SUPREME COURT
Case Title : LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Case Number : MISC.APPLICATION NO.1256 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 126
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its February 25, 2025 order dismissing an SLP in a dispute over an agreement to sell a property of a corporate debtor, holding that a disposed Special Leave Petition cannot be reopened on the basis of subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings or rival financial offers before the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the court cannot sit in appeal over the comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or substitute its own view for the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
HIGH COURT
Moratorium Doesn't Extinguish The Criminal Liability In Terms Of 32A When The Plan Is Not Approved.
Case Title : M/S Jas Infrastructure and Power Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : CRL.A. 1596/2025, CRL.M.A. 34399/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 294
The Delhi High Court on 17 March 2026 held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) only creates a temporary moratorium and does not extinguish criminal liability. Protection under Section 32A is available only after the approval of a resolution plan that brings about a qualifying change in management.
The Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the plea of JAS Infrastructure and Power Ltd. seeking suspension of sentence in a coal block allocation case.
Case Title : Vishal Ganpat Shinde vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 30071 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 164
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed writ petitions filed by a suspended director of Gokul Sugar Industries Ltd and a financial creditor challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal refusing withdrawal of insolvency proceedings. The court held that after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, the corporate debtor is represented by the interim resolution professional and not by the suspended management.
NCLAT
Case Title : Sunrise Industries Vs Umesh Gupta
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2269/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 107
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently observed that fairness in insolvency asset sales cannot be viewed from the perspective of a single bidder alone, while dismissing Sunrise Industries' appeal seeking consideration of its higher bid submitted after the deadline in the liquidation process of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed that,
“Fairness is a constant that works differently in different factual context. And it needs to be understood in the context. The appellant who worries about denial of fairness to it has overlooked fairness to which the second respondent is entitled to. It is desperate to realise its dues....Fairness does not exist to the exclusion of all, but works in conjunction with all. It is not a one-way street.”
Case Title : Indu Jain Vs Birla Jewels Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1840/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 108
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench at New Delhi has recently allowed an appeal filed by a sole proprietorship against rejection of its insolvency plea, holding that a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is maintainable at the instance of a proprietorship concern. The tribunal relied on earlier precedent to hold that proprietorship firms are competent to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process.
NCLAT Refuses To Stay Adani's Rs 15,000 Cr Resolution Plan For JAL on Vedanta's Challenge
Case Title : Vedanta Limited Vs. Bhuvan Madan Resolution Professional of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 552 and 553 /2026
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on Tuesday refused to stay the implementation of Adani's ₹15,000-crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) while hearing a plea by the Vedanta Group challenging the approval of the plan by the Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said that “the implementation of the resolution plan shall go on, however, the action shall abide with the result of the case,” while declining to grant an interim stay on the March 17, 2026 order approving the plan submitted by Adani Enterprises Limited.
CIRP Must Remain Confined To Single Project, Cannot Affect Other Projects: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Navin M. Raheja v. Vipul Jain & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2168 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 109
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi, on 20 March 2026 held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by the allottees of a single real estate project must stay confined to that project and cannot extend to other projects of the developer.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra disposed of an appeal filed by the suspended director of Raheja Developers Ltd., Navin M. Raheja, against the NCLT, New Delhi. The NCLT had admitted a Section 7 application filed by the allottees of project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise).
Case Title : Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs AS Met Corp Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 210/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 111
In a case that was transferred to the Principal Bench after a controversy over alleged attempts to influence a judicial member, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside the admission of insolvency proceedings against KLSR Infratech Ltd and dismissed a Rs 3.79-crore claim filed by A.S. Met Corp Pvt Ltd, holding that a genuine dispute existed between the parties and imposing costs of Rs 10 lakh on the operational creditor.
Limitation Act Cannot Extend Time To Appeal Against Liquidator's Rejection Of Claim Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Sansar Investment & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (Liquidator)
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.466/2024 and (IA No.1271/2024) CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 111
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has recently held that the 14-day limitation period for filing an appeal against a liquidator's decision under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a self-contained time limit and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act through Section 238A of the Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey held that Section 238A applies only where the Code does not itself prescribe a specific limitation period and that Section 42 contains a self-contained time limit for filing an appeal.
After Submitting EoI Under RFRP, Resolution Applicant Cannot Question Its Clauses: NCLAT
Case Title : Goldendreams Buildcon Private Limited v. Snehal Arvind Kamdar (RP of Somerset Construction Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 112
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that a resolution applicant cannot question clauses of the Request for Resolution Plan after submitting its Expression of Interest under the same RFRP, while challenging rejection of its resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “When the Appellant had submitted their EoI basis the RFRP, they cannot now turn around to question any of the clauses of the RFRP. Having submitted their EoI in terms of the RFRP tantamount to subscribing to the clauses of the RFRP and that having been done, applicability of Clause 12 cannot be questioned at this stage when the plan has been rejected.”
Successive Fraud Plea Not Maintainable Under IBC After Finality Of CIRP Admission: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : N.K Kurian v. K. Easwara Pillai
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 557/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 113
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai on Tuesday held that a party cannot file successive applications under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to indirectly reopen insolvency proceedings that have already attained finality.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed the appeal filed by N.K. Kurian, the suspended Managing Director of Mango Meadows Agricultural Pleasure Land Pvt Ltd, noting deliberate concealment of material facts and abuse of process.
Case Title : BSE Limited Vs Avil Menzes & Ors and BSE Limited Vs Mrudula Brodie & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1786/2025 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1862/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 114
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday held that once dues against a corporate debtor stand crystallised and the dispute relates to recovery affecting the insolvency or liquidation process, the matter falls within the ambit of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In such cases, the National Company Law Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass directions concerning the assets of the corporate debtor, even if the action originates under the securities law.
Case Title : Raja Sekhara Rao Narayanam and Ors. vs. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.98/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 115
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has recently held it is not required to examine the reasons behind a bank's decision to reject a one-time settlement proposal while deciding whether insolvency proceedings should continue, so long as debt and default are established.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the suspended directors of Anand Bharathi Fertilisers (India) Pvt Ltd against the admission of insolvency proceedings at the instance of Canara Bank.
Case Title : Atul Babulal Prajapati and Pinal Prajapati Vs Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2273/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 117
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Wednesday held that extinguishment of receivables through accounting entries can amount to a transfer of property under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and where such adjustments benefit related parties and reduce the corporate debtor's asset pool, the transaction may be treated as preferential under Section 43 of the Code.
Limitation To File Appeal Under IBC Begins From Date Of Pronouncement In Open Court: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Mukesh Sumermal Sanghvi v. R. D. Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1194 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 116
The Principle Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), at New Delhi on 25 March, held that the limitation period to file an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, begins from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open court, not from the date of its uploading on the NCLT portal.
A Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka clarified that uploading constitutes only an administrative act.
NCLAT New Delhi Upholds NCLT Order Cancelling Anil Syal Property Auction Over Procedural Lapses
Case Title : Akshat Gupta Vs Union Bank of India &Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1577/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 119
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 25 March, held that the auction of Anil Syal's 50% undivided share in a Uday Park residential flat was procedurally flawed due to inadequate notice, undervaluation, and lack of stakeholder consultation, justifying fresh valuation and re‑auction.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by successful bidder Akshat Gupta.
Case Title : Nandani Singh v. Sandeep Kr. Bhatt and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.60 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 118
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on 25 March, held that in the case of a continuing guarantee enforceable on demand, the limitation under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, runs from the date of the enforceable-demand notice and not from the date of execution of the guarantee document. A Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed:
“It is far too fundamental a point that where a deed of guarantee provides for its invocation through a demand, then the liability under the same becomes enforceable only on demand. It is admitted that the notice under Sec.13(2) SARFAESI Act was issued on 27.02.2019 and the default commenced 27.04.2019. Necessarily the petition filed under Sec.95 IBC on 30.12.2021 is within time.”
NCLAT Flags Petty Litigation By Income Tax Dept, Calls For CBDT Policy Action In IBC Case
Case Title : Income Tax Officer Vs M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP & Mr. Prashant Agarwal Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 286/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 120
Calling the appeal a “perfect example for wastage of valuable public resources," the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department in an insolvency matter and directed that the issue be brought to the notice of the Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for appropriate policy action against such litigation.
The appellate tribunal made the observation while upholding the approval of the resolution plan of Solar Voltaic Power LLP and rejecting the challenge raised by the Income Tax Department, which had sought a higher allocation towards its tax dues.
Acknowledgment Of Debt By Corporate Debtor Is Acknowledgment By Guarantor, Extends Limitation: NCLAT
Case Title : Phoenix Arc Private Limited Trustee of Phoenix Trust Versus Mr. Rajendra Himmatlal Salot
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2185 of 2024
CITATION : LLBiz NCLAT 121
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that acknowledgment of debt in a corporate debtor's financial statements extends the limitation period against personal guarantors, setting aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which had dismissed insolvency proceedings as time-barred. “We note that an acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
And that such a position has been settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v Bishal Jaiswal”, the tribunal said.
CIRP Cannot Be Revived After Resolution Plan Approval And Liquidation: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : MR. G. MADHUSUDHAN RAO Vs SRA OF BHEEMA CEMENTS LIMITED
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 146/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 122
On 18 March 2026, the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be revived after approval of the resolution plan and initiation of liquidation.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey, dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. G. Madhusudhan Rao, Ex-Resolution Professional and Chairman of the Monitoring Committee of Bheema Cements Limited.
Case Title : Sushant Chhabra & Anr. v. Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 443 & 444 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 123
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Friday held that a fresh insolvency application against a personal guarantor filed during the subsistence of an interim moratorium triggered by an earlier application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is void from the outset and cannot be validated even if the earlier proceedings are later withdrawn.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said, “The interim moratorium in Section 96 has statutory consequences, which interim moratorium although shall come to an end when application is either dismissed or admitted or withdrawn, but during the period when interim moratorium is operating, any initiation of proceeding shall be non-est in law."
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Consortium of Crown Steels and Sunrise Industries & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1683/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 123
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday held that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) cannot be directed to revive a concession agreement for the development of a multi-level parking and commercial project at the New Delhi Railway Station under the Airport Express Line.
The tribunal noted that the agreement had been terminated in 2017, well before the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Prime Infrapark Pvt Ltd, the special purpose vehicle to which the concession was assigned.
NCLT
Case Title : Canara Bank vs. Supreme Ahmednagar Karmala Tembhurni Tollways Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.66/Chd/Hry/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHA) 250
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh recently held that mere pendency of arbitration cannot be a ground to defer insolvency proceedings once debt and default are established.
A bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh while admitting a Tollways company to CIRP observed, “Mere pendency of arbitration does not constitute a realizable asset or extinguish an admitted financial liability. In contrast, the Financial Creditor has established a debt of ₹ 283.95 crores as on 31.10.2024, well above the statutory threshold, and default stands proved. Accordingly, the pending arbitration proceedings do not furnish a valid ground to defer or reject admission of the present application.”
Liquidation Can Be Recalled Using Inherent Powers Where Debt Is Settled: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Maximus Arc Limited v. Ms. Mummaneni Vasra Laxmi
Case Number : IA (IBC)/1942/2025 in Company Petition IB/36/7/HDB/2022 U/s 7 of IBC CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 252
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 March, held that even though the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, does not expressly provide for withdrawal of liquidation proceedings, the Tribunal can exercise its inherent powers in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri recalled the liquidation process against Ravi Cranes & Movers Ltd., preventing the liquidation from proceeding further.
NCLT Indore Rejects Suspended Management Plea To Join GEI Power Resolution Plan Approval Proceedings
Case Title : Carnet Elias Fernandes Vs Jagdish Kumar Parulkar RP of GEI Power Ltd Case Number : Inv.P/1(MP)2026 in IA(Plan)/5(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/49(MP)2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 251
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected a plea by the suspended management of GEI Power Ltd. seeking to take part in the proceedings where the Tribunal is considering approval of the company's resolution plan, holding that former management cannot intervene at this stage after the lenders have already approved the plan.
Refusing the request, the tribunal said that allowing such participation would go against the limited role of the court at the plan approval stage, observing that, “Impleading the Applicant at this stage would have the practical effect of inviting commercial objections to a plan that has already been approved by the CoC with the requisite voting share, which would directly impinge upon the commercial wisdom of the CoC and would be contrary to the settled law on the subject."
Case Title : Bank of Maharashtra v. Smt. Nukala Savithri and ors.
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 181/95/HDB/2022u/s. 95 of IBC, 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 254
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently reiterated that an objection based on insufficient stamp duty on a guarantee deed cannot defeat proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, admitting a personal insolvency petition filed by Bank of Maharashtra against Nukala Savithri, personal guarantor to SVSVS Projects Private Limited.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri heard the petition filed for initiation of insolvency resolution against the personal guarantor, arising from default in repayment of credit facilities granted to the corporate debtor.
IBC Cannot Be Misused To Impede Recovery Process Under SARFAESI: NCLT Delhi
Case Title : Viveck Goel v. Federal Bank and Ors.
Case Number : C.P (IB) No. 4/ND/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 256
The National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, has recently dismissed an application filed under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which allows a personal guarantor to initiate insolvency proceedings against himself, holding that the provision cannot be used to stall recovery proceedings already underway under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal said the plea was a tactical attempt to take advantage of the interim moratorium under the IBC.
NCLT Chandigarh Orders Promoters Responsible For Insolvency To Vacate Majestic Hotels' Property
Case Title : Mr. Navneeet Gupta Vs Mr. Jasbir Singh Khangura & Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC/2486(CH)/2024 In CP(IB) No.180/Chd/Pb/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 257
On 17 March, the Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in the insolvency proceedings of Majestic Hotels Ltd. (corporate debtor), directed the promoters and related parties to vacate portions of the company's flagship property, Hotel Majestic Park Plaza in Ludhiana.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member K. Biswal and Technical Member K.K. Singh observed: “The intent as per the provisions of the IBC is that if the Corporate Debtor has failed to meet its obligations in payment to the Creditors, then following the process as provided in the Code, management of the CD is to be handed over to a third person who could resolve the condition of insolvency of the said Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, R1 and R4 either individually or jointly cannot claim to be treated at par with third party creditors as they are the ones responsible for the failure of the CD and bringing it to the condition of insolvency.”
Parties Cannot Reopen Claims Invoking Tribunal's Review Powers After Plan Is Approved: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation Through- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Naveen Kumar Sood, Erstwhile RP of Ujaas Energy Limited and Anr. Case Number : Review Application/1(MP)2024 in (MP) CP(IB) 9 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 262
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 19 March 2026 held that once a resolution plan is approved, parties cannot reopen claim classification by invoking the Tribunal's inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta dismissed a review application filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), which sought to modify the order approving the resolution plan of Ujaas Energy Limited.
Penal Provisions Under IBC Require Proof Of Wilful Conduct: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Kuldeep Verma, RP of KS Oils Ltd v. Ramesh Chandra Garg and Ors
Case Number : IA 164 of 2018 in TP 60 of 2019 [CP(IB) 32 of 2017]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 264
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 20 March, held that Sections 70, 72, and 74 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be invoked without clear and cogent evidence of wilful intent or fraudulent conduct.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta rejected an application seeking penal action against the erstwhile management of K.S. Oils Ltd.
Non‑Compliance Of Form FA Cannot Defeat Insolvency Settlement Backed By CoC Approval: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. R Sugumaran v. Safire Machinery Company Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/1766(CHE)/2024 in TCP(IBC)/141/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 261
On 23 March, the Chennai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that non-filing of Form FA during insolvency proceedings would not defeat a settlement where all dues were satisfied and Committee of Creditors (CoC) approval was already in place. Form FA is the prescribed application to formally request withdrawal of insolvency proceedings once the parties have reached a settlement.
A Bench of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam closed the insolvency proceedings against Safire Machinery Company Private Limited
NCLT Ahmedabad Relies On DRT Judgment To Prove Execution Of Personal Guarantees Despite No Originals
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Rushi Pradeep Mehta
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/97(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 259
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad recently relied on a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) judgment, along with prior admissions and affidavits, to hold that the execution of personal guarantees stood proved even in the absence of original documents, observing: “It is further observed that even though the original documents are not produced, the existence and execution of the guarantee stand established from (i) the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, (ii) the admission of the Personal Guarantor in earlier proceedings, and (iii) the affidavit of the consortium leader bank. In proceedings under the Code, strict rules of evidence are not applicable and _ the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to rely upon secondary evidence where sufficient foundation is laid.”
No Asset Or Repayment Assessment Needed At Admission Stage For Personal Guarantor IRP: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. S Senthil Kumar v. Canara Bank
Case Number : CP(IB)/325 (CHE)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 263
The Chennai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 23 March held that at the stage of admission under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority need not assess the repayment capacity or sufficiency of assets of a personal guarantor.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramanian admitted the petition filed by Senthil Kumar, a personal guarantor to Biogen Fertilizers India Private Limited, seeking initiation of an Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) against himself.
OTS Proposals By Corporate Debtor Extend Limitation Against Personal Guarantors: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Rushi Pradeep Mehta
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/97(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 259
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad recently held that One Time Settlement proposals made by the borrower can amount to acknowledgment of liability and extend limitation in insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed, “The OTS proposals placed on record demonstrate acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even if such proposals were initiated by the Corporate Debtor, the liability of the Personal Guarantors being coextensive under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such acknowledgment ensures to the benefit of the Financial Creditor against the guarantors as well, in the absence of any contractual exclusion. Further, the judgment and Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal constitute a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, the application is held to be within limitation.”
Case Title : Santanu T. Ray vs Axis Bank
Case Number : I.A. (IBC) 1521(KB) of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 265
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has held that the procedural requirements under the IBBI Circular dated November 4, 2025, which provides for approaching the PMLA Special Court for restitution of attached assets, cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat or delay the relief sought in the present application during an ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Kaizen Power.
A coram of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah observed: “In that view of the matter, the procedural requirement as envisaged under the aforesaid Circular cannot be applied retrospectively so as to defeat or delay the relief sought in the present application, particularly when the issue pertains to custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor during subsistence of CIRP.”