limited vs Poonam Anoop Wadhera
Case Number : IA(IBC)/5600(MB)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 123
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has admitted personal insolvency resolution proceedings against Poonam Anoop Wadhera, the personal guarantor of Frost International Limited, in connection with a default of Rs 671.56 crore.
A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar admitted the petition filed by Canara Bank Limited under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
CIRP Can Be Initiated Only On Default, Not On Apprehension Of Inability To Pay: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Rajshree Silk Mills Private Limited.
Case Number : CP (IBC)/201/AHM/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 125
A corporate insolvency resolution process can be initiated only upon the occurrence of default and not on a mere apprehension of inability to pay debts, the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has held while rejecting a voluntary insolvency application filed by a textile company under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The matter was heard by a coram comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy.
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Madhucan Toll Highways Ltd
Case Number : Company Petition IB/154/7/HDB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 126
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently observed that an Inter-Creditor Agreement meant to ensure coordinated action among consortium lenders does not prevent an individual financial creditor from initiating insolvency proceedings, even as it declined to admit the petition on the facts of the present case.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri observed:
“In view of the overriding effect of the IBC, the Inter-Creditor Agreement that has been entered between some of the consortium members, at no stretch of imagination, will come in the way of admission of the petition under Section 7 of IBC when debt and default is proved beyond doubt.”
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd vs Mahesh Chandulal Shah
Case Number : C.P. (IB) NO. 305/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 120
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently observed that default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a factual state of non-payment and minor variations in the dates of default in notices issued under SARFAESI and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to a personal guarantor cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when the debt and failure to pay are otherwise clearly established.
A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd under Section 95 of the Code against Mahendra Chandulal Shah. He had stood as a personal guarantor for credit facilities availed by C. Mahendra Exports Ltd.
NCLT Ahmedabad Slaps ₹1 Lakh Costs On Sintex-BAPL Creditor, Upholds Finality Of Resolution Plan
Case Title : Ganesh Electricals v. Ashish Chhawchharia & Ors.
Case Number : IA/758(AHM)2024 in IA/187(AHM)2023 in CP (IB) No. 759 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 128
On 9 February, the National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad, (NCLT) dismissed an operational creditor's request for full payment after the resolution plan for Sintex-BAPL Limited, a plastic products maker, was approved.
A Bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the applicant, Ganesh Electricals, for pursuing litigation against settled law, holding that a concluded Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be reopened simply because a creditor took a haircut under the plan.
Case Title : Abhay Narayan Manudhane vs My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society & Ors
Case Number : I.A. No. 3781 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 129
On 9 February, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, lifted an interim injunction that had blocked third-party rights over land linked to Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL), ruling that the Tribunal cannot extend temporary protection if it lacks jurisdiction to grant final relief.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey heard the matter following a reference under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, arising from a split decision in an earlier NCLT Mumbai Bench. The Technical Member had concluded the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, while a Judicial Member had proposed making the interim order absolute.
Case Title : True Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox Wind Ltd.
Case Number : RST. A(IBC)/31(CH)2024 in CP(IB) No. 114/CHD/HP/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 130
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh recently observed that a counsel's personal difficulties, including childcare responsibilities as well as technical glitches, do not amount to “sufficient cause” for repeated non-appearance in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Dismissing a third application seeking restoration of an insolvency petition filed by True Steels Private Limited, the Tribunal said the IBC is a time-bound code that requires strict diligence from operational creditors.
IBC Cannot Be Used To Legitimize Proceeds of Crime: NCLT Recalls Alchemist Limited CIRP
Case Title : Directorate of Enforcement Through its Deputy Director v. Alchemist Limited Case Number : I.A. NO. 1997 OF 2025 IN C.P. IB NO 275 (ND) OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 131
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at New Delhi has recalled its own order admitting insolvency proceedings against Alchemist Limited, holding that the Code cannot be used to legitimise proceeds of crime.
The tribunal found that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was “vitiated by fraud, collusion and malicious intent.”
A Bench of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the operational creditor, Sai Tech Medicare Private Limited. The amount has been directed to be deposited with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) within ten days.
NCLT Kochi Rejects Plea To Implead CBI In Corporate Petition Alleging Oppression And Mismanagement
Case Title : Mrpn Minority Share Holder Customer Welfare Association, Represented by Smt. Asha Mary Cherian v/s Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd & 6 Others
Case Number : CP/35/KOB/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 136
The Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 February dismissed an application by MRPN Minority Share Holder Customer Welfare Association, seeking to implead the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a pending company petition against Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The application alleged key managerial persons of the company of oppression and mismanagement.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Shri Vinay Goel, held that impleading an investigating agency while a probe is ongoing is neither necessary for adjudicating corporate governance disputes nor conducive to the administration of justice.
Case Title : Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt Ltd vs SAS iTower Pvt Ltd Case Number : IA No. 393/2025 In CP(IB) No.187/9/HDB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 134
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently held that a mistake warranting recall of order must be apparent on the face of the record and attributable to an error of the tribunal, and not to the failure of a party to place relevant material before it.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri on February 11, 2026, dismissed a recall application filed by Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt. Ltd.
NCLT Ahmedabad Slaps ₹2 Lakh Cost on Dharmadev Infra Director, Admits ₹20.97 Crore Insolvency Plea
Case Title : UG Fincon Advisors LLP v. Dharmadev Infrastructure Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB) No.417/7/AHM/2025 with I.A. No. 45/AHM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 137
Calling it a “counterblast” and an abuse of process, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad has imposed ₹2,00,000 in personal costs on a director of Dharmadev Infrastructure Limited while admitting an insolvency petition over dues of ₹20,97,43,678. A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma dismissed an application filed under Sections 60(5) and 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that no ingredient of fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings was established
Case Title : Savino Ceramic Private Limited v. M/s Fontana Impex Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IBC)/40/KOB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 141
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed an insolvency petition after holding that an operational creditor cannot rely solely on an interest clause printed on invoices to inflate the claim amount and cross the statutory Rs. 1 crore threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, in the absence of any binding agreement for payment of interest.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel rejected a Section 9 plea filed by Savino Ceramic Private Limited against Fontana Impex Private Limited, observing that the claimed default of Rs. 1,52,29,080.50 included Rs. 71,64,651 towards interest, which had no contractual foundation.
NCLT Allahabad Reserves Verdict On Vedanta Plea Against CoC Approval Of Adani's JAL Plan
Case Title : Vedanta Ltd. v. Bhuvan Madan, RP of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : IA No. 01/2026 in CP (IB) No. 330/ALD/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal at Allahabad has reserved its orders on Vedanta Limited's challenge to the Committee of Creditors' approval of Adani Enterprises' resolution plan for insolvent Jaiprakash Associates Limited.
Vedanta was one of the resolution applicants in the process.
The matter was heard by Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma, who reserved orders after hearing Vedanta and the Resolution Professional.
Case Title : GIC Housing Finance Ltd vs Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA No. 3109 of 2025 IN CP(IB) No.651/MB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 133
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, recently held that in a real estate insolvency, homebuyers' and a housing finance company's secured interests cannot overlap. Where the builder has undertaken repayment obligations, the financier's interest must be protected.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt, on 29 January allowed an application filed by GIC Housing Finance Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Karrm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
NCLT Guwahati Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Against Maxim Infrastructure For Pre-CIRP Dues
Case Title : Maxim Infrastructure & Real Estate Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer
Case Number : IA(IBC)/176/GB/2024 In CP(IB)/4/GB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (GUA) 135
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench, has ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen tax assessments for dues it failed to claim during a company's insolvency process.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Yogendra Kumar Singh on January 15, allowed an application filed by Maxim Infrastructure & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. It quashed reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018–19.
NCLT Delhi Appoints Two-Member Committee To Monitor Jaypee Infratech Project Progress
Case Title : IDBI Bank v. Jaypee Infratech Ltd
Case Number : IA 5944/2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 144
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, recently appointed a two-member expert committee to assess the progress of construction of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) projects under the approved resolution plan.
A Bench comprising President Ramalingam Sudhakar and Technical Member Ravindra Charurvedi passed the direction while hearing multiple applications raising concerns regarding delays and grievances of homebuyers.
Bank's No Dues Certificate Not Determinative At CIRP Admission: NCLT Jaipur
Case Title : Canara Bank v. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CP No. (IB) 68/7/JPR/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 145
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur, has admitted Prayag Polytech Private Limited into insolvency over a Rs.34.14 crore default to Canara Bank.
The bench of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar held that disputes over “No Dues Certificates” cannot defeat a Section 7 petition at the threshold.
NCLT Mumbai Says Mumbai, Delhi Airport Operators Are Unsecured Creditors In Jet Airways Liquidation
Case Title : Mumbai International Airport Ltd, Airports Authority of India Ltd, Delhi International Airport Ltd vs Jet Airways
Case Number : IA 644 OF 2025, APPEAL 34 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 146
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has recently held that Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) and Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) are not secured creditors in the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, rejecting their contention that airport regulations conferred a lien over aircraft for unpaid dues
NCLT Ahmedabad Refuses Travel Relief To Personal Guarantor With ₹2717 Crore Liability
Case Title : Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad v. Samir Ganeshbhai Marathe & Anr.
Case Number : IA/1178(AHM)2025 in C.P.(IB)/313(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 147
The National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad, on 12 February rejected a travel permission plea filed by Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad, a personal guarantor facing liabilities of Rs. 2,717.88 crore, holding that his proposal to travel abroad for employment could jeopardise the time-bound bankruptcy process.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy held that the applicant's presence was “absolutely necessary for the further inquiry and day to day progress of the proceedings.”
NCLT President Submits Enquiry Report After NCLAT Calls Chennai Bench Order “Rather Dubious”
Outgoing NCLT President Chief Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar has firmly rejected allegations of impropriety against the Chennai Bench, stating that “no material has emerged suggesting any impropriety, bias or departure from judicial discipline.” The report was submitted pursuant to an enquiry ordered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited in the insolvency proceedings of Regen Powertech Private Limited.
Resolution Professional Cannot Seek Removal Of Statutory Lien Created Before CIRP: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Anurag Jain vs Income Tax Officer
Case Number : IA 3271 of 2025 In CP 1475 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 148
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has held that while the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code mandates a resolution professional to preserve and take control of the assets of the corporate debtor, it does not confer any specific authority to seek removal of statutory attachments or liens lawfully created prior to commencement of the insolvency.
On February 13, a bench comprising Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati held that a statutory lien validly created before initiation of CIRP cannot be nullified merely because insolvency proceedings have commenced.
NCLT Mumbai Admits Insolvency Plea Against Reliance Ornatus Over ₹133.88 Crore Default
Case Title : Creative Ashtech Engineering Projects Private Limited Vs. ROEVPL Ventures Private Limited
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/176/MB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 149
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has admitted an insolvency application filed by Creative Ashtech Engineering Projects Private Limited against Reliance Ornatus Enterprises and Ventures Private Limited Ventures Private Limited, holding that a financial debt of Rs. 133.88 crore and default stood established.
A bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar held, “In view of the aforesaid findings, this Application bearing C.P. (IB) No. 176/MB/2025 filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, by Creative Ashtech Engineering Projects Private Limited, the Applicant (FC) for initiating CIRP in respect of ROEVPL Ventures Private Limited, the CD, is admitted.”
Case Title : Carnet Elias Fernandes v. Jagdish Kumar Parulkar & Anr.
Case Number : IA 305 (MP) 2025 in CP (IB) 49 (MP) 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 150
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has held that mere reflection of a Director Identification Number (DIN) as “Approved/Active” on the MCA portal is not sufficient to establish eligibility to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The tribunal dismissed an application filed by Carnet Elias Fernandes, Suspended Management/Promoter of GEI Power Limited, challenging the Resolution Professional's decision declaring him ineligible to submit a resolution plan under Sections 29A(e) and 29A(f) of the Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta held that an online DIN status, in the absence of a clear and categorical order passed by the competent authority removing the disqualification, cannot establish eligibility to participate in the resolution process.
Case Title : Nithiyanathan Ramachandran v. Shri K. Boothalingam and Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC)/ 17 (CHE)/2023 in IBA/31/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 152
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has dismissed an application filed by the liquidator of Srivatsa International Private Limited alleging that the company's suspended directors committed fraud by mortgaging a property to Yes Bank.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy held that offering property as collateral to secure credit for the corporate debtor's business operations does not by itself amount to fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Bengaluru Rejects EPFO Claim For PF Dues In Dunlop Polymers Insolvency
Case Title : The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) v. Dunlop Polymer Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA No.741/ 2025 in CP(IB) No.123/BB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 154
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has dismissed an application filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) in the insolvency proceedings of Dunlop Polymers Private Limited. The tribunal held that EPFO cannot seek remittance of provident fund dues during the moratorium when its claim has not been admitted in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada held that the relief sought would amount to enforcement of statutory dues during the subsistence of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Such enforcement is impermissible.
NCLT Mumbai Allows Saraswat Bank To Make Clarificatory Amendments To Section 7 Petition
Case Title : Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Limited Aaacorp Exim India Private Limited
Case Number : IA/3713/2024 C.P. (IB)/682(MB)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 158
On 5 February 2026, the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed Saraswat Co‑operative Bank Limited to amend its pending Section 7 petition against AAACORP Exim India Private Limited to correct the date of default, NPA classification date, and outstanding dues of Rs. 15.59 crore.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati, held that that such amendments are permitted if they are clarificatory, necessary for effective adjudication, and do not create a new case or prejudice the corporate debtor.
Mere MOU For Flat Allotment Not Financial Debt Without Disbursal To Corporate Debtor: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Wescon Housing India Private Limited vs. Mr. Pankaj Ramdas Mathia and Ors. Case Number : IA (I.B.C) No. 4491/MB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 159
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai recently held that a payment made under an MOU for allotment of 3,000 sq ft of FSI in a proposed real estate project does not qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 if there is no disbursal to the corporate debtor and no element of time value of money.
A Bench of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt said, “There is nothing to show that money was disbursed by the Applicant against the consideration for the time value of money so as to be treated as a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.”
Mere Non-Payment Of Ordered Amount Not Civil Contempt, Execution Is Proper Remedy: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Renahan Vamakesan v. Anish Lawrence and Anr
Case Number : Contempt Petition (IBC)/2/KOB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 160
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has recently observed that mere non-payment of amounts directed under its orders does not automatically amount to civil contempt and that execution proceedings are the appropriate remedy.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed that contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, cannot be routinely invoked as a substitute for execution of orders.
Non-Issuance Of NOC By Financial Creditor After Default Cannot Stall Insolvency: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd vs Vatika Ltd
Case Number : IA (I.B.C)/1537(CH)2025 in CP(IB) No. 45/Chd/Hry/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 157
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has rejected a plea by homebuyers seeking dismissal of insolvency proceedings against Vatika Ltd. The tribunal held that non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the debenture trustee, which was required for execution and registration of conveyance deeds in favour of plot buyers, cannot by itself obstruct proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code once a financial default has occurred.
The matter was heard by Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal. The bench observed that issues arising after the occurrence of default cannot dilute the statutory consequences flowing from an admitted default.
Case Title : Insta Capital Pvt Ltd & Ors vs JBS Enterprises Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/546/MB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 161
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has admitted an insolvency petition against JBS Enterprises Ltd, formerly known as JBS Enterprises Private Limited holding that a corporate debtor cannot escape liability merely because loan documents were executed in its earlier name prior to conversion from a private limited company to a public limited company.
A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar said that once the corporate debtor has availed and benefited from financial facilities, it cannot rely on technical defects in its own documentation to defeat proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Even Without Plea, NCLT Kochi Examines Covid-19 Suspension Bar, Rejects CIRP Pleas
Case Title : Lakshmi Venkateshwara Traders v. KKR Products and Marketing Private Limited Case Number : CP(IB)/39/KOB/2025 & CP(IB)/02/KOB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 162
Holding that the statutory Covid-period bar under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be examined even in the absence of a specific defence, the NCLT Kochi Bench dismissed two insolvency petitions against KKR Products and Marketing Private Limited. The tribunal found that the alleged defaults arose during the pandemic suspension period (Section 10A).
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel examined the applicability of the statutory bar under Section 10A of the IBC even though no formal defence invoking the provision had been raised by the corporate debtor.
MSME Protections Must Be Invoked By Corporate Debtor, Not Personal Guarantors: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Tata Capital Limited v. Mr. Jinu Varghese
Case Number : CP(IBC)/30/KOB/2025 & CP(IBC)/31/KOB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 166
The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, has held that benefits under the MSMED Act, 2006 and the RBI MSME restructuring framework must be specifically invoked by the corporate debtors. Personal guarantors have no independent right to claim such relief.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vinay Goel admitted insolvency petitions filed by Tata Capital Limited against personal guarantors Jinu Varghese and Geeba Kolliyelil Jenny and declared a moratorium in their respect.
Case Title : OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd v. AKMG Alloys Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IBC)/282(CHE)/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 167
Admitting a power generator's insolvency plea against its industrial consumer, the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, has held that a company cannot escape liability for electricity dues by claiming the power was consumed by its lessee. The tribunal ruled that liability under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code flows from privity of contract, not from actual usage of services.
A coram of Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy admitted the Section 9 petition filed by OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd over unpaid electricity dues arising from a Power Supply Agreement dated April 1, 2018.
TDS On Interest Alone Not Enough To Cross Insolvency Threshold: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : Wild dreams Trading Company Pvt.Ltd v. Ascendancy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 335/Chd/J&K/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 168
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has dismissed a Section 7 CIRP plea after holding that deduction of TDS on alleged interest cannot be treated as an acknowledgment of liability to cross the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The coram of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal was hearing a petition filed by Wild Dreams Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. seeking initiation of CIRP against Ascendancy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Mr. Mallampati Madhu.
Case Number : Company Petition IB/144/95/HBD/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT(HYD) 169
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) declined to admit a petition filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings against Mallampati Madhu, the personal guarantor of TN (DK) Expressways Limited, holding that such action would be inequitable while a substantial arbitral award of Rs. 288.96 crores in its favour remains under challenge and unrealised.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri observed: “In view of the arbitral award (of Rs. 288.96 crores) in favour of the Principal Borrower being substantially higher than the amount of default (of Rs. 138.27 crores)… initiation of CIRP against the guarantor would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Applicant.”
NCLT Mumbai Admits CIRP Plea Against Baggit India Pvt Ltd Over ₹1.11 Crore Operational Debt
Case Title : Sunrise Global Tradelinks vs Baggit India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB)/764/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 171
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai had admitted an operational creditor's insolvency petition against Baggit India Private Limited, an Indian handbags and fashion accessories company over a debt of Rs 1,11,84,020.
A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar held that the application filed by Sunrise Global Tradelinks was complete in all respects and that default stood established.