SUPREME COURT
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
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 63
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.”
HIGH COURT
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.
NCLAT
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.”
https://www.livelawbiz.com/nclat/nclt-need-not-separately-examine-rps-opinion-on-pufe-transactions-while-avoidance-pleas-are-pending-nclat-523145
NCLT
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