IBC Monthly Digest: April 2026
Kirit Singhania
1 May 2026 9:02 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Vedanta Limited vs Bhuvan Madan
Case Number : Diary No. 18505 of 2026
Vedanta Ltd has moved the Supreme Court assailing the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order declining interim relief against implementation of Adani Enterprises' resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
The plan, approved by the NCLT on March 17, 2026, with a 93.81% CoC vote, is under challenge over the alleged non-consideration of Vedanta's higher bid in breach of the value maximisation objective under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Supreme Court Dismisses BCCI Review Against Order Setting Aside NCLAT Decision Closing Byju's CIRP
Case Title : Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Glas Trust Company LLC & Ors
Case Number : REVIEW PETITION (C) in Diary. No. 69532 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 141
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) against its October 23, 2024 ruling in the Byju's insolvency case. In that ruling, the court had set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's approval of a post-admission settlement in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd., Byju's parent company.
Case Title : Satinder Singh Bhasin vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors
Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 142
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while considering pleas seeking cancellation of bail granted to Satinder Singh Bhasin, rejected his contention that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (BIIPL), of which he is a director, could not question the Rs.50 crore deposited as a bail condition due to the two-year look-back period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
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 : 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.”
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.
Case Title : Nitendra Kumar Tomer, Suspended Director, Ambro Asia Private Limited versus Unox S.P.A. and another
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 3607 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 150
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a suspended director of Ambro Asia Pvt. Ltd., holding that once an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is appointed and the management of the corporate debtor vests in it, a suspended director cannot maintain an appeal in the company's name under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
In a judgment delivered on April 10, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran said that after admission of insolvency proceedings and appointment of the IRP, it is not open to a suspended director to file or maintain an appeal in the name of the corporate debtor.
Case Title : BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH, U.P. & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 392 OF 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 152
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows it to pass orders to do complete justice, to condone illegalities in a long-running dispute involving defunct Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (JUL), directing disbursal of workers' dues estimated at over Rs. 100 crore and appointment of an administrator to oversee the process. Separately, the court directed the deposit of Rs 51 crore realised from the sale of the Kanpur unit for utilisation towards workers' dues.
Case Title : PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED Versus SINNAR THERMAL POWER LIMITED AND ORS
Case Number : SLP (C) 12367 of 2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz SC 159
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the special leave petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. against Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd., effectively affirming the Delhi High Court's order dated February 11, which held that once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), claims cannot be pursued through parallel arbitral award execution proceedings. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition, finding no ground for interference with the high court order. Justice Narasimha also orally termed the plea an “abuse of process."
Case Title : Anjani Technoplast Ltd v. Subh Gautam
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 8247 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 167
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that, “The insolvency process is a remedy with far-reaching consequences and must be reserved for cases of genuine insolvency or financial distress, not for the enforcement of money decrees.”
Case Title : APEX HEIGHTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS RAM KISHOR ARORA & ANR.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Application No.1235/2026 in C.A. No.2626/2025
The Supreme court recently requested the NCLAT to examine whether a court-constituted committee should oversee all projects of Supertech Ltd or whether such monitoring should continue only for the 16 projects already entrusted to NBCC, noting the urgency arising from stalled developments.
Case Title : STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Versus DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. AND ANR
Case Number : C.A. No. 8527/2022
The Supreme Court of India has allowed the appeal filed by the State Bank of India against an October 14, 2022 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the exclusion of SBI and other lenders from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the insolvency of Reliance Infratel Limited.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the NCLAT ruling and restored the status of lenders claiming under corporate guarantees as financial creditors and directed their inclusion in the CoC of Reliance Infratel Limited.
Case Title : STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS DOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ANR.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8527 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 170
The Supreme Court of India on Monday held that stamp duty law cannot be used as a weapon to defeat creditor claims, ruling that defects in stamping are curable and do not invalidate corporate guarantees. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the March 2, 2021 order of the NCLT and the October 14, 2022 judgment of the NCLAT, which had rejected the claims of the SBI-led consortium of lenders against Reliance Infratel Ltd. on grounds including insufficient stamping, non-disclosure and lack of proper verification and denied them status as financial creditors..
Case Title : AVJ HEIGHTSS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS IIFL FINANCE LIMITED & ANR.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 3811 of 2023
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday took suo motu cognisance of delays in approval of resolution plans pending before various benches of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), stating that the objective of time-bound resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is “impossible to achieve” in the present situation. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the matter pursuant to its order dated April 16, 2026. By that order, the Court had sought data from the Registrar of the NCLT Principal Bench, New Delhi, and from the parties on (i) (i) the number of applications pending for approval of resolution plans, (ii) how long such applications have been pending, and (iii) the reasons for delay.
RP's Admission Of Claim In CIRP Not Acknowledgment Of Debt, Cannot Extend Limitation: Supreme Court
Case Title : SHANKAR KHANDELWAL vs OMKARA ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD & ANR.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 13158-13159 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 172
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional during insolvency proceedings is merely an administrative act and does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court said such admission is only a recital or entry of debt and cannot extend the limitation period for initiating proceedings.
Case Title : PRERNA SINGH VERSUS COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS & ORS.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s).2569/2022
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday warned the Superintendent of Police, Hapur, of personal liability if possession of premises belonging to Prerna Singh is not handed over within a week, directing the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors of Xalta Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to ensure compliance. The Court once again rebuked the RP and CoC for failing to comply with its April 16, 2026 order, noting that against the committed monthly rent of Rs 50.55 lakh, only Rs 33.83 lakh was paid for April 2026.
HIGH COURT
IBC Moratorium Can't Revive Missed Written Statement Deadline: Delhi High Court
Case Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd vs Manish Jain & Ors
Case Number : CS(COMM) 800/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 331
The Delhi High Court has recently held that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to seek rejection of a plaint at the threshold on legal grounds, cannot revive the statutory period for filing a written statement once it has expired. The court clarified that this position would apply even in a case where the defendant had invoked insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna was dealing with an appeal filed by a personal guarantor of an insolvency-bound company, against whom personal insolvency proceedings were pending under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. He was challenging an order dated January 27, 2026, whereby the Joint Registrar had closed his right to file a written statement.
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."
Case Title : Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. State of Karnataka and Anr
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 30541 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 51
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a Constitutional Court issues directions concerning immovable properties situated in another State, authorities where such properties are located are duty-bound to implement them. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a petition filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a secured creditor of Electrex (India) Limited, seeking implementation of directions issued by the Bombay High Court concerning certain sale transactions involving mortgaged properties in Bengaluru.
Case Title : Maha Hotel Projects Private Limited vs. State of Telangana and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No.27 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 15
The Telangana High Court has upheld the State's decision to grant consent for a change in control of a Hyderabad hotel project under an insolvency resolution plan, holding that a shareholder cannot claim a vested right to retain control over the corporate debtor and that any loss suffered is merely a commercial consequence of the insolvency process, not a deprivation of property under Article 300A.
Case Title : Gopal Chandra Chanda & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 14780 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 91
he Calcutta High Court recently directed the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED), and SEBI, which are already examining the affairs of the Alchemist Group amid allegations of running ponzi-style schemes, to file fresh status reports to examine whether the corporate insolvency process (CIRP) was fraudulently initiated. The court also asked them to look into the movement of funds abroad, possible round-tripping through foreign entities, and protection of investor assets. It noted a prima facie case of fraud and institutional subversion. About Rs. 32.73 crore has been disbursed to investors so far.
SARFAESI Enforcement Cannot Be Invoked After Debt Is Extinguished Under IBC: Orissa High Court
Case Title : Sree Metaliks Limited, Keonjhar -versus- Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.27912 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ORI) 15
The Orissa High Court has held that Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act cannot operate as an independent source of enforcement power once a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code extinguishes the underlying debt. Section 31 excludes certain secured assets and transactions from the Act's enforcement mechanism, meaning SARFAESI recovery powers do not apply to them.
Failure To Deposit EPF Dues On Time Is A Penal Offence, Later Payment Irrelevant: Orissa High Court
Case Title : Anil Kumar Gilra v. State of Odisha and Anr
Case Number : Crl MC No. 4645 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 16
The Orissa High Court has held that subsequent payment of employees' provident fund dues does not extinguish criminal liability for prior default, and such payment cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. A Single-Judge Bench of Dr Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, by order dated 13 March, refused to quash criminal proceedings against the former director of Cosboard Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Section 101 IBC Moratorium Temporary, Creditors Free To Recover After Expiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd v. Pranav Ansal and Anr.
Case Number : EX.APPL.(OS) 2852/2022 (For Attachment and sale of properties and issuance of Garnishee)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 396
The Delhi High Court on 13 April held that the moratorium under Section 101 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) in personal insolvency is temporary and time-bound, and once it ceases, creditors regain the right to pursue recovery and execution proceedings. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made this observation while allowing continuation of execution proceedings in Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd. v. Pranav Ansal & Anr., where the decree holder sought to recover an arbitral award exceeding Rs. 385 crore by attachment and sale of the judgment debtor's properties.
Bombay HC Pulls Up NCLT Mumbai Registry Over Scrutiny Lapse In Personal Guarantor Insolvency Plea
Case Title : M/s. Kapole Advertising Agency, Through Proprietor, and others vs. Standard Chartered Bank and others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 685 OF 202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 223
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Mumbai Registry of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for failing to follow mandatory procedures while scrutinising a personal guarantor insolvency petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat held that the Registry did not comply with Rule 28 of the NCLT Rules and prior directions issued by the High Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Union of India.
IBC Overrides Electricity Act In Conflict, Pre-CIRP Dues Cannot Be Enforced: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited v. Prescribed Authority and 4 others
Case Number : 1 WRIC No. - 19391 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 35
The Allahabad High Court on 24 April, held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), being a later law, prevails over the Electricity Act, 2003 in case of inconsistency. The Bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi allowed the writ petition and held that Section 238 of the IBC gives the Code overriding effect over other statutes, including sector-specific laws.
Public Announcement Under IBC Sufficient, Individual Notice Not Required: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited v. Prescribed Authority and 4 others
Case Number : 1 WRIC No. - 19391 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 35
The Allahabad High Court on 24 April, held that under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, individual notice to each creditor is not required and that a public announcement under Section 15 of the Code constitutes sufficient notice to corporate creditors. A Bench comprising Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi, while allowing a petition by South East U.P. Power Transmission Company Limited (and a connected petition by Tata Steel Limited) further held that creditors must exercise due diligence and file their claims within the prescribed timelines during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Case Title : Sanjiv Kumar Gupta AND State of Telangana and 3 Ors.
Case Number : W.P.No.27253 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 24
The Telangana High Court has recently set aside a demand raised against an auction purchaser under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that such a purchaser cannot be made liable for electricity dues of the previous owner where the claim was not part of the insolvency process, and further that a demand raised after nearly 16 years is barred by limitation. Justice Renuka Yara, allowing the writ petition, emphasised that once the resolution process concludes, undisclosed statutory dues cannot be enforced against a successful purchaser.
Case Title : Vinay Bhadauria v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Case Number : MCRC No. 32697 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 24
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be tried only by the Special Court having jurisdiction over the place where a company's registered office is situated, ruling that a Gwalior court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a company whose registered office is in New Delhi. “From the bare reading of section 436 it is clear that offences shall be triable only by the Special Court established under section 435 having territorial jurisdiction where the registered office of the company is situated. It relevant to refer the Annexure D-1, wherein it is clear that as per notification dated 18.05.2016 wherein at S. No. 6 of the list, L.d. IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior is having jurisdiction only with respect to State of Madhya Pradesh. While the registered office of the company against which the complaint is relates is admittedly situated at New Delhi. Therefore, Trial Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint.”, it said.
NCLAT
Non‑Issuance Of NOCs By Financial Creditor Not Fraud In Insolvency Proceedings: NCLAT New Delhi
ase Title : Mr Hemant Yadav & Ors Vs IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 268/2026 & 269/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 124
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, on 27 March, held that the non-issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) by a financial creditor cannot be treated as fraudulent or malicious in the initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Section 7 petition remains valid where a corporate debtor defaults on its debt obligations, irrespective of later contractual disputes with homebuyers.
Case Title : S2 Tech.com India Pvt. Ltd Vs Mr. Birendra Kumar Agarwal, RP & CoC
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 456/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 126
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently set aside the approval of a resolution plan for Manjeera Constructions Limited after finding that the successful resolution applicant's earnest money deposit was credited three days after the stipulated deadline, rendering the bid non-responsive
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain rejected the contention that the requirement stood satisfied since the amount had been debited on the last date and held that actual receipt within the deadline was mandatory.
Case Title : Surender Singh Vs IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 125
The New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 27 March, held that insolvency proceedings in real estate cases must be confined to the specific project for which financing was raised.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra heard an appeal by Surender Singh, the suspended director of Vatika Limited in relation to the “Aspirations” project in Sector 88B, Gurgaon.
NCLAT Upholds NCLT Mumbai Order Directing Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupant In Infra Company CIRP
Case Title : Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number : CA(AT)(Insolvency)/187/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 127
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld an order directing eviction of an unauthorised occupant from a corporate debtor's property during insolvency proceedings. The court upheld the NCLT Mumbai's view that a Resolution Professional can approach the NCLT to secure possession of assets and that requiring separate civil proceedings would “unduly prolong the insolvency process which is a time bound process.”
Case Title : SGN Universal Construction Company Limited Vs Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2207/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 129
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal by SGN Universal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. challenging observations made by the NCLT on its claimed rights over Tower 5 of the “Morpheus Bluebell” project in Greater Noida (West), developed by M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Pvt. Ltd. The appellate tribunal said the Adjudicating Authority had not returned any finding on those claims and that such issues fall for consideration within the insolvency process.
Judicial Custody Of Appellant No Ground To Extend IBC Limitation: NCLAT In Alps Leisure Liquidation
Case Title : Alpesh Vasudev Gandhi v. Vinodkumar S. Shah, Liquidator of Alps Leisure Holidays Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. No. 147 & 477 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 39 & 126 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 130
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently dismissed two applications as time-barred, holding that judicial custody cannot be used to bypass the statutory limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellate tribunal clarified that Section 61 of the IBC permits condonation only up to 15 days beyond the initial 30-day limitation period and does not allow any extension beyond this outer limit, even if the appellant was in judicial custody.
NCLAT Rejects Successful Bidder's Plea For Post-Sale Reliefs In Veda Biofuel Liquidation
Case Title : Biotech Private Limited v Dr. Kondapalli Venkat Srinivas
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 418/2025 and (IA No. 1198/2025) CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 131
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has recently upheld the rejection of post-sale reliefs sought by MS Biotech Pvt. Ltd., finding that a bidder who enters an auction on an “as is where is” basis cannot later turn around and ask for concessions beyond what was agreed.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed the company's appeal against the NCLT, Amravati Bench order dated July 3, 2025.
Case Title : Mr T Venkatram Reddy Vs L & T Finance Limited & Renuka Devi Rangaswamy
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 383/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 132
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai recently rejected a creditor's attempt to treat a loan default as a “continuing guarantee” to overcome limitation, holding that default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a singular event that cannot be stretched to revive time-barred proceedings, especially where the demand notice itself records a specific date of default.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain observed, “So far as we are concerned, having appreciated the arguments extended by the Ld. counsel for the parties, we are of the view that when the statute, quite in its explicit term, while consciously defining the default, has referred to in it the word 'when' and that has been used in context of debt 'whole or in part', it deals with a specific singular event of default, which has to be taken as to be a factor for the purposes of issuance of a notice and those factors are inclusive of a default of a whole amount or a partial amount.”
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.
Case Title : Omkaram Venkata Ramana v. Bank of India and Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.123/2023; (IA Nos.419, 421 & 420/2023) CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 151
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai Bench, has held that the power of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 114(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to direct modification of a repayment plan is not obligatory and can be exercised only when supported by material on record. The tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by a personal guarantor to loans availed by the Nithin Group of Companies from Bank of India, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Mangalagiri, which had accepted the Resolution Professional's report recording rejection of his repayment plan by the Committee of Creditors.
No Appeal Lies Against Dismissal Of Contempt Plea Without Punishment: NCLAT
Case Title : Venkata Chalam Varanasi v. Mr. Upender Kumar Agarwal
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 189 / 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz NCLAT 152
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has recently reiterated that an appeal against dismissal of a contempt petition is not maintainable where no punishment has been imposed. The bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain fater examining the Contempt of Courts Act, observed, “Section 19(1) envisages Appeal against only those orders where a punishment has been inflicted for contempt. In the instant case, no punishment has been awarded.”
Case Title : Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay Vs National Textile Corporation Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1704/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 157
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the rejection of an insolvency plea filed by Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh against National Textile Corporation Ltd., finding that disputes over wage dues were already pending, indicating a pre-existing dispute between the parties. A Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The scope of Section 9 of IBC cannot be bent to use it as an instrument for debt recovery as the focus of IBC is on ensuring the revival and continuation of the corporate debtor rather than facilitating recovery of the debt owed by the corporate debtor to its creditors"
Case Title : Art Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Udayraj Patwardhan RP of Adel Landmarks Ltd & Ors Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 460/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 155
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal that had sent the resolution plan of real estate developers, Adel Landmarks Ltd., back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration. The appellate tribunal held that the direction amounted to an "unwarranted" interference with the commercial wisdom of the creditors, even though the plan had already been approved with an 82.66% voting share after multiple rounds of deliberations.
Case Title : Suniel Dhhandhania and Anr v. Dr. Vichitra Narayan Pathal
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 841 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 156
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the liability of former directors of Golden Tobacco Ltd. for failing to deposit employee salary deductions with a credit society. It held that diversion of such funds, even without personal gain, may constitute fraudulent conduct under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLAT Refuses To Halt Carnival Techno Park CIRP, Says Fraud Plea Cannot Reopen Finding Of Default
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Bhavesh Mansukhbai Rathod, IRP & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 556/2025 & 588/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 159
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has refused to halt insolvency proceedings against Carnival Techno Park Pvt. Ltd., holding that Canara Bank cannot challenge the existence of debt and default through a plea alleging fraudulent initiation of the process. A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said the bank failed to show any fraud in the initiation of the process.
Case Title : Shivani Enterprises Vs S Square Cargo Movers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 463/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 158
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the dismissal of a Section 9 CIRP application filed by Shivani Enterprises against S Square Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. It held that the interest component reflected in the invoices was not mutually agreed between the parties and could not be included in the operational debt.
Case Title : Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus IDBI Bank Limited And Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 67 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 174
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has held that restructuring of loan facilities does not necessarily amount to modification of charge requiring fresh registration where the underlying security remains unchanged. “We are in agreement with the approach adopted by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in construing the term modification liberally as the same will not prejudice the security interest of existing lenders and the restructuring of the facilities done by the lender Banks may not amount to modification of charge in strict sense.”, the tribunal observed.
Case Title : ASREC (India) Limited Versus Bhaskar Gopal Shetty and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 359 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 175
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCALT) at New Delhi has upheld the classification of Kamlesh Mehta, a second charge holder, as a secured financial creditor of the corporate debtor, Mirage Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. It held that the absence of consent from the first charge holder and non-registration of charge under Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not vitiate the second charge in the facts of the case.
NCLAT Dismisses CIRP Plea By Durgapur Corporation Against Aryan Ispat, Cites Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : Durgapur Corporation Private Limited v. M/s. Aryan Ispat & Power Private Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1218 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 177
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Durgapur Corporation Private Limited against Aryan Ispat & Power Private Limited, reiterating that a Section 9 application must be rejected where there exists a pre-existing dispute between the parties. “The only thing that is to be looked into is that whether there is plausible contention. In the facts of the present case, we find that plausible contention was raised by the Corporate Debtor in the reply to Section 9 application and there being pre-existing dispute between the parties, application filed under Section 9 deserved rejection.”
Case Title : Milan Aggarwal (Suspended director of Prayag Polytech Private Limited) Versus Canara Bank & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 298 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 176
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the admission of insolvency proceedings against Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., rejecting the company's reliance on multiple No Dues Certificates and holding that these were issued only for satisfaction of specific charges and did not extinguish its overall liability to Canara Bank. A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and technical member Barun Mitra held that the certificates relied upon by the suspended director could not be treated as proof that no debt remained outstanding.
Case Title : JS Steel Co. Ltd. v. Amod Stampings Private Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 112 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 178
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has upheld the rejection of plea seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Amod Stampings Private Limited, holding that emails admitting defective supply and offering compensation demonstrate a pre-existing dispute.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The Appellant having agreed to compensate the Corporate Debtor is also a clear admission of the fact that the goods supplied were not in terms of the specifications which had been agreed to by the parties. The plea taken by the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority did not take into account the surrounding facts and circumstances in that the Appellant was compelled to agree to pay the compensation amount as they were subjected to blackmail by the Corporate Debtor does not impress us. When the emails explicitly record admission of deficiency in supply and resultant payment of compensation by the Appellant, it is not the remit of the Adjudicating Authority to get into the circumstantial reasons which led to such compensatory offers.”
NCLT Asking Parties To Explore Settlement Not A Reference To Mediation: NCLAT
Case Title : Vijay Data v. Data Ingenious Global Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) No. 134 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 179
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has observed that asking parties in a long-pending oppression and mismanagement dispute to explore settlement is not the same as referring the matter to mediation. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Vijay Data against Data Ingenious Global Ltd and others, challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Jaipur Bench, which had dismissed his application seeking recall of an earlier order dated February 19, 2026.
NCLT Cannot Entertain Challenge To Statutory Development Authority Orders Under IBC: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Sunil Kumar Rastogi & Ors. v. Lucknow Development Authority & Ors.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 456 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 180
The New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), on 6 April, held that orders passed by statutory authorities in exercise of statutory powers cannot be challenged before the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed: “The Tribunal held that sanction of Plan, which is in exercise of Statutory jurisdiction of Lucknow Development Authority under Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 cannot be made subject matter of challenge before the NCLT. ….The said decision in exercise of Statutory jurisdiction of Lucknow Development Authority can be subjected to challenge only in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.”
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kandivali East v. Ashok Mittal, Resolution Professional of Dhruv Wellness Ltd.
Case Number : CA (AT) (Ins) No. 662 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2583 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 181
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) seeking admission of a Rs. 61.36 lakh claim in the CIRP of Dhruv Wellness Ltd., holding that a claim based only on an internal communication and without any assessment under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act could not be sustained. The tribunal further observed that the appellant must bear the consequence of not crystallising the claim at the relevant stage.
Coparcener Claiming Guarantor's Property Cannot Intervene In Guarantor's Insolvency Case: NCLAT
Case Title : Dr. Srinivas Manchala v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 160, 163 & 164 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 182
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that a person claiming coparcenary rights over a guarantor's property cannot be impleaded in personal guarantor insolvency proceedings (Section 95), as such proceedings are confined to personal guarantors. A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain emphasised that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code limits such proceedings to specific individuals acting as guarantors.
No Financial Debt Where Flats Given In Lieu Of Legal Fees: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : L & L Partners Litigation Vs Jalesh Kumar Grover
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1944/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 184
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 23 April dismissed the appeal filed by L & L Partners Litigation, holding that allotment of three flats by AKME Projects Ltd. towards professional legal fees did not constitute a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Case Title : V. Nagarajan Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 152/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 185
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 24 April held that R. Subramaniam, who had long represented the Liquidator of Cethar Ltd., could not continue as counsel in view of conflict of interest concerns, non-disclosure obligations under the Insolvency framework, suspension of his licence, and subsequent criminal conviction. A Bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed the appeal filed by V. Nagarajan, Resolution Professional and Liquidator of Cethar Ltd.
Case Title : Manjeet Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1676 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 183
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal challenging the distribution of surplus generated during the insolvency process, holding that such surplus, if not provided for in the resolution plan, cannot be claimed by the successful resolution applicant and must be distributed under the IBC waterfall. A Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey emphasised that the nature and timing of the surplus were determinative.
Case Title : STCI Finance Limited Vs IMP Powers Limited & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1019/2024, 1657/2024, 893/2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 187
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 27 April, dismissed STCI Finance Limited's appeals challenging the liquidation process of IMP Powers Ltd., holding that while the Liquidator's inclusion of STCI's assets in the liquidation estate was valid, STCI failed to establish any illegality warranting interference with the process. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey further held that disputes over the distribution of sale proceeds under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must first be adjudicated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) before the appellate forum can examine them.
NCLAT Chennai Dismisses Personal Guarantors Appeals Upholds 208-Day Exclusion In PGIRP
Case Title : B Nirmal Kumar & Ors Vs K J Vinod
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 205/2026, 206/2026,207/2026,208/2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 188
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 27 April dismissed four connected appeals filed by personal guarantors B. Nirmal Kumar, B. Kamlesh Kumar, B. Anand Kumar, and N. Rekha, challenging orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, dated 10 March 2026. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain held that the NCLT correctly excluded a period of 208 days (16 April 2025 to 10 November 2025) from the statutory timeline of the Personal Guarantor Insolvency Resolution Process (PGIRP).
Case Title : Imperial Coastal Infra v. Liquidator, IVRCL Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 250/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 186
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently directed the liquidator of IVRCL Limited to release over Rs 41 lakh to sub-contractor Imperial Coastal Infra, holding that 96% of the project receivables belonged to the sub-contractor, were held by the corporate debtor in a fiduciary capacity, and could not be treated as part of the liquidation estate or as operational debt. A Chennai Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had upheld the liquidator's decision to treat the withheld amount as pre-insolvency dues to be distributed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLAT Rejects Cosmic Ferro Alloys' Refund Claim On Revised Power Tariffs Post Resolution Plan
Case Title : Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd. Versus Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1332 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 191
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd., the corporate debtor now under new management pursuant to an approved resolution plan, holding that no refund or adjustment arises from revised electricity tariffs after approval of the plan. A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra reiterated that once the resolution plan is approved, it binds all stakeholders and settles pre-insolvency claims.
Case Title : Mohit Arora v. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1284 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 191
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has upheld the admission of an insolvency application against Mohit Arora, personal guarantor to loans taken by Supertech Ltd. and two other companies. It held that the process initiated by PNB Housing Finance cannot be blocked by a moratorium arising from another petition, which is non-est in law. “...when the IFCI petition being CP IB No. 428 of 2021 was filed on 02.06.2021 during the interim moratorium commenced by the filing of the petition by the PNB being 203 of 2021 the petition filed by the IFCI on 02.06.2021 would be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law and therefore cannot commence any interim moratorium.”, it observed.
NCLAT Sets Aside NCLT Order Allowing Late Expression Of Interest, Resolution Plan
Case Title : Ram Prasad Agarwala Suspended Director of Fairdeal Supplies Ltd. Versus Bijay Murmuria Resolution Professional & Ors.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 661 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 190
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi has set aside an NCLT order that allowed a delayed expression of interest (EOI) and resolution plan, ruling that a resolution applicant cannot be considered after missing the prescribed timelines. “We are of the view that order of the Adjudicating Authority directing acceptance of the late EoI of Respondent No. 5 could not be sustained and the order need to be set aside.”, the tribunal observed.
EPFO Cannot Rely On Enforcement Report Prepared During Moratorium To Raise Claim: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Arun Kishanlal Bagaria
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1643 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 189
The New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 28 April held that claims based on an Area Enforcement Officer's Report (AEOR) prepared during the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be admitted in insolvency proceedings unless the underlying statutory assessment has been crystallised. A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), affirming the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench rejecting EPFO's claim.
Case Title : Kamlesh Keshavbhai Gondaliya v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 680 & 670 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 192
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has upheld insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors of Takshashila Heights India Private Limited, rejecting their challenge to the debenture trustee's authority to initiate the case. The appeals were filed against orders admitting applications under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.
NCLT
NCLT Bengaluru Says Suspended Director Cannot Challenge Resolution Plan After Skipping CoC Meetings
Case Title : Ms. Disha Choudhary v. Ms. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari
Case Number : IA No. 925 of 2024 in CP(IB) No. 113/BB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 268
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has held that a suspended director who had notice of meetings of Committee of Creditors but failed to effectively participate or seek documents cannot later challenge the resolution process on that ground.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada has dismissed an application filed by a suspended director of an infra company seeking rejection of a resolution plan on the ground of non-supply of documents.
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Shree Padmavati Metaliks Private Limited and Anr. Case Number : IA (IB) No. 1460/ (KB) /2025 & IA (IB) No. 219/ (KB) /2026 In CP(IB) No. 165/( KB) /2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 271
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata, has refused to interfere with the bidding process in the insolvency of Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., holding that where an applicant, despite opportunity, chose not to participate in the bidding process, no case was made out to declare the process illegal or to direct a re-run of the CIRP.
The bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra was dealing with applications filed by City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. against the resolution professional and State Bank of India.
Case Title : Malco Gems v. Prince Foundations Limited
Case Number : CP(IB)/29(CHE)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 274
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai has recently held that withdrawal of an insolvency application at the pre-admission stage, even without liberty to file afresh, does not bar a subsequent petition. It ruled that such proceedings are governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as a self-contained framework and not by the Civil Procedure Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam admitted a Section 7 application filed by Malco Gems against Prince Foundations Limited. The order initiates the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the company.
NCLT Mumbai Admits Authum Investments' Insolvency Petition Against RPL Sunlight Power
Case Title : Authum Investments and Infrastructure Limited vs. M/s RPL Sunlight Power Private Limited
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/13(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 276
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 26 March, admitted a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed by Authum Investments & Infrastructure Limited (erstwhile Reliance Commercial Finance Limited) against RPL Sunlight Power Private Limited. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) after finding that the Financial Creditor had established the existence of a financial debt and the default exceeding the statutory threshold.
NCLT Guwahati Directs Suspended Directors Of Sree Bajrang Infracon To Cooperate With Liquidator
Case Title : Purushotam Gaggar v. Rakesh Kumar Singh and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/30/GB/2024 in CP(IB)/7/GB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (GUA) 277
The Guwahati Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 March directed the suspended directors of Sree Bajrang Infracon Pvt Ltd (Corporate Debtor) to fully cooperate with the Liquidator, Purshotam Gaggar, and hand over all records and assets, holding that non-cooperation undermines the time-bound insolvency process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Yogendra Kumar Singh emphasised that personnel of the Corporate Debtor, including suspended directors, have a statutory obligation to assist the Interim Resolution Professional, Resolution Professional, or Liquidator.
SCC's Role In Liquidation Only Consultative, Liquidator Has Final Say: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title : Shri Vijay Pitamber Lulla v. K. Usha Rani and Ors
Case Number : IA No. 1090/ 2025 in CP(IB) No. 122/BB/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 280
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has directed the liquidator of an infra company to accept a one-time settlement (OTS) offer of Rs 2 crore to break a prolonged deadlock in the liquidation process, holding that the Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) is only consultative in nature and the ultimate decision-making authority rests with the liquidator.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada passed the order.
Case Title : Bank of India vs Pallishree Limited
Case Number : C.P.(IB)No.272.KB.2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 281
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata recently held that a financial creditor forming part of a consortium of lenders can independently initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code without requiring consent from other consortium members, admitting a plea by Bank of India against Pallishree Ltd and triggering the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Going Concern Sale Not Same As Resolution Plan, No Automatic Waiver Of Dues: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Lemit Paper LLP v. Rajeshkumar Malani .
Case Number : IA/50/(AHM)/2026, CP(IB) No. 83/NCLT/AHM/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 285
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has held that a purchaser who takes over a corporate debtor as a going concern during liquidation cannot automatically walk away from past liabilities or statutory dues, making it clear that such a transaction does not stand on the same footing as a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The finding came on an application by the successful auction purchaser of Camerich Papers Private Limited. The company had been sold as a going concern through an e-auction held on October 13, 2025, after which the purchaser moved the Tribunal seeking reliefs tied to the acquisition.
Case Title : Prawincharan Prafulcharan Dwary RP in the matter of Mrs Neetima Kad v. Neetima Kad and Ors.
Case Number : IA/612/(AHM)/2025,IA/613/(AHM)2025&IA/614/(AHM)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 288
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently held that abstention by creditors cannot be treated as consent while voting on a repayment plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and rejected a proposal submitted by personal guarantors for failing to meet the mandatory voting threshold.
A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma found that the plan received only 21.35% votes in favour, while 20.14% voted against, 42.60% of the voting share abstained, and 15.91% remained absent. The tribunal held that abstention does not count toward approval and cannot be used to satisfy the statutory majority requirement.
Purchaser Cannot Avoid Liabilities Voluntarily Accepted At Auction: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Indian Overseas Bank vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA (IBC)/1483/2024 in CP(IB) No.532/7/HDB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 286
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 11 March, held that a purchaser of assets in a liquidation auction cannot resile from liabilities voluntarily accepted at the time of purchase, including outstanding electricity dues.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri dismissed the application filed by Sri Lakshminarasimha Oil Mills Pvt Ltd, and refused to direct the Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana to grant a fresh electricity connection without clearing arrears of Rs. 92.68 lakh.
Case Title : Mr Keshav Khaneja RP of Gensol Engineering Limited Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited
Case Number : IA/1405(AHM)2025 in C.P.(IB)/195(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 290
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited's (MAHAGENCO) termination of Gensol Engineering Limited's Rs 292.5 crore EPC contract will remain inoperative during the company's insolvency process.
The order by a bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma came on an application filed by Resolution Professional Keshav Khaneja, who sought to restrain MAHAGENCO from giving effect to the termination of the Letter of Award dated October 19, 2023 and the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) Contract dated February 21, 2024.
Case Title : SBC MINERALS PVT LTD Vs MR BHUVAN MADAN
Case Number : IA NO.113/2026 In CP (IB) NO.330/ALD/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 293
The Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has recently held that operational creditors cannot seek disclosure of a resolution plan or liquidation value at the pre-approval stage under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code while rejecting a plea arising out of the insolvency of JaiPrakash Associates Limited. Notably, The resolution plan for the company was approved on March 17 in separate proceedings and is under challenge before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
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.
Case Title : Dr. Shailendra Trivedi Vs Chhaya Gupta
Case Number : IA No. 157 OF 2024 in TP 230 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 329
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has held that homebuyers cannot be prejudiced by an internal transfer of a real estate project, emphasising that their rights are not merely contractual but tied to the right to life. A coram of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta, underlining the constitutional dimension of such claims, observed that such rights cannot be viewed purely as contractual.
Case Title : Dilip Yadav Vs Chaya Gupta &Devvrat Developers Private Limited
Case Number : IA No. 22 OF 2026 in CP(IB) 56 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 328
The Indore bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected a homebuyer's plea for possession of a flat, holding that a claim filed nearly eighteen months after approval of the resolution plan cannot be entertained. Observing that permitting such belated claims would disrupt the resolution process, the bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta held, “The Successful Resolution Applicant takes over the Corporate Debtor on the basis of the liabilities crystallized in the approved Resolution Plan and therefore permitting additional claims at a later stage would fundamentally alter the commercial framework of the plan”
Case Title : Madan Gopal Jindal, Resolution professional of M/s White Water Hospitality Private Limited v . VIR Foods and ors.
Case Number : I.A. No. 2162/2023 in CP (IB) No. 90/Chd/Chd/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHA) 332
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has held that in the present case, where a corporate insolvency process was set aside and the parties settled their dispute, the costs incurred during the process must be borne by the financial creditor that initiated it. A coram of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal said, “It can be seen that once the admission of CIRP itself is set aside and the dispute is settled between the initiating Financial creditor and the CD, the liability to bear CIRP costs must follow the party who invoked and pursued the insolvency proceedings, particularly when the CIRP process did not culminate in resolution or liquidation and a settlement was reached between them."
No New Claims Maintainable After CIRP Settled In White Water Hospitality Case: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : Bharat Food and Agro Products v. White Water Hospitality Private Limited and Ors. Case Number : IA(IBC) 713(CH)2025 AND IA(IBC)714(CH)2025 IN CP (IB) No. 90/Chd/Chd/2018(Admitted)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHA) 333
The National Company Law Tribunal at Chndigarh has held that in the case of a company whose insolvency process was set aside by the Supreme Court and whose dues to the initiating financial creditor were paid, the insolvency process comes to an end and all steps taken during it lose their legal basis. The order was passed by a coram of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal while deciding pleas filed by Bharat Food and Agro Products and its partner, Kamal Kant Dewan in the CIRP of White Water Hospitality Private Limited
Case Title : ADM Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt Ltd Vs Bari Foods Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/56(MP)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 330
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Inodre has rejected a Rs 2.56 crore insolvency plea by ADM Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd. against Bari Foods Pvt. Ltd., holding that disputes over contract formation, resale of goods and quantification of losses constitute a genuine pre-existing dispute beyond the scope of summary proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta said the issues required detailed examination of facts and evidence and could not be decided under Section 9 of the Code.
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot
Case Number : CP (IB) 1197 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 334
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has admitted a personal insolvency application filed by State Bank of India against Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot, promoter of the Videocon Group and personal guarantor to Videocon Industries Limited and Videocon Telecommunications Limited, involving a default of Rs 6,157 crore. A Bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati admitted the application filed under Sections 95 and 97 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, on finding that the requirements of the provision stood satisfied.
Case Title : Satish GopalKrishna Pillai v. Mr. Vinesan Gopinathan and Ors.
Case Number : Contempt Petition (IBC)/5/ KOB/2025 IN IA(IBC)/97/KOB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 335
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has held that once a final order is passed in a matter, all acts and issues arising during the pendency of the proceedings stand merged in that order, and any alleged breach of interim directions cannot later be used to initiate contempt proceedings for past acts.
A Bench of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed: “Upon finalisation of the proceedings, all acts and matters arising during the pendency of the proceedings stand merged in the final order. Any alleged breach or disobedience of such interim orders would not give rise to a fresh cause of action to initiate contempt proceedings at a later stage for past acts. Further, the Petitioner is well within its rights to seek execution of the order in accordance with law.”
NCLT New Delhi Admits CIRP Against Madhuvan Tieup, Rejects Corporate Debtor's NBFC Claim
Case Title : HDFC Bank Limited vs Madhuvana Tieup Limited
Case Number : CP (IB)- 25/ND/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 336
The New Delhi National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), on 6 April admitted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Madhuvan Tieup Pvt. Ltd. under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for a default of approximately Rs 80.78 crore. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri rejected the Corporate Debtor's claim that it was a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), holding that it did not engage in financial services as defined under the Code.
Case Title : Manoj Chandrakant Jagirdar
Case Number : IVN. P. (I.B.C)/186/MB/2025 IN CP(IB) No. 7 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 338
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has reiterated that the powers of a Resolution Professional and Liquidator under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) are confined strictly to assets owned by the Corporate Debtor, and do not extend to properties belonging to third parties even if such assets are reflected in the Corporate Debtor's records.
The Bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar observed, "It is trite that the powers of the Insolvency Professional under Section 18 and Section 25 of the Code, and of the Liquidator under Section 35, extend only to assets owned by the Corporate Debtor. The Code does not empower the RP/Liquidator to take control of assets belonging to third parties or deal with the rights of third parties in assets even if existing in name of the corporate debtor."
Case Title : DBS Bank India Limited v. Orchid Pharma Limited and Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC) 784/(CHE)/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 339
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has dismissed an application by DBS Bank India Ltd seeking over Rs. 46 crore in lease rentals and CIRP-related expenses in the insolvency of Orchid Pharma Ltd, holding that in the present case such claims cannot be treated as Insolvency Resolution Process Costs in the absence of approval by the Committee of Creditors and cannot be raised after approval of the resolution plan.
Resolution Professional Cannot Convene Creditors' Meeting Without Repayment Plan: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : State Bank of India Vs. Ms. Sanam Basheer
Case Number : IA(IBC)/136/KOB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 341
On 13 April, the Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that, in the absence of a repayment plan, insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor cannot proceed to the stage of convening a creditors' meeting and the Resolution Professional must file a report recording such non-submission.
Case Title : M/s Capt. Praveen Sharma and Ors v. M/s Official Liquidator, Kingfisher Airlines (under Liquidation) and Ors
Case Number : CP No. 20/BB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 344
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has dismissed an application filed by former employees of Kingfisher Airlines seeking disbursement of their admitted salary dues, holding that the Karnataka High Court, which is supervising the winding-up proceedings, is the appropriate forum. A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada passed the order.
Case Title : J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Imagine Habitat Private Limited, Imagine Residence Private Limited, Imagine Home Private Limited and Imagine Estate Private Limited
Case Number : C.P.(IB) – 30/ND/2026, C.P.(IB) – 31/ND/2026, C.P.(IB) – 32/ND/2026 And C.P.(IB) – 36/ND/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 345
The Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted four CIRP pleas filed by JC Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. against subsidiaries of RAB Enterprises (India) Private Limited, a group promoted by Rana Kapoor and Bindu Kapoor. The proceedings have been initiated under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order, delivered on April 7, 2026, was passed by Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri.
Mere Non-Explanation Of Fund Use Not Enough To Prove Fraudulent Trading Under IBC: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. K Sivalingam v. Singaravelu Ravindranathan and Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC)/173/2021 in CP/885/IB/CHE/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 346
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Chennai has held that mere non-explanation of fund utilisation or irregular accounting, without clear evidence of intent to defraud creditors, is insufficient to invoke fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Examining the scope of Section 66, the Tribunal held that mere inability to explain fund utilisation in a business context does not meet the statutory requirement unless accompanied by clear evidence of intent to defraud.
NCLT Chandigarh Refuses To Restrain Sale Of White Water's Panchkula Land After CIRP Set Aside
Case Title : Kamal Kant Dewan & Bharat Food and Agro Products Vs White Water Hospitality Private Limited & VIR Foods Ltd.
Case Number : I.A. No. 427/2024 in CP (IB) No. 90/Chd/Chd/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHA) 347
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh recently held that once a corporate insolvency process is set aside and the payment directed by the Supreme Court is complied with, it cannot restrain a company from dealing with its assets in the absence of a statutory moratorium that arises only upon admission of insolvency proceedings.
A Bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal said, “Once the CIRP is set aside and gets terminated, the CoC stands disbanded and becomes functus officio. Any recognition of claims during a period of CIRP that has since been declared void or set aside, cannot form the basis for an interlocutory restraint on a solvent company's assets. It does not provide a ground for this Tribunal to interfere with the commercial autonomy of a Respondent No.1 against which no insolvency proceeding is currently pending.”
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Adhunik Alloys and Power Limited and Ors.
Case Number : I.A (I.B.C) No. 521/KB/2021 In C.P (I.B.C) No. 387/KB/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 348
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kolkata has held that its jurisdiction cannot be invoked after approval of a resolution plan to seek disclosure of CIRP documents or reopen settled issues. A bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra said that once a plan is approved, “any claims not included in the plan are generally extinguished, preventing further disputes or litigation, ensuring a 'Clean Slate' for the successful resolution applicant.”
Case Title : Savithri Naidu and Ors v. Mr. Ebenezar Inbaraj
Case Number : IA No. 1160 of 2025 in CP/IB/1423/CHE/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 349
Holding that parties cannot “cherry-pick” between an arbitral award and a subsequent settlement to maximize recovery, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai dismissed a plea by landowners who sought Rs. 62.72 crore despite having agreed to settle their dues at Rs. 45 crore.
A bench of Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy passed the order in the insolvency of Landmark Housing Projects Chennai Private Limited, upholding the liquidator's decision to admit the claim to the extent of Rs 45 crore and classify the landowners as operational creditors.
NCLT Kochi Approves Associated Alcohols' Resolution Plan For SDF Industries Revival
Case Title : Ramachandran Thekkumkat Madathil
Case Number : IA(IBC)(Plan)/01/KOB/2026 IN CP(IBC)/21/KOB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 353
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi on Thursday approved a resolution plan submitted by Associated Alcohols & Breweries Limited for the revival of SDF Industries Limited. A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional of SDF Industries, noting that the plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors with a 100% voting share and complied with all statutory requirements.
Auction Of Corporate Debtor's Assets Under Depositors Act During IBC Moratorium Void: NCLT Indore
Case Title : CMA Shaikh Nafis Anjum Vs The Tehsildar, Bhkhara & Anr
Case Number : IA (I.B.C)/107/MP/2022 inTP 20 of 2019 [CP(IB) 358 of 2019]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 352
On 8 April, the Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) set aside the auction of Suvidha Farming Ltd.'s assets conducted under the Chhattisgarh Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005, holding that the sale was void as it took place during the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. A Bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta directed restoration of possession of the property to the Liquidator.
NCLT Mumbai Admits APRN Enterprises Insolvency Case, Emphasises Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts
Case Title : APRN Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Marveledge Realtors Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/732/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 355
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 April held that courts and tribunals cannot rewrite contracts and must enforce the bargain as agreed between parties, unless the agreement is vitiated by fraud, coercion, or illegality. A Bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar admitted an insolvency application filed by APRN Enterprises Pvt Ltd against Marveledge Realtors Pvt Ltd.
Case Title : BEML Limited vs Padma Priyanka Vangala
Case Number : I.A No. 780 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 358
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad, has recently set aside the rejection of a Rs.2.57 crore claim filed by BEML Limited against BEML Midwest Limited, finding that the liquidator's decision was not based on a complete and proper examination of the material on record and that the claim needed verification. The bench of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri said that incomplete documentation by itself could not end the matter and that the claim had to be properly verified.
Dissenting Financial Creditor Cannot Interfere Between SRA and RP After Plan Approval: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Kerala Financial Corporation v. Sharon Hills Residential Association and Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC)/73/KOB/2026 in IA(IBC)/99/KOB/2025 in CP(IB)/05/KOB/2021 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 358
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has held that a dissenting financial creditor cannot interfere in issues between the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) and the Resolution Professional after approval of a resolution plan. The tribunal dismissed an impleadment application filed by Kerala Financial Corporation in proceedings relating to implementation of the approved plan for Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
NCLT Bengaluru Admits CIRP Against Vivimed Labs Over ₹2.78 Crore Operational Debt
Case Title : Blue Cube Germany Assets GmbH & Co KG v. Vivimed Labs Limited
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 91/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 359
The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru, has admitted CIRP against Vivimed Labs Ltd., a listed pharma company, for default of operational debt of Rs. 2.78 crore (inclusive of interest) in a petition filed by Blue Cube Germany Assets GmbH & Co KG. The bench, comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada, made it clear that a company cannot avoid insolvency proceedings simply because a civil court has already passed a decree or because execution proceedings are underway.
Freezing Bank Accounts Of Corporate Debtor During Insolvency Violates Moratorium: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Wind World (India) Ltd. Vs IDBI Bank Ltd. & Mining Engineer, (Recovery) Mines and Geology Department, Jaisalmer
Case Number : IA No. 1278 of 2023 in C.P.(1.B.) No.14/7/(AHM)/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 356
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has held that freezing a company's bank accounts during insolvency violates the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, directing IDBI Bank to lift all liens and restore operations in the accounts of Wind World (India) Ltd.
Legal Representatives Can Maintain Oppression Petitions Without Membership Registration: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Anjum Karmali (Khandelwal) v. Ahmed A Fazelbhoy Private Limited and ors
Case Number : C.A./ 63 (MB) / 2023 IN C.P. / 268 (MB) / 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 361
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 7 April 2026 held that legal representatives of a deceased shareholder can pursue proceedings for oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, even if they are not registered as members of the company. A Bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati held that legal representatives may step into the shoes of the deceased shareholder for continuing such proceedings.
CoC's Commercial Wisdom Cannot Override IBC Mandates In Early Dissolution Plea: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Mr Mukesh Kumar Jain v. Jayesh Lifescience India Private Limited
Case Number : IA No.29 /MB/2025 IN CP (IB) No. 196/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 362
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 2 April, held that the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) commercial wisdom cannot override mandatory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, especially when key steps under the CIRP process remain incomplete.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt emphasised that early dissolution cannot be ordered merely on the CoC's recommendation or on cost considerations, unless the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the corporate insolvency process has been properly and fully concluded.
Case Title : PM CopperWire& Cables BHD Vs Relicab Cable Manufacturing Limited
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/63(AHM)2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 364
The Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has recently held that where an operational debt is denominated in foreign currency, the exchange rate on the date of the invoice must be used to determine whether the Rs. 1 crore threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is met. On applying this, the Tribunal found that the amount fell below Rs. 1 crore and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
NCLT Rejects CIRP Plea Against Electrotherm Over Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : A.T. Trade Overseas Private Limited Vs Electrotherm (India) Limited
Case Number : C.P.(IB)289/(AHM)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 363
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has rejected a CIRP plea against Electrotherm (India) Ltd. over an operational debt of about Rs. 5.70 crore, finding that the claim was tied up in disputes raised well before the insolvency notice. The order was passed by the bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma.
NCLT Hyderabad Dismisses Insolvency Plea Against Steel Exchange India Over Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : Shakti International LLP vs Steel Exchange India Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB) No.30/09/HDB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 367
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, has dismissed an insolvency petition filed by Shakti International LLP against Steel Exchange India Limited, holding that the claimed operational debt of Rs. 162.57 crore was not maintainable due to a bona fide pre-existing dispute over delayed/extension charges. The order was passed by a bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
NCLT Allahabad Admits Aarti Industries' ₹8.21 Crore Insolvency Plea Against Magma Industries
Case Title : Aarti Industries Limited Vs Magma Industries Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.154/ALD/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 369
The Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted a CIRP plea filed by Aarti Industries Limited against Magma Industries Limited, holding that the company defaulted on operational dues of over Rs 8.21 crore and that no real dispute existed to block the proceedings. A bench of Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma said, “Therefore, we find that the alleged disputes claimed by the Corporate Debtor are feeble and not supported by credible evidence. Hence, no real pre-existing dispute is discernible as there is no sufficient ground to establish any real and substantial preexisting dispute which can thwart the admission of section 9 application against the Corporate Debtor"
NCLT Kolkata Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Burnpur Cement, Flags Disputed Debt
Case Title : Mittal Polysacks Private Limited v. Burnpur Cements
Case Number : C.P (IB) NO. 37/KB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 370
The Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has thrown out an insolvency plea against Burnpur Cement Ltd, finding that the claim itself was riddled with gaps and contradictions and could not be pushed through the insolvency route. At the heart of the case was a claim by Mittal Polysacks Pvt. Ltd., which said it had supplied polypropylene cement bags worth about Rs.1.25 crore and had not been paid. But the tribunal found little on record to back that assertion in a manner fit for insolvency proceedings.
Homebuyers Can't Claim 8% Interest Where Agreement Provides Delay Compensation: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title : Canara Bank v. Riverbank Developers Private Limited and ors
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 2451/KB/2024 In Company Petition (IB) No. 345/KB/2022 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 371
The Kolkata Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed a plea by homebuyers seeking addition of 8% interest on the amounts paid by them to a developer, holding that such interest cannot be granted where the agreement already provides compensation for delay. “Thus, it can be said that the RP is right in not including the statutory interest of 8% pa as per Regulation 16A(7) of the CIRP Regulations, when the contractual terms provide for compensation for not giving the possession to the allottee within the scheduled date," the tribunal said.
NCLT Mumbai Orders Income Tax Dept To Lift Lien On Deep Star Alloys Bank Accounts During Moratorium
Case Title : Vishnu Kant Kabra v. PNB and ors.
Case Number : IA/795/2025 C.P. (IB)/1295(MB)2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 372
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has directed the Income Tax Department to lift the lien on the bank accounts of Deep Star Alloys and Steels Private Limited, which is currently undergoing insolvency proceedings, making it clear that once a moratorium is in force, no action can be taken against the company's assets under any other law.
NCLT Hyderabad Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Madhucon Over Disputed Debt, Inconsistent Claims
Case Title : Shri Balaji Associates and Madhucon Projects Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) NO. 260/9/HDB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 373
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has dismissed a corporate insolvency plea filed by Sri Balaji Associates against Madhucon Projects Ltd. for an alleged operational debt of Rs.83.84 lakh. It held that material inconsistencies in the computation of debt, along with a pre-existing dispute, meant the claim could not be admitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case Title : Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited Vs Quality Care Dialysis Private Limited
Case Number : IA (LIQ) 102 of 2025 IN CP IB 280 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 376
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 21 April 2026 ordered liquidation of Quality Care Dialysis Private Limited under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, after it received no resolution plan despite repeated attempts during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A Bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati allowed the application that the Resolution Professional, Ms. Sapna Pankaj Chourasia, filed, noting that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had unanimously decided to liquidate the Corporate Debtor in exercise of its commercial wisdom.
Case Title : HDFC Bank Ltd Vs Terlin Engineerings OPC Pvt Lid
Case Number : IA/101(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) 377 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 375
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 20 April, held a forensic audit in Kanoovi Foods Pvt. Ltd. established diversion of funds and fraudulent as well as wrongful trading, attracting liability under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), against promoters, directors, and associated third parties. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma directed the company to restore Rs. 58.27 crore to the assets of the corporate debtor for the benefit of creditors, including HDFC Bank Ltd.
Homebuyer Who Has Paid Full Consideration And Is In Possession Entitled To Sale Deed: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Tom Thomas v. Ms. Annie Abraham and Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC)/419/KOB/2024 in IBA/11/KOB/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 377
The Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 23 April, held that a homebuyer who has paid the entire consideration and is placed in possession of the property is entitled to execution of the sale deed, and such property cannot form part of the liquidation estate of the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code framework. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vinay Goel allowed an application filed by Tom Thomas seeking execution and registration of a sale deed in respect of a villa in the “MIR Greens” project developed by MIR Realtors Private Limited during liquidation proceedings.
Case Title : Indian Bank Vs Nimitiya Hotel and Resorts Limited
Case Number : IB-1913(ND)2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 378
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi has recently directed a senior officer of Indian Bank to appear in person after finding that the bank filed a 60 page affidavit far beyond a limited clarification it had sought in a dispute over replacing the resolution professional of Nimitiya Hotel and Resorts Limited. A bench of Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri said, “The affidavit contains many facts which are beyond the scope of the direction given by this bench. We have no hesitation in observing that there is clearly an attempt to import facts and circumstances in the matter, which were probably not in the original pleadings filed by the Applicant."
NCLT Mumbai Approves Rs. 730 Crore Resolution Plan For Rajesh Business And Leisure Hotels
Case Title : ICICI BANK LIMITED V/s RAJESH BUSINESS AND LEISURE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number : I.A. (I.B.C) No. 1085/MB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 380
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai has approved a Rs. 730 crore resolution plan for Rajesh Business and Leisure Hotels Pvt Ltd, submitted by a consortium of Rare Asset Reconstruction Limited and Check-Inn Hotels Pvt Ltd. A bench of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt was dealing with an application filed by the resolution professional seeking approval of the plan, which had been cleared with a 100% voting share of the committee of creditors.
Case Title : UCO Bank v. Souvanik Mal
Case Number : I.A. (I.B.C.)/1077/KB/2025 IN C.P. (IB)/117/KB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 383
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, has reiterated that the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor runs from the date of invocation of the guarantee and not from the date of default of the corporate debtor. The bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah observed, “We rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6894 of 1997 (Syndicate Bank vs. Channaverappa Beleri & Ors.), by an order dated April 10, 2006, held that the limitation period of three years for proceedings against a guarantor begins from the date of invocation of the bank guarantee and not from the date of default of the corporate debtor. It provides that the limitation starts on expiry of 15 days from the date the demand is made by the bank, and a suit filed within three years from such demand is timely."
Case Title : Canara Bank v. Mr. Rajiv Prasad
Case Number : CP (IB)/1075(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 384
On 23 April, the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that subsequent demand notices issued to a personal guarantor do not give rise to a fresh cause of action for initiating proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and that limitation must be computed from the first invocation of the guarantee. Section 95 deals with the initiation of insolvency resolution process against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor.
Suspended Director Cannot Reopen CIRP Process After Repeated Eligibility Defaults: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title : Mr. Ramachandran Radhakrishnan v. Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain and Ors
Case Number : IA No. 283 of 2025 in CP(IB) No. 32/BB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 387
The Bengaluru Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 April, refused to permit a suspended director of a corporate debtor to submit a resolution plan at a belated stage after he repeatedly failed to satisfy eligibility conditions under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), reiterating the strict time-bound framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada dismissed an application filed by the suspended director of Stellence Pharmascience Pvt Ltd, who sought permission to submit a resolution plan after the CIRP had substantially progressed and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had already approved a plan.
Homebuyers With RERA Refund Orders Still 'Allottees', Must Meet IBC Threshold: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Arumugam Thimmarayan and Ors v. M/s Ozone Projects Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IB)/185(CHE)/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 388
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has held that homebuyers who have obtained refund orders from RERA cannot be treated differently from other allottees for initiating insolvency proceedings, ruling that all such buyers must meet the collective threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : Bank of Maharashtra v. Visa Power Ltd. & Anil Goel (Liquidator)
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 388/KB/2022 in C.P. (IB) No. 574/(KB)/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 389
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has refused to exclude, for the purpose of computing a liquidator's fee, the period during which the liquidation process was affected by appellate orders, holding that such benefit cannot be granted where the delay is linked to disputes over the liquidator's conduct A coram of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah said, “In our view, if any dispute arises due to misconduct of the liquidator, resulting in litigation which eventually leads to a stay of the entire proceedings, the liquidator ought not to be granted the benefit of exclusion of such time periods, for the purpose of remuneration.”
Automated Set-Off Of Income Tax Refunds During Moratorium Violates IBC: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Gautam Mittal RP of Sanwaria Consumer Ltd V/s Chief Commsioner of Income Tax Bhopal & An
Case Number : IA/498(MP)2025 in (MP) CP(IB) 7 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 392
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore recently held that even automated adjustment of income tax refunds during the IBC moratorium is illegal, directing the Income Tax Department to refund Rs 30.16 lakh set off against pre-CIRP tax dues of Sanwaria Consumer Limited. “The mere fact that the adjustment was effected through an automated or system-driven process does not alter its legal character. The effect of the action remains the same, namely recovery of pre-CIRP dues during the moratorium, which is expressly prohibited under Section 14 of the Code.”
Case Title : Amresh Shukla Liquidator V/s State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary
Case Number : I.A./577(MP)2025 IN TP 182 of 2019 [CP(IB)/591(MP)2019]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 393
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench, has dismissed a plea by the liquidator of Girdharilal Sugar & Allied Industries Limited seeking action against Commercial Tax Department officials for allegedly sharing details of a Stakeholders' Consultation Committee (SCC) meeting with a prospective bidder via email, holding that the inclusion was inadvertent and caused no prejudice.
NCLT Kochi Records Interim Payment Plan To Ensure Access To Jatayupara Tourism Project
Case Title : Shawn Jeff Christopher v. Guruchandrika Builders & Property Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : MA(C/Act)/02/KOB/2025 in CP/21/KOB/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 390
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, has recently recorded and accepted an interim arrangement for payment of dues to a landowner to ensure uninterrupted access and continued operation of the Jatayupara Tourism Project (JTP), noting that denial of access would render the project unusable. The order was passed by Judicial Member Vinay Goel on an application filed by an NCLT-appointed Chartered Accountant assigned, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court, to verify and approve necessary operational expenses of the project.
Case Title : Axis Bank Ltd v. M/s IMOST Academy (India) Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IBC)/8/KOB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 396
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has admitted an insolvency petition filed by Axis Bank Limited to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against IMOST Academy (India) Private Limited, holding that once debt and default are established, objections based on reputational impact cannot defeat admission. A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel rejected the academy's contention that initiation of CIRP would adversely affect its international standing.
Distribution During CIRP Must Conform To Section 30(2) Of IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Punjab National Bank v Arshiya Ltd.
Case Number : IA(I.B.C)/1331( MB)2026 In C.P. (IB)/3143(MB)2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 391
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 April held that it cannot use its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 to allow distribution of sale proceeds during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) without complying with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar rejected the Resolution Professional's plea in the CIRP of Arshiya Limited to distribute proceeds from sale of non-core assets to secured financial creditors before completion of CIRP.
CoC Cannot Bypass NCLAT Directions On Potential Resolution Applicant Eligibility: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Jubin Kishore Thakkar and Ors. v. Ashutosh Agarwala
Case Number : IA(IB) No. 1366 OF 2025 & IA(IB) No. 3401 OF 2025 IN C.P.(IB) NO. 40/MB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 394
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 13 April held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot bypass binding directions issued by the NCLAT regarding relaxation of eligibility criteria for potential resolution applicants (PRAs) in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Bench comprising Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan further clarified that resolution applicants may revise their financial offers upwards, but shall not be permitted to withdraw them.
NCLT Chennai Holds Contractual Valuation Cannot Be Reopened, Dismisses Kamarajar Port Plea
Case Title : Kamarajar Port Ltd. v. N Veerapandian (Liquiadtor) M/s. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC)/828(CHE)2025 in CP(IB)/114(CHE)2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 395
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 2 April 2026, dismissed an application filed by Kamarajar Port Limited seeking a fresh valuation of project assets of Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd., which is in liquidation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy held that once the contractual mechanism for valuation had been triggered and concluded, it could not be reopened on the ground of subsequent deterioration of assets.
OTS Proposal Can Constitute Acknowledgment Of Debt For Limitation Under IBC: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Punjab National Bank Vs Akhilesh Argal
Case Number : CP(IB)/78(MP)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 397
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 13 April held that a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal can amount to an acknowledgment of debt for limitation under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Further, objections on limitation, stamping, and pending Debts Recovery Tribunal proceedings do not bar admission of insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor at the threshold stage.
Only Contractual Guarantee Debt Relevant For IBC Section 94 Threshold: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : IN THE MATTER OF MUKESH KUMAR
Case Number : ICP (IB) No. 45/Chd/Pb/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 400
The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 17 April held that only debts arising from a valid contract of guarantee can be considered for determining the pecuniary threshold under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetarbasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal clarified that liabilities not arising from such a guarantee or not linked to the petitioner's capacity as a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor cannot be taken into account.
NCLT Mumbai Refers Eros–Aanand L. Rai Dispute Over Colour Yellow Productions To Arbitration
Case Title : Eros International Media Ltd. Versus Colour Yellow Productions Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number : C.A. No. 244 (MB) 2025 In C.P. No. 121 (MB) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 399
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai on Tuesday recently referred to arbitration a dispute between Eros International Media Ltd and filmmaker Aanand L. Rai arising from their investment and contractual arrangements in Colour Yellow Productions Pvt. Ltd. It held that Eros' company petition was a dressed-up attempt to bypass arbitration. A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar was hearing a petition by Eros alleging fund diversion and unauthorised related party transactions, along with a Section 8 application filed by Rai seeking reference to arbitration.
IBBI
IBBI Mandates International Valuation Standards for All IBC Valuations
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has issued a circular notifying the International Valuation Standards as the applicable standards for valuations conducted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, until further orders. The circular states that one of the objectives of the Code is the maximisation of value of assets of the corporate debtor in a time-bound manner, and that valuation serves as a critical input for evaluation of resolution plans and facilitates informed decision-making by stakeholders.
IBBI Imposes ₹5 Lakh Penalty On IRP In Bhasin Infotech CIRP For Not Seeking NCLAT Clarification
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's (IBBI) Disciplinary Committee (DC) on 21 April, imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on Insolvency Professional Mukesh Gupta for lapses in diligence during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Whole Time Member Sandip Garg, passing the order, held that Gupta failed to promptly seek clarification from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on the scope of his authority after an interim restraint order created ambiguity.
IBBI Extends Deadline For Public Comments On Proposed IBC Regulation Changes To May 5
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has extended the deadline for public comments on nine discussion papers proposing changes across multiple regulations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, giving stakeholders additional time to weigh in on the proposed framework. In a press release issued on April 28, the regulator said the last date for submitting comments, originally set for April 28, has now been pushed to May 5.