SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Vedanta Ltd vs Bhuvan Madan & Ors
Case Number : C.A. 4098 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 145
The Supreme Court on Monday, 6 April, declined to interfere with the implementation of the resolution plan submitted by Adani Enterprises for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, and directing the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to expedite hearing of the appeals filed by Vedanta Ltd, scheduled for 10 April.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said: “In view of the fact that Company Appeal AT (Ins) 552, 553 of 2026 are now listed for final hearing before the NCLAT on 10th April, 2026, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the NCLAT. However, having regard to the nature of the decision and its consequential implications, we request the NCLAT to hear the appeal on out of term basis on the date fixed or immediately on the next working day, if the arguments are not concluded.”
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Homebuyers' Writ Against Ansal Properties' ₹257 Crore Default
Case Title : GENUINE HOMEBUYERS ASSOCIATION FOR RELIEF (GHAR) Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS
Case Number : Diary No. 11521 of 2026
The Supreme Court on Monday, 6 April, issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Genuine Homebuyers Association for Relief (GHAR), in Uttar Pradesh, challenging the insolvency proceedings against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd in relation to the Sushant Golf City project in Lucknow.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, after hearing the homebuyer association, directed that the petition be tagged with the main matter involving Ansal Properties.
Case Title : Bank of Baroda vs IDBI Bank Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Diary No.3755 of 2026
Bank of Baroda has approached the Supreme Court in the insolvency of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd (RCIL), questioning an NCLAT ruling that lenders cannot revisit a resolution plan after it has been approved. The dispute centers on a Rs 195 crore Reliance Bhutan Loan and how it is to be distributed among creditors. At the heart of the case is a decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to reallocate this loan in favour of dissenting financial creditors. Bank of Baroda had backed that move.
Case Title : M/S NIRMAL UJJWAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS RAVI SETHIA & ORS.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11193 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 148
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a multi-state co-operative society cannot submit a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code unless the investment is permitted by its bye-laws and falls either in a subsidiary institution or in the “same line of business”. The court clarified that under Section 64(d) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, an MSCS can invest its funds only in a subsidiary institution or in an entity engaged in the same line of business, and such determination must be made with reference to the society's bye-laws.
HIGH COURT
Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging 'Present and Voting' Framework Under IBC
Case Title : Vikram Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4177/2026 & CM APPL. 20428/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 343
The Delhi High Court recently issued notice in a writ petition filed by homebuyers of the Supertech Township project challenging the “present and voting” principle used to determine voting outcomes of homebuyers in the committee of creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the respondents, the Union of India through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, interim resolution professional Umesh Singhal, authorised representative Rajiv Malik, and Claim Bridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd., to file their counter affidavits within four weeks, with rejoinder, if any, to be filed thereafter.
IBC Moratorium For Guarantors Won't Shield Borrower Without Pending CIRP: Bombay High Court
Case Title : IL&FS Financial Services Ltd vs Serveall Constructions Private Limited
Case Number : COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 238 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 186
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that moratoriums under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in favour of guarantors cannot be used to block recovery proceedings against a principal borrower. The court allowed IL&FS Financial Services Ltd.'s Rs 203.66 crore suit to proceed against Serveall Constructions Pvt Ltd in a case involving HDIL promoters Rakesh Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan.
Amounts Deposited Pursuant To Court Orders Remain Assets Of The Corporate Debtor: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Morarjee Textiles Ltd vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 2874 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 189
The Bombay High Court on 6 April held that amounts deposited in Court under judicial orders remain assets of the corporate debtor, even if they arise from encashment of a bank guarantee after the commencement of insolvency proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta directed the release of the deposited amount to the Resolution Professional of Morarjee Textiles Ltd, rejecting the claim of D.C. Weaving Mills Pvt Ltd, which had sought withdrawal of the amount as a decree-holder.
Probate Of Will Of Undischarged Insolvent Not Barred Under Indian Succession Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Shaunak Harshad Choksi vs Ketan Kishoredas Mehta & Ors
Case Number : TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.462 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 188
The Bombay High Court has recently held that probate of the Will of a person who died as an undischarged insolvent is not barred under the law and can be sought, even though the estate vests in the Official Assignee for distribution among creditors.
“There is no embargo under the provisions of the Succession Act from seeking probate of the Will of an undischarged insolvent.”
Case Title : Mahan Energen Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
Case Number : WP No. 26143 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 96
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an approved resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is binding on all authorities, including revenue and stamp authorities, and that refusal to carry out mutation in land records would be contrary to the statutory mandate.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while allowing an interim application, observed that the inaction of revenue authorities in mutating the petitioner's name despite an approved resolution plan was “unexplained and contrary to the settled principle governing mutation proceedings."
NCLAT
CIRP Petition By Non-Existent Entity Not Maintainable Post Amalgamation: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Samunnati Agri Value Chain Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 337 / 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 133
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 2 April, held that a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by a non-existent entity is not maintainable, particularly where the entity had been dissolved pursuant to an approved scheme of amalgamation prior to initiation of proceedings. Section 9 allows operational creditors, such as suppliers, employees, or service providers , to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor.
NCLAT Allows NCLT To Decide Deceased Depositor's Claim Without Awaiting Probate
Case Title : Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust v. M/s Chettinad Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.20/2025 (IA No.259/2025)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 134
Holding that issues relating to repayment and retention of deposits made by a deceased depositor fall within the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has allowed an appeal by a claimant and remanded the matter for fresh consideration without awaiting the outcome of pending probate proceedings.
A bench of Judicial member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain clarified that questions concerning the existence, maturity, and retention of the deposit must be independently examined by the NCLT under the Companies Act.
No Power Under IBC To Order TDS Refund; Issue To Be Decided By Income Tax Dept.: NCLAT
Case Title : S. Dhanapal v. Income Tax Officer & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 644/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 135
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has recently observed that tribunals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 cannot order a refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and that such issues must be decided by the Income Tax Department, even in cases involving companies under liquidation.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by S. Dhanapal, the liquidator of Servalakshmi Paper Limited, who had challenged the deduction of TDS by State Bank of India on interest earned from fixed deposits created out of liquidation proceeds.
NCLAT New Delhi Lays Down Illustrative Factors For Withdrawal Of CIRP Before CoC Formation
Case Title : Suyog Suryakant Talekar v. Trivenimudrai Project Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 247 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1534 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 136
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 6 April laid down illustrative guidelines for adjudicating authorities while considering applications for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey held that once CIRP is admitted, the adjudicating authority must examine broader indicators of the corporate debtor's financial condition and the interests of other creditors, and cannot treat withdrawal as a mere bilateral settlement between the parties.
NCLAT Bars Recovery Of Premises Occupied By Future Lifestyle In Kolkata Mall During CIRP
Case Title : Sudha Apparels Ltd Vs Mr. Ravi Sethia
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2026/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 138
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has refused to allow recovery of premises occupied by Future Lifestyle Fashion Ltd, the Kishore Biyani-led company, in a Kolkata mall during its insolvency process. The court held that such possession is protected under the moratorium. Dismissing an appeal by Sudha Apparels Ltd, the tribunal held that since the Resolution Professional (RP) was in possession of the leased premises during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Section 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) barred the lessor from recovering the property.
No Eviction While Lease Dispute Pending: NCLAT Grants Relief To Rose Constructions
Case Title : Rose Constructions v. Atul Kumar Kansal, RP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 965 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 139
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has set aside an order against Rose Constructions, holding that it cannot be treated as an encroacher while its claim of lawful possession under a lease deed is still pending adjudication.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey said, “There are two aspects: (a) I.A. 1197 of 2019 which is premised on the legitimacy of the lease deed dated 20.12.2017 and other is I.A. 2738 of 2020. As long as I.A. 1197 of 2019 is pending, it may be difficult to hold that the present appellant would be an encroacher of the same property. It may be that the appellant might not have contested I.A. 2738 of 2020 diligently, but inasmuch as I.A. 1197 of 2019 is pending on the file of the Adjudicating Authority, any decision to evict the appellant during the pendency of the I.A. 1197 of 2019 cannot be reconciled with the allegation of unlawful occupation of the property in question.”
Monitoring Committee Cannot Revisit Approved Resolution Plan Or Alter Distribution Mechanism: NCLAT
Case Title : Indian Bank & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 629 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 140
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has reiterated that a Monitoring Committee constituted under a resolution plan cannot assume the role of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or the Adjudicating Authority to revisit or modify the terms of an already approved resolution plan. The tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by assenting financial creditors challenging the order of the NCLT, Cuttack Bench, which had directed payment to a dissenting financial creditor in accordance with its liquidation value as determined by the evaluation advisor appointed by the CoC under Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case Title : Anurag Gupta v. M/s. Rare Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd. and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.371/2025 and IA No. 1107/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 141
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has dismissed an appeal filed by a personal guarantor to MBS Impex Pvt. Ltd. as barred by limitation, holding that his plea of gaining knowledge of the order at a later date was untenable since he had participated in the proceedings and that the delay of 32 days was beyond the condonable limit prescribed under law.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Memer Jatindranath Swain observed, “….Though he might not be present on the day of pronouncement of order, but since he has participated in the proceedings right from the day where the application under Section 95 of the Code was filed against him. Therefore, his plea that he was not aware of the fact of the order having been pronounced cannot be accepted by this Appellate Tribunal, being contrary to records. In any case, the limitation will start only from the date of pronouncement and not from the date of knowledge, especially when the Appellant is a party, and was contesting the proceedings. .”
Case Title : Shikhar Dhawan Vs Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 594 of 2026
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Friday issued notice in an appeal filed by cricketer Shikhar Dhawan challenging the rejection of his insolvency plea against Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited. The appellate tribunal will examine whether Dhawan's claim for unpaid player fees for his participation in the Legends League Cricket qualifies as an operational debt and whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was right in holding that the debt was not due and payable.
Case Title : M. Chandra Bushanaswamy Reddy v. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 256/2025 (IA Nos. 725 & 726/2025) CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 142
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 9 April 2026 held that limitation for initiating insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 starts only when the guarantee is clearly and unequivocally invoked, and not from earlier communications that only show default or an intention to recall the loan.
Case Title : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 17 & 18 of 2026
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 17 & 18 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 143
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has observed that a High Court should not have directed exclusion of time or condonation of delay after declining to entertain a writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain held.“Therefore, for all practical purposes when the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the writ petition is not maintainable and has declined to interfere on the same count, it becomes functus officio. Once the maintainability question has been decided by the High Court, on the basis of availability of an appellate remedy before the NCLAT under Section 61 itself, the High Court should not have passed an order, directing this Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay, since the Appellate Tribunals created under Section 410 of Companies Act, under law, are kept out of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts,”
NCLAT Refuses CIRP Deferment Despite Favourable Arbitral Award, Cites Higher Total Debt
Case Title : Vikram Sharma v. Canara Bank
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1750 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 145
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday upheld the admission of insolvency proceedings against a road project SPV, rejecting its plea to defer admission under Section 7 of the IBC on the ground that amounts claimed under an arbitral award exceeded the bank's claim. A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra held that this was not a fit case to apply the Supreme Court's ruling in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., which allows the NCLT to delay admission in appropriate cases.
NCLAT Upholds Voting Window Extended Within Unijules CIRP Timeline, Says No Material Irregularity
Case Title : Consortium of Shantech International Pvt Ltd and Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd v. Mr. Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar, RP and Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 02, 69, 71, 73 89 & 205 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 146
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the extension of the voting window in the insolvency resolution process of Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., holding that continuation of e-voting beyond the initially fixed date did not amount to a material irregularity as it remained within the overall CIRP timeline. Dismissing a batch of appeals filed by unsuccessful resolution applicants and dissenting financial creditor Satsai Finlease Pvt Ltd, the appellate tribunal affirmed the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, approving the resolution plan submitted by S S Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt Ltd, which had secured 98.54 percent votes of the committee of creditors.
Case Title : V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs Shreeram Technology Services Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 283/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 147
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has refused to revive an insolvency plea filed by V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against Shreeram Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that statutory timelines under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be bypassed by invoking the tribunal's inherent powers. A bench comprising Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey reiterated that the 30-day limit prescribed under Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for seeking restoration of a petition is binding and cannot be relaxed by resorting to Rule 11.
Routine Administrative Reasons Cannot Justify Delay: NCLAT Dismisses Kotak Mahindra Bank's Appeal
Case Title : Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Vs Naren Seth
Case Number : I.A. No. 7489 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1952/2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 148
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has refused to condone a 112-day delay in re-filing an appeal by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in the insolvency proceedings of DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd., holding that routine administrative processes cannot justify such a prolonged delay and dismissing the appeal itself. A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said the explanation offered by the bank reflected nothing more than generalised internal difficulties.
NCLAT Confines Insolvency Proceedings Against Raheja Developers To Krishna Housing Scheme Project
Case Title : Navin M Raheja Vs Shravan Minocha
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1276/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 149
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has confined the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Raheja Developers Ltd. to its Krishna Housing Scheme project in Sohna, Gurugram, holding that proceedings initiated by homebuyers of the project are to be confined to that project. The appellate tribunal noted that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), by its order dated August 21, 2025, had admitted a Section 7 application filed by 130 homebuyers and initiated CIRP against the corporate debtor.
NCLAT Upholds Rejection of Insolvency Plea Against Essar Power Gujarat Over Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : Narayani Resources Pvt Ltd Vs Essar Power Gujarat Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 158/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 150
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the rejection of an insolvency plea filed by Narayani Resources Pvt. Ltd. against Essar Power Gujarat Ltd., holding that the dispute between the parties were pre-existing. A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said the disagreement over settlement and payment reconciliation was clear from the record.
NCLT
Case Title : Renaissance Realty Vs Resolution Professional of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd
Case Number : IA No.77/2025 IN CP(IB) No. 330/ALD/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 294
The Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), while deciding an application filed by Renaissance Realty, acknowledged that the applicant had already received possession of a flat in the Jaypee Greens Kalypso Court project. A Bench of Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma also ordered that Rs. 1 crore recovered under RERA proceedings be returned to the insolvency estate of JAL.
Case Title : Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt Ltd Vs Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 70/BB/2026
On Monday, 6 April, the Bengaluru Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) heard an insolvency petition filed by Anevolve Mando Emobility Pvt Ltd against Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, over an alleged operational debt of Rs. 9.84 crore arising from the supply of motors. Before a Bench comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada, Anevolve stated that it had issued a demand notice under Section 8 to Ola Electric prior to filing the petition.
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. V/s. Hajib Raghavan Viswanath
Case Number : I.A. No. 154 of 2025 IN C.P. (IB) No. 66/(MB)/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 299
Holding that a sole secured financial creditor cannot ''jump in and jump out" of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai emphasised that such conduct would undermine the scheme and objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
A bench of Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan was hearing an application filed by SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. seeking withdrawal of its claim and exit from the committee of creditors (CoC) of Interbuild Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : Kohinoor City Office Towers Industrial Estate & Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. Versus Mr. Santanu T. Ray, the Liquidator of Firestar Diamond International Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number : IA No. 4520/2025 In C.P (IB) No. 2096/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 297
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently observed that a liquidator's obligation to preserve and protect assets forming part of the liquidation estate continues despite attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), so long as such assets are not confiscated.
A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt was dealing with an application filed by Kohinoor City Office Towers Industrial Estate & Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. against the liquidator of Firestar Diamond International Pvt Ltd.
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd Vs Darshan Singh Anand
Case Number : IA(I.B.C.)/1339(CH)2025 In CP (IB) No.315/Chd/Hry/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 300
The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 March dismissed an application filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. seeking admission of its claim as a secured financial creditor in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Vikas WSP Ltd. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh held that the claim, filed 1,267 days after the prescribed deadline and after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the resolution plan, could not be entertained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Case Title : Prakash Kishorebhai Bindal Vs Axis Bank Limited
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/25(AHM)2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 302
The Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed a voluntary insolvency application by a personal guarantor (Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016), holding that the plea was barred by limitation and filed with the intent to stall recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
Liability For Fraudulent Trading Under IBC Cannot Be Determined Mechanically: NCLT Amaravati
Case Title : Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus Saradambika Power Plant Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC)/401/2022,
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 307
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Amaravati, has held that liability for fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be determined through a mechanical or formula-based approach and must instead rest on a detailed examination of financial records and transactions. A Bench of Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli and Technical Member Umesh Kumar Shukla observed that fixing liability based merely on contractual percentages or competing claims without proper reconciliation would be impermissible.
Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC Does Not Protect Personal Guarantors: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : State Bank of India Vs Jitendra Singh
Case Number : CP (IB) NO. 205/CHD/CHD/2021 & CP (IB) NO. 214/CHD/HRY/2021 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 306
The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 18 March held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not extend to personal guarantors of a corporate debtor and therefore allows creditors to continue proceedings against them even during the pendency of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal admitted insolvency petitions filed by the State Bank of India against personal guarantors Jitendra Singh and Gurmeet Sodhi.
NCLT Amaravati Bench Admits Insolvency Plea Against Kallam Textiles Over ₹210 Crore Default
Case Title : Union Bank of India vs. Kallam Textiles Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB)/3/7/AMR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 303
The National Company Law Tribunal's Amravati Bench has admitted Union Bank of India's insolvency plea against Kallam Textiles Ltd. over a default exceeding Rs 210 crore. The Bench of Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli and Technical Member Umesh Kumar Shukla said there was no reason to refuse admission once debt and default were clearly established. It rejected the company's claim that the proceedings were being used merely for recovery.
Case Title : Aakash Educational Services Limited v. Mr.Shailendra Ajmera and Anr
Case Number : IA No. 1111/2025 in CP(IB) No. 149/BB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 310
The Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has refused to examine questions relating to foreign exchange law compliance in a dispute arising from the Aakash Educational Services–Byju's rights issue. It held that such issues fall outside its jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The order was passed on Tuesday by a bench of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada. It came on an application filed by Aakash Educational Services Limited against Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, the parent entity of ed-tech Byju's.
Limiting CIRP Negotiations To Higher-Ranked Bidders Not Arbitrary If As Per RFRP: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Biotreasure Overseas Through Himanshu Agrawal v. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre RP of Indian Soya Industries Pvt. Ltd and ors
Case Number : IA/208(MP)2021 in TP 49 of 2019 [CP(IB) 484 of 2019]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 311
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Indore Bench has held that restricting negotiations in a corporate insolvency resolution process to higher-ranked bidders is valid where it flows from the bidding framework and serves the objective of value maximisation. A coram of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta in the CIRP of Soya Industries observed that “the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was conducted strictly in accordance with the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP), which specifically stipulated that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) would negotiate only with the H1 and H2 bidders, with the objective of streamlining and narrowing down the CIRP process.”
Chit Fund Firms Are Financial Service Providers; Insolvency Plea Not Maintainable: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Siply Services Private Limited v. IBG Echits India Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 11/7/HDB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 312
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has held that chit fund companies are financial service providers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and cannot be treated as corporate debtors for insolvency proceedings. It dismissed a plea filed by Siply Services Private Limited against IBG Echits India Private Limited.
NCLT Ahmedabad Rejects Company's Own Insolvency Plea As Tactic To Stall Recovery By Lenders
Case Title : Qtop Fab Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CP(IB) 47(Ahm) of 2023]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 313
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has refused to admit a company's own insolvency plea, holding that the move showed a “lack of bona fide intent” and was a “tactical measure to frustrate recovery proceedings” initiated by lenders. A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma said that even where debt and default are established, admission is “not so mechanical as to permit admission of every application,” and the tribunal must examine whether the plea is genuine or an abuse of process.
Case Title : Gutz Feel Film Production LLP vs Eros International Media Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.670/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 314
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai on Tuesday dismissed an insolvency application filed by Gutz Feel Film Production LLP against Eros International Media Ltd over an alleged default of Rs. 3.33 crore arising from profit-sharing agreements for the films “English Vinglish” and “Ki and Ka”. Holding that the claim arose from a profit-sharing arrangement, which does not qualify as an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a bench of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt observed:
“Thus, the profit from the revenue-sharing arrangement cannot be equated with an operational debt, and the agreement is essentially in the nature of a joint venture can not be construed as service or goods supplied to the Respondent by any stretch of imagination. At best, it can be termed as recoverable amount, which can be agitated before the Civil Court leading document and evidence etc .”
NCLT Bengaluru Appoints RP From IBBI Panel In FineFacilis Personal Guarantor Insolvency
Case Title : Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 178/BB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 317
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru, on 30 March 2026, appointed Kondisetty Kumar Dushyantha as the Resolution Professional (RP) in insolvency proceedings initiated by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd (ARCIL) against the personal guarantor of FineFacilis Management Pvt Ltd. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada rejected the guarantor, Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy's challenge alleging non-compliance with Section 97 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which governs the appointment of an RP.
Dispatch Of Statutory Demand Notice to Last Known Address Constitutes Valid Service: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Punjab National Bank and Kotim Reddy Anitha
Case Number : Company Petition IB/65/95/HDB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 319
The Hyderabad National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that sending a statutory demand notice to the last known address of a personal guarantor constitutes valid service under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, even if the notice is returned unserved. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri admitted a petition filed by Punjab National Bank under Section 95 of the Code to initiate the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) against Smt. Kotimreddy Anitha, the personal guarantor of Variegate Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Part Payment Of Debt After Filing CIRP Plea Won't Affect IBC Threshold: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Omshree Agro Tech Private Limited v. Kasturi Farm Private Limited
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/1099(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 321
The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that part-payments made by a corporate debtor after the filing of a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will not defeat the CIRP threshold. A bench of judicial member Nilesh Sharma and technical member Sameer Kakar reiterated, “…we hold that the threshold under Section 4 of Code is required to be made at the time of filing of application under Section 9 and even if some payment is made by the corporate debtor after filing of application by the applicant reducing the amount claimed to an amount below the threshold amount, the application will still be maintainable,” while dealing with a plea filed by Omshree Agro Tech Private Limited seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against Kasturi Farm Private Limited.
CoC-Approved Resolution Plan Can Be Rejected If It Violates IBC: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : K Parameswaran Nair
Case Number : IA(IBC)(Plan)/03/KOB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 320
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kochi Bench has held that even an approved resolution plan cannot be approved if it fails to meet the mandatory requirements under Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, sending back plans for two real estate projects of Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration. A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel said, “Even where a Resolution Plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors, this Adjudicating Authority is duty-bound to examine whether the plan conforms to the provisions of the Code and the CIRP Regulations, and in cases of non-compliance, the decision of the Committee of Creditors can be interfered with to ensure adherence to the statutory framework.”
Loss-Making Companies Can Pay Shareholders During Capital Reduction: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Abtran India Private Limited
Case Number : CP(CA)/49(CHE)/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 322
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has reiterated that even loss-making companies are legally permitted to pay shareholders during a capital reduction exercise under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, observing that such decisions fall within the commercial wisdom of shareholders. The coram of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam said there is no bar in law on a company with accumulated losses returning capital to its shareholders, provided statutory requirements are complied with.
NCLT Mumbai Upholds CoC's Decision To Conduct Second E-Challenge In Future Enterprises' CIRP
Case Title : Orissa Metaliks Pvt Ltd vs Avil Jerome Menzes & Ors
Case Number : I.A No. 4320/2025 In CP No. 513 /2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 325
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently dismissed Orissa Metaliks Private Limited's challenge to the Committee of Creditors' decision to conduct a second round of the e-challenge mechanism in the CIRP of Future Enterprises Limited. A bench of Judicial Member Lakshmi Gurung and Technical Member Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer held that the CoC's decision to undertake a second challenge process is not in violation of Regulation 39(1A) of the CIRP Regulations, while observing that the objective of the Code includes maximisation of the value of the assets of the corporate debtor.
Non-Disclosure By Bankrupt Prompts NCLT Kochi To Condone 470-Day Delay In Federal Bank Claim
Case Title : The Federal Bank Limited v. C Prabhakaran
Case Number : IA(IBC)/356/KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/48/KOB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 326
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has condoned a 470-day delay in filing a claim by Federal Bank in bankruptcy proceedings against personal guarantor Reena Paul, holding that the delay stood sufficiently explained due to non-disclosure and suppression of material facts by the bankrupt. A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel passed the order, observing: "…this Adjudicating Authority is of the considered view that although the Applicant is bound by the public announcement, the delay in filing the claim stands sufficiently explained due to the non-disclosure and suppression of material facts by the Bankrupt.”
NCLT Kochi Admits CIRP Against Seguro Foundations, Applies ₹1 Lakh Threshold As Claim Pre-Amendment
Case Title : Mr. Saji Mathew (Deceased) and Ors v. M.s Seguro Foundations and Structures Pvt Ltd and Anr
Case Number : IBA/30/KOB/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 327
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has admitted an insolvency plea against Seguro Foundations & Structures Pvt Ltd over unpaid salary dues, making it clear that the earlier Rs 1 lakh threshold will apply as the case was filed before the law was revised. The order was passed by Judicial Member Vinay Goel. The case had been brought by Shaji Mathew, an operational creditor, seeking insolvency proceedings over unpaid salary. Mathew had been appointed as a project manager for a school modernization project in the Malappuram district at a monthly salary of Rs 80,000.