SUPREME COURT
Case Title : STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. AND ANR
Case Number : C.A. No. 8527/2022
The Supreme Court of India has allowed the appeal filed by the State Bank of India against an October 14, 2022 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the exclusion of SBI and other lenders from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the insolvency of Reliance Infratel Limited.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the NCLAT ruling and restored the status of lenders claiming under corporate guarantees as financial creditors and directed their inclusion in the CoC of Reliance Infratel Limited.
Case Title : STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ANR.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8527 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 170
The Supreme Court of India on Monday held that stamp duty law cannot be used as a weapon to defeat creditor claims, ruling that defects in stamping are curable and do not invalidate corporate guarantees. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the March 2, 2021 order of the NCLT and the October 14, 2022 judgment of the NCLAT, which had rejected the claims of the SBI-led consortium of lenders against Reliance Infratel Ltd. on grounds including insufficient stamping, non-disclosure and lack of proper verification and denied them status as financial creditors..
Case Title : AVJ HEIGHTSS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS IIFL FINANCE LIMITED & ANR.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 3811 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday took suo motu cognisance of delays in approval of resolution plans pending before various benches of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), stating that the objective of time-bound resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is “impossible to achieve” in the present situation. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the matter pursuant to its order dated April 16, 2026. By that order, the Court had sought data from the Registrar of the NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi, and from the parties on (i) (i) the number of applications pending for approval of resolution plans, (ii) how long such applications have been pending, and (iii) the reasons for delay.
RP's Admission Of Claim In CIRP Not Acknowledgment Of Debt, Cannot Extend Limitation: Supreme Court
Case Title : SHANKAR KHANDELWAL vs OMKARA ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD & ANR.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 13158-13159 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 172
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings is merely an administrative act and does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court said such admission is only a recital or entry of debt and cannot extend the limitation period for initiating proceedings.
Case Title : PRERNA SINGH VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS & ORS.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s).2569/2022
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday warned the Superintendent of Police, Hapur, of personal liability if possession of premises belonging to Prerna Singh is not handed over within a week, directing the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors of Xalta Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to ensure compliance. The Court once again rebuked the RP and CoC for failing to comply with its April 16, 2026 order, noting that against the committed monthly rent of Rs 50.55 lakh, only Rs 33.83 lakh was paid for April 2026.
Supreme Court Continues Symbolic Possession Of Tower-5 By RP In Morpheus Bluebell CIRP
Case Title : SGN UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.ETC.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 4471/2026
The Supreme Court of India has directed that the interim arrangement permitting only symbolic possession of Tower-5 by the Resolution Professional of the Morpheus Bluebell project developed by Morpheus Prodevelopers Pvt Ltd shall continue. The company is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the Morpheus Bluebell project. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by SGN Universal Construction Company Private Limited against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's March 30, 2026 ruling.
HIGH COURT
IBC Overrides Electricity Act In Conflict, Pre-CIRP Dues Cannot Be Enforced: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited v. Prescribed Authority and 4 others
Case Number : 1 WRIC No. - 19391 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 35
The Allahabad High Court on 24 April, held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), being a later law, prevails over the Electricity Act, 2003 in case of inconsistency. The Bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi allowed the writ petition and held that Section 238 of the IBC gives the Code overriding effect over other statutes, including sector-specific laws.
Public Announcement Under IBC Sufficient, Individual Notice Not Required: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited v. Prescribed Authority and 4 others
Case Number : 1 WRIC No. - 19391 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 35
The Allahabad High Court on 24 April, held that under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, individual notice to each creditor is not required and that a public announcement under Section 15 of the Code constitutes sufficient notice to corporate creditors. A Bench comprising Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi, while allowing a petition by South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited (and a connected petition by Tata Steel Limited) further held that creditors must exercise due diligence and file their claims within the prescribed timelines during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Case Title : Sanjiv Kumar Gupta AND State of Telangana and 3 Ors.
Case Number : W.P.No.27253 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 24
The Telangana High Court has recently set aside a demand raised against an auction purchaser under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that such a purchaser cannot be made liable for electricity dues of the previous owner where the claim was not part of the insolvency process, and further that a demand raised after nearly 16 years is barred by limitation. Justice Renuka Yara, allowing the writ petition, emphasised that once the resolution process concludes, undisclosed statutory dues cannot be enforced against a successful purchaser.
Case Title : Vinay Bhadauria v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Case Number : MCRC No. 32697 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 24
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be tried only by the Special Court having jurisdiction over the place where a company's registered office is situated, ruling that a Gwalior court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a company whose registered office is in New Delhi. “From the bare reading of section 436 it is clear that offences shall be triable only by the Special Court established under section 435 having territorial jurisdiction where the registered office of the company is situated. It relevant to refer the Annexure D-1, wherein it is clear that as per notification dated 18.05.2016 wherein at S. No. 6 of the list, L.d. IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior is having jurisdiction only with respect to State of Madhya Pradesh. While the registered office of the company against which the complaint is relates is admittedly situated at New Delhi. Therefore, Trial Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint.”, it said.
Case Title : GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus GUJARAT HYDROCARBONS AND POWER SEZ LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number : R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 55 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 61
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and upheld the quashing of its decision to terminate a lease and evict Gujarat Hydrocarbons and Power SEZ Ltd during insolvency proceedings. The court held that both the termination of the lease and the eviction action were “non est, illegal and bad in law” as they were taken during the moratorium period.
NCLAT
Case Title : Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus IDBI Bank Limited And Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 67 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 174
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has held that restructuring of loan facilities does not necessarily amount to modification of charge requiring fresh registration where the underlying security remains unchanged. “We are in agreement with the approach adopted by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in construing the term modification liberally as the same will not prejudice the security interest of existing lenders and the restructuring of the facilities done by the lender Banks may not amount to modification of charge in strict sense.”, the tribunal observed.
Case Title : ASREC (India) Limited Versus Bhaskar Gopal Shetty and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 359 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 175
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCALT) at New Delhi has upheld the classification of Kamlesh Mehta, a second charge holder, as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor, Mirage Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. It held that the absence of consent from the first charge holder and non-registration of charge under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not vitiate the second charge in the facts of the case.
NCLAT Dismisses CIRP Plea By Durgapur Corporation Against Aryan Ispat, Cites Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : Durgapur Corporation Private Limited v. M/s. Aryan Ispat & Power Private Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1218 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 177
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Durgapur Corporation Private Limited against Aryan Ispat & Power Private Limited, reiterating that a Section 9 application must be rejected where there exists a pre-existing dispute between the parties. “The only thing that is to be looked into is that whether there is plausible contention. In the facts of the present case, we find that plausible contention was raised by the Corporate Debtor in the reply to Section 9 application and there being pre-existing dispute between the parties, application filed under Section 9 deserved rejection.”
Case Title : Milan Aggarwal (Suspended director of Prayag Polytech Private Limited) Versus Canara Bank & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 298 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 176
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the admission of insolvency proceedings against Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., rejecting the company's reliance on multiple No Dues Certificates and holding that these were issued only for satisfaction of specific charges and did not extinguish its overall liability to Canara Bank. A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and technical member Barun Mitra held that the certificates relied upon by the suspended director could not be treated as proof that no debt remained outstanding.
Case Title : JS Steel Co. Ltd. v. Amod Stampings Private Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 112 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 178
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has upheld the rejection of plea seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Amod Stampings Private Limited, holding that emails admitting defective supply and offering compensation demonstrate a pre-existing dispute.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The Appellant having agreed to compensate the Corporate Debtor is also a clear admission of the fact that the goods supplied were not in terms of the specifications which had been agreed to by the parties. The plea taken by the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority did not take into account the surrounding facts and circumstances in that the Appellant was compelled to agree to pay the compensation amount as they were subjected to blackmail by the Corporate Debtor does not impress us. When the emails explicitly record admission of deficiency in supply and resultant payment of compensation by the Appellant, it is not the remit of the Adjudicating Authority to get into the circumstantial reasons which led to such compensatory offers.”
NCLT Asking Parties To Explore Settlement Not A Reference To Mediation: NCLAT
Case Title : Vijay Data v. Data Ingenious Global Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) No. 134 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 179
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has observed that asking parties in a long-pending oppression and mismanagement dispute to explore settlement is not the same as referring the matter to mediation. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Vijay Data against Data Ingenious Global Ltd and others, challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Jaipur Bench, which had dismissed his application seeking recall of an earlier order dated February 19, 2026.
NCLT Cannot Entertain Challenge To Statutory Development Authority Orders Under IBC: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Sunil Kumar Rastogi & Ors. v. Lucknow Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 456 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 180
The New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), on 6 April, held that orders passed by statutory authorities in exercise of statutory powers cannot be challenged before the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed: “The Tribunal held that sanction of Plan, which is in exercise of Statutory jurisdiction of Lucknow Development Authority under Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 cannot be made subject matter of challenge before the NCLT. ….The said decision in exercise of Statutory jurisdiction of Lucknow Development Authority can be subjected to challenge only in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.”
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kandivali East v. Ashok Mittal, Resolution Professional of Dhruv Wellness Ltd.
Case Number : CA (AT) (Ins) No. 662 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2583 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 181
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) seeking admission of a Rs. 61.36 lakh claim in the CIRP of Dhruv Wellness Ltd., holding that a claim based only on an internal communication and without any assessment under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act could not be sustained. The tribunal further observed that the appellant must bear the consequence of not crystallising the claim at the relevant stage.
Coparcener Claiming Guarantor's Property Cannot Intervene In Guarantor's Insolvency Case: NCLAT
Case Title : Dr. Srinivas Manchala v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 160, 163 & 164 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 182
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that a person claiming coparcenary rights over a guarantor's property cannot be impleaded in personal guarantor insolvency proceedings (Section 95), as such proceedings are confined to personal guarantors. A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain emphasised that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code limits such proceedings to specific individuals acting as guarantors.
No Financial Debt Where Flats Given In Lieu Of Legal Fees: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : L & L Partners Litigation Vs Jalesh Kumar Grover
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1944/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 184
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 23 April dismissed the appeal filed by L & L Partners Litigation, holding that allotment of three flats by AKME Projects Ltd. towards professional legal fees did not constitute a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Case Title : V. Nagarajan Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 152/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 185
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 24 April held that R. Subramaniam, who had long represented the Liquidator of Cethar Ltd., could not continue as counsel in view of conflict of interest concerns, non-disclosure obligations under the Insolvency framework, suspension of his licence, and subsequent criminal conviction. A Bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed the appeal filed by V. Nagarajan, Resolution Professional and Liquidator of Cethar Ltd.
Case Title : Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1676 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 183
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal challenging the distribution of surplus generated during the insolvency process, holding that such surplus, if not provided for in the resolution plan, cannot be claimed by the successful resolution applicant and must be distributed under the IBC waterfall. A Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey emphasised that the nature and timing of the surplus were determinative.
Case Title : STCI Finance Limited Vs IMP Powers Limited & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1019/2024, 1657/2024, 893/2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 187
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 27 April, dismissed STCI Finance Limited's appeals challenging the liquidation process of IMP Powers Ltd., holding that while the Liquidator's inclusion of STCI's assets in the liquidation estate was valid, STCI failed to establish any illegality warranting interference with the process. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey further held that disputes over the distribution of sale proceeds under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must first be adjudicated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) before the appellate forum can examine them.
NCLAT Chennai Dismisses Personal Guarantors Appeals Upholds 208-Day Exclusion In PGIRP
Case Title : B Nirmal Kumar & Ors Vs K J Vinod
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 205/2026, 206/2026,207/2026,208/2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 188
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 27 April dismissed four connected appeals filed by personal guarantors B. Nirmal Kumar, B. Kamlesh Kumar, B. Anand Kumar, and N. Rekha, challenging orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, dated 10 March 2026. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain held that the NCLT correctly excluded a period of 208 days (16 April 2025 to 10 November 2025) from the statutory timeline of the Personal Guarantor Insolvency Resolution Process (PGIRP).
Case Title : Imperial Coastal Infra v. Liquidator, IVRCL Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 250/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 186
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently directed the liquidator of IVRCL Limited to release over Rs 41 lakh to sub-contractor Imperial Coastal Infra, holding that 96% of the project receivables belonged to the sub-contractor, were held by the corporate debtor in a fiduciary capacity, and could not be treated as part of the liquidation estate or as operational debt. A Chennai Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had upheld the liquidator's decision to treat the withheld amount as pre-insolvency dues to be distributed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLAT Rejects Cosmic Ferro Alloys' Refund Claim On Revised Power Tariffs Post Resolution Plan
Case Title : Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd. Versus Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1332 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 191
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd., the corporate debtor now under new management pursuant to an approved resolution plan, holding that no refund or adjustment arises from revised electricity tariffs after approval of the plan. A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra reiterated that once the resolution plan is approved, it binds all stakeholders and settles pre-insolvency claims.
Case Title : Mohit Arora v. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1284 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 191
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has upheld the admission of an insolvency application against Mohit Arora, personal guarantor to loans taken by Supertech Ltd. and two other companies. It held that the process initiated by PNB Housing Finance cannot be blocked by a moratorium arising from another petition, which is non-est in law. “...when the IFCI petition being CP IB No. 428 of 2021 was filed on 02.06.2021 during the interim moratorium commenced by the filing of the petition by the PNB being 203 of 2021 the petition filed by the IFCI on 02.06.2021 would be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law and therefore cannot commence any interim moratorium.”, it observed.
NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Order Allowing Late Expression Of Interest, Resolution Plan
Case Title : Ram Prasad Agarwala Suspended Director of Fairdeal Supplies Ltd. Versus Bijay Murmuria Resolution Professional & Ors.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 661 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 190
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has set aside an NCLT order that allowed a delayed expression of interest (EOI) and resolution plan, ruling that a resolution applicant cannot be considered after missing the prescribed timelines. “We are of the view that order of the Adjudicating Authority directing acceptance of the late EoI of Respondent No. 5 could not be sustained and the order need to be set aside.”, the tribunal observed.
EPFO Cannot Rely On Enforcement Report Prepared During Moratorium To Raise Claim: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Arun Kishanlal Bagaria
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1643 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 189
The New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 28 April held that claims based on an Area Enforcement Officer's Report (AEOR) prepared during the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be admitted in insolvency proceedings unless the underlying statutory assessment has been crystallised. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), affirming the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench rejecting EPFO's claim.
Case Title : Kamlesh Keshavbhai Gondaliya v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 680 & 670 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 192
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has upheld insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors of Takshashila Heights India Private Limited, rejecting their challenge to the debenture trustee's authority to initiate the case. The appeals were filed against orders admitting applications under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.
NCLAT Upholds Rejection Of Prospective Homebuyer's Plea To Join Koncept Nirman's CIRP
Case Title : Krishna Pabsetti and Anr v. Koncept Nirman Pvt Ltd. and Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.220/2026 and (IA Nos. 617, 618 & 619/2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 193
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has held that a prospective homebuyer who relied on an unregistered agreement to purchase a flat from Koncept Nirman Private Limited cannot intervene in insolvency proceedings initiated against the company by a financial creditor. A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain observed, “In the instant case, the Appellant herein doesn't owe a financial debt, at the behest of the Financial Creditor, nor there is any direct legal assignment of any loan or a debt to the present proposed intervener by the Financial Creditor”
NCLT
Case Title : Canara Bank v. Mr. Rajiv Prasad
Case Number : CP (IB)/1075(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 384
On 23 April, the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that subsequent demand notices issued to a personal guarantor do not give rise to a fresh cause of action for initiating proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that limitation must be computed from the first invocation of the guarantee. Section 95 deals with the initiation of insolvency resolution process against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor.
Suspended Director Cannot Reopen CIRP Process After Repeated Eligibility Defaults: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title : Mr. Ramachandran Radhakrishnan v. Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain and Ors
Case Number : IA No. 283 of 2025 in CP(IB) No. 32/BB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 387
The Bengaluru Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 April, refused to permit a suspended director of a corporate debtor to submit a resolution plan at a belated stage after he repeatedly failed to satisfy eligibility conditions under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), reiterating the strict time-bound framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada dismissed an application filed by the suspended director of Stellence Pharmascience Pvt Ltd, who sought permission to submit a resolution plan after the CIRP had substantially progressed and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had already approved a plan.
Homebuyers With RERA Refund Orders Still 'Allottees', Must Meet IBC Threshold: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Arumugam Thimmarayan and Ors v. M/s Ozone Projects Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IB)/185(CHE)/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 388
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has held that homebuyers who have obtained refund orders from RERA cannot be treated differently from other allottees for initiating insolvency proceedings, ruling that all such buyers must meet the collective threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : Bank of Maharashtra v. Visa Power Ltd. & Anil Goel (Liquidator)
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 388/KB/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 574/(KB)/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 389
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has refused to exclude, for the purpose of computing a liquidator's fee, the period during which the liquidation process was affected by appellate orders, holding that such benefit cannot be granted where the delay is linked to disputes over the liquidator's conduct A coram of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah said, “In our view, if any dispute arises due to misconduct of the liquidator, resulting in litigation which eventually leads to a stay of the entire proceedings, the liquidator ought not to be granted the benefit of exclusion of such time periods, for the purpose of remuneration.”
Automated Set-Off Of Income Tax Refunds During Moratorium Violates IBC: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Gautam Mittal RP of Sanwaria Consumer Ltd V/s Chief Commsioner of Income Tax Bhopal & An
Case Number : IA/498(MP)2025 in (MP) CP(IB) 7 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 392
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore recently held that even automated adjustment of income tax refunds during the IBC moratorium is illegal, directing the Income Tax Department to refund Rs 30.16 lakh set off against pre-CIRP tax dues of Sanwaria Consumer Limited. “The mere fact that the adjustment was effected through an automated or system-driven process does not alter its legal character. The effect of the action remains the same, namely recovery of pre-CIRP dues during the moratorium, which is expressly prohibited under Section 14 of the Code.”
Case Title : Amresh Shukla Liquidator V/s State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary
Case Number : I.A./577(MP)2025 IN TP 182 of 2019 [CP(IB)/591(MP)2019]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 393
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench, has dismissed a plea by the liquidator of Girdharilal Sugar & Allied Industries Limited seeking action against Commercial Tax Department officials for allegedly sharing details of a Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) meeting with a prospective bidder via email, holding that the inclusion was inadvertent and caused no prejudice.
NCLT Kochi Records Interim Payment Plan To Ensure Access To Jatayupara Tourism Project
Case Title : Shawn Jeff Christopher v. Guruchandrika Builders & Property Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : MA(C/Act)/02/KOB/2025 in CP/21/KOB/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 390
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, has recently recorded and accepted an interim arrangement for payment of dues to a landowner to ensure uninterrupted access and continued operation of the Jatayupara Tourism Project (JTP), noting that denial of access would render the project unusable. The order was passed by Judicial Member Vinay Goel on an application filed by an NCLT-appointed Chartered Accountant assigned, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, to verify and approve necessary operational expenses of the project.
Case Title : Axis Bank Ltd v. M/s IMOST Academy (India) Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IBC)/8/KOB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 396
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has admitted an insolvency petition filed by Axis Bank Limited to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against IMOST Academy (India) Private Limited, holding that once debt and default are established, objections based on reputational impact cannot defeat admission. A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel rejected the academy's contention that initiation of CIRP would adversely affect its international standing.
Distribution During CIRP Must Conform To Section 30(2) Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Punjab National Bank v Arshiya Ltd.
Case Number : IA(I.B.C)/1331( MB)2026 In C.P. (IB)/3143(MB)2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 391
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 April held that it cannot use its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to allow distribution of sale proceeds during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without complying with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar rejected the Resolution Professional's plea in the CIRP of Arshiya Limited to distribute proceeds from sale of non-core assets to secured financial creditors before completion of CIRP.
CoC Cannot Bypass NCLAT Directions On Potential Resolution Applicant Eligibility: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Jubin Kishore Thakkar and Ors. v. Ashutosh Agarwala
Case Number : IA(IB) No. 1366 OF 2025 & IA(IB) No. 3401 OF 2025 IN C.P.(IB) NO. 40/MB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 394
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 13 April held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot bypass binding directions issued by the NCLAT regarding relaxation of eligibility criteria for potential resolution applicants (PRAs) in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Bench comprising Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan further clarified that resolution applicants may revise their financial offers upwards, but shall not be permitted to withdraw them.
NCLT Chennai Holds Contractual Valuation Cannot Be Reopened, Dismisses Kamarajar Port Plea
Case Title : Kamarajar Port Ltd. v. N Veerapandian (Liquiadtor) M/s. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC)/828(CHE)2025 in CP(IB)/114(CHE)2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 395
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 2 April 2026, dismissed an application filed by Kamarajar Port Limited seeking a fresh valuation of project assets of Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd., which is in liquidation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy held that once the contractual mechanism for valuation had been triggered and concluded, it could not be reopened on the ground of subsequent deterioration of assets.
OTS Proposal Can Constitute Acknowledgment Of Debt For Limitation Under IBC: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Punjab National Bank Vs Akhilesh Argal
Case Number : CP(IB)/78(MP)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 397
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 13 April held that a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal can amount to an acknowledgment of debt for limitation under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Further, objections on limitation, stamping, and pending Debts Recovery Tribunal proceedings do not bar admission of insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor at the threshold stage.
Only Contractual Guarantee Debt Relevant For IBC Section 94 Threshold: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : IN THE MATTER OF MUKESH KUMAR
Case Number : ICP (IB) No. 45/Chd/Pb/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 400
The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 17 April held that only debts arising from a valid contract of guarantee can be considered for determining the pecuniary threshold under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetarbasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal clarified that liabilities not arising from such a guarantee or not linked to the petitioner's capacity as a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor cannot be taken into account.
NCLT Mumbai Refers Eros–Aanand L. Rai Dispute Over Colour Yellow Productions To Arbitration
Case Title : Eros International Media Ltd. Versus Colour Yellow Productions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : C.A. No. 244 (MB) 2025 In C.P. No. 121 (MB) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 399
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai on Tuesday recently referred to arbitration a dispute between Eros International Media Ltd and filmmaker Aanand L. Rai arising from their investment and contractual arrangements in Colour Yellow Productions Pvt. Ltd. It held that Eros' company petition was a dressed-up attempt to bypass arbitration. A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar was hearing a petition by Eros alleging fund diversion and unauthorised related party transactions, along with a Section 8 application filed by Rai seeking reference to arbitration.
NCLT Mumbai Dismisses RP's Plea Against ₹260 Crore RCIL Receivables Assignment, Finds No Fraud
Case Title : Anish Niranjan Nanavaty (Resolution Professional of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited) V/s Reliance Communications Tamil Nadu Ltd.
Case Number : IA 941 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 402
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai has held that a Rs.260 crore inter-company assignment involving Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd (RCIL) was not fraudulent, as it caused no loss to creditors. The tribunal dismissed a plea filed by the company's Resolution Professional A Bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar was dealing with the application, in which the Resolution Professional alleged that the assignment of receivables from Reliance Communications Ltd. (RCOM) to RCIL (the corporate debtor) inflated its books and imposed a corresponding liability, thereby defrauding creditors.
Case Title : Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Sanjay Mahajan, Liquidator of Jans Copper Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. No. 2828 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 3138/MB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 401
The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has dismissed a plea by Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. in the liquidation of Jans Copper Pvt. Ltd. It held that the creditor cannot later seek to enforce its security after participating in the liquidation process and failing to clearly state its position. The bench of Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan held that the creditor failed to comply with the requirement of clearly communicating its decision regarding its security interest.
NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Gensol RP Plea Against Termination Of ₹48.29 Crore EPC Contract By HMEL
Case Title : Keshav Khaneja, RP of Gensol Engineering Limited Vs HMEL Green Energy Private Limited
Case Number : IA/21(AHM)2026 in C.P.(1B)/195(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 406
The Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed a plea challenging the termination of a Rs. 48.29 crore EPC contract awarded to Gensol Engineering Ltd.
The bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed that the termination was based on pre-existing contractual breaches and not solely on the company's insolvency. “...the mere temporal proximity between initiation of CIRP and termination does not establish causation, particularly where contemporaneous material evidences preexisting and continuing contractual breaches. The material on record does not demonstrate a direct nexus between the termination and the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Mangal Sales Corporation v. M/s Prolific Papers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : CP IB NO. 429/(ND)/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 403
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, has found that a demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was valid despite being sent to an unregistered email ID, as it had been consistently used in prior dealings between the parties. The order was passed by a bench of Judicial Member Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh.
Pollution Control Authorities Cannot Take Coercive Steps During IBC Moratorium: NLCT Bengaluru
Case Title : Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain v. The Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Case Number : IA No. 583 of 2024 in CP(IB) No. 32/BB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 407
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bengaluru has recently held that pollution control authorities cannot take coercive steps that disrupt the operations of a corporate debtor during the moratorium, even though they can continue regulatory oversight.
A bench of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada held, “We are of a considered view that a distinction is required to be drawn between: Regulatory actions undertaken in public interest to ensure environmental compliance; and Coercive / enforcement actions which have the effect of recovery or adversely impact the assets and operations of the Corporate Debtor during CIRP. While the former cannot be completely interdicted in view of the law laid down in Embassy Property (supra), the latter would fall within the mischief of Section 14 of the Code if they have the effect of defeating the CIRP or disturbing the asset base of the Corporate Debtor.”