LiveLawBiz IBC Quarterly Digest: January - March 2026
Kirit Singhania
2 April 2026 3:00 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Promise To Arrange Funds In Case of Default Does Not Make Promoter A Guarantor: Supreme Court
Case Title: UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 3
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9701 of 2024
The Supreme Court of India has held that a promoter's promise to arrange funds to help a borrower meet financial covenants does not amount to a contract of guarantee under the Indian Contract Act and cannot be used to fasten insolvency liability on the promoter. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe said that for an obligation to qualify as a guarantee under Section 126 of the Act, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise by the surety to repay the borrower's debt if the borrower defaults.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10261 of 2025
Citation: Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 13
Case Title : Case Title: Elegna Co-op Housing And Commercial Society Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court has held that housing societies lack the locus standi to intervene in the admission stage of insolvency proceedings, ruling that “right to initiate or participate in CIRP flows from the debt transaction and the statute, not from associative or representational interest.” While limiting third-party intervention, the court simultaneously directed that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) “shall mandatorily record cogent and specific reasons in writing” whenever it recommends liquidation or denies possession to homebuyers.
Supreme Court Says NCLT Could Not Have Decided Title Of Gloster Trademark In Fort Gloster Insolvency
Case Title : Gloster Limited vs Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2996 OF 2024
Citation : 2026 LLBiz SC 20
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the National Company Law Tribunal could not have decided the ownership of the trademark “Gloster” while exercising powers under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as the dispute did not arise in relation to the insolvency resolution process. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,decision setting aside the NCLT Kolkata's finding that the trademark belonged to the corporate debtor.
Supreme Court Asks NCLT To Re-Examine RP Appointment In Finefacilis Personal Guarantor Insolvency
Case Title : Samman Capital Limited v. Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 555/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 29
The Supreme Court recently sent the issue of appointing a resolution professional in insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor of Finefacilis Management Private Limited on a plea by Samman Capital back to the National Company Law Tribunal.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had kept the NCLT's earlier decision in abeyance.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With NCLAT Order Upholding CIRP Against Air Travel Enterprises
Case Title : E.M. Najeeb Ellias Mohammed vs Union Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4094 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 25
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by E.M. Najeeb Ellias Mohammed, promoter of Kerala-based travel agency Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd., declining to interfere with an NCLT order admitting insolvency proceedings against the company as a corporate guarantor.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Vijay Bishnoi held that no error of law or fact was committed by the National Company Law Tribunal.
Supreme Court Stays Probe Into Exclusive Capital, Allows NCLAT Proceedings To Continue
Case Title : Exclusive Capital Limited & Ors. vs Kanta Agarwala & ANR
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 15207/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 27
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the investigation ordered into the affairs of Exclusive Capital Limited, an NBFC, while issuing notice in an appeal filed by the company and its promoters.
It, however, clarified that the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal have not been stayed and would continue in accordance with law.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran directed that the investigation initiated pursuant to the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi and affirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on November 21, 2025, shall remain stayed until the next hearing.
Case Title : Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col Gautam Mullick and Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No.13628 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 37
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld insolvency proceedings against two closely linked real estate companies, holding that a single insolvency petition can be maintained against multiple corporate entities under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, where the companies are intrinsically linked in the same project.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed appeals filed by the erstwhile directors of Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited and Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited, affirming the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal admitting the insolvency petition.
Case Title : Lotus 300 Apartment Owners Association vs IndusInd Bank
Case Number : Diary No(s).35516/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 40
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process against Hacienda Projects Private Ltd, the developer of the Lotus 300 housing project at Sector 107, Noida. It issued notice in appeals filed by the Lotus 300 Apartment Owners' Association challenging orders of the National Company Law Appellate tribunal.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing appeals by IndusInd Bank Ltd, which had claimed a default of about Rs. 33 crores.
Case Title : Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) EPFO v. Chandra Prakash Jain
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 14819 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 43
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, declining to interfere with a ruling of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on the treatment of claims in liquidation.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran said it found “no good ground and reason” to interfere with the NCLAT judgment dated September 24, 2024. The dispute arose from the liquidation of Khushi Foods Limited, which began on October 9, 2019.
Supreme Court Dismisses Law Firm's ₹1.08-Crore Claim Against Insolvency-Bound Realty Company
Case Title : Juristica Legal Services LLP v. Three C Universal Developers Private Limited Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 13486 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 45
The Supreme Court of India has recently dismissed an appeal by a law firm seeking to recover more than Rs 1 crore in unpaid legal fees from a realty company undergoing insolvency, declining to interfere with findings that the claim was not backed by the record.
The appeal was filed by Juristica Legal Services LLP against Three C Universal Developers Private Limited, which is undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that the NCLAT had “not committed any error in law or fact” and dismissed the appeal.
Case : EAS Sarma v. Union of India and others |W.P.(C) No. 1217/2025
Case Title : Transcon Skycity Pvt Ltd vs Anchor Point Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No.10114/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 49
The Supreme Court of India has recently recorded a comprehensive settlement between Transcon Skycity Pvt. Ltd. and Anchor Point Developers Pvt. Ltd., bringing to an end a prolonged insolvency dispute arising out of a stalled real estate project.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan noted that the mediation conducted by former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka was successful and that a comprehensive mediation report had been submitted and taken on record.
Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Order Entrusting NBCC To Complete Stalled Supertech Housing Projects
Case Title : Apex Height Pvt Ltd vs Ram Kishore Arora & Ors
Case Number : C.A. No. 2626 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 54
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a batch of appeals challenging directions issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to involve NBCC (India) Ltd for completion of stalled housing projects of Supertech Ltd, declining to interfere with the appellate tribunal's approach.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the NCLAT's decision in evolving a mechanism to protect the interests of homebuyers and ensure completion of long-delayed projects did not warrant any interference.
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1810/2021
The Supreme Court on Friday held that the ownership and control of telecom spectrum cannot be determined by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code since it is a common good.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the spectrum is a material resource of the community in the constitutional sense. It said the spectrum must benefit the common good, so its control has to be secured for the citizens.
Case Title : B Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India and Anr
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 477 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 64
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the manner in which a bank classifies a loan as a non-performing asset for accounting or provisioning purposes does not determine the starting point of limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, particularly where the debt has been restructured and acknowledged in fresh agreements.
A Division Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended Managing Director of Metal Closure Pvt Ltd and upheld the maintainability of insolvency proceedings initiated by a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India.
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1810 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 63
The Supreme Court on Friday held that mere treatment of telecom spectrum as an “intangible asset” in the financial statements of telecom service providers (TSPs) does not bring it within the sweep of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), observing that spectrum remains a natural resource held by the Union of India in public trust.
“Merely because spectrum can be treated as an 'asset' on the basis of certain attributes, such as possession and usage, lease and assignment, claim and liability or credit and debt, it does not follow that ownership vests in the licensee or that such rights can be dealt with under the IBC as assets of the corporate debtor,” the Court observed.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar was dealing with a batch of appeals arising from insolvency proceedings involving Aircel Ltd, Aircel Cellular Ltd and Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
IBC Cannot Override Telecom Laws Governing Spectrum Trading and Licence Dues: Supreme Court
Case Title : State Bank of India v Union of India and Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1810 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 63
The Supreme Court of India on Friday held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be invoked to override the statutory framework governing telecom spectrum, ruling that spectrum trading conditions and licence dues mandated under telecom laws must be honoured notwithstanding insolvency proceedings.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar framing the key issue observed, “The question for our consideration is whether telecom service providers (TSPs), called upon to pay the license dues by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) can invoke moratorium on the basis of voluntary corporate insolvency resolution process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for restructuring of their assets. The asset in question is the Spectrum allocated to the TSPs through auction.”
S. 7 IBC | Corporate Debtor's Inability To Pay Not Relevant For CIRP Plea Admission: Supreme Court
Case Title : Power Trust (Promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) v. Bhuvan Madan (Interim Resolution Professional of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd.) & Ors.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2211/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 73
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reaffirmed that the Adjudicating Authority cannot refuse to admit a financial creditor's plea under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on the ground of the corporate debtor's inability to pay.
The only question at the admission stage is whether a financial debt exists and whether there has been a default. The inability of the corporate debtor to pay is not required to be examined at this stage.
Dismissing an appeal filed by Power Trust, promoter of Hiranmaye Energy Ltd., a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi clarified the limited scope of inquiry under the Code.
Byju's CoC Moves Supreme Court After NCLAT Refuses Impleadment In GLAS Trust Removal Plea
Today, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Byju's parent company Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, moved the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 24 February 2026.
On 24 February, the NCLAT had held that although the CoC may litigate in its own name under the IBC, it was not a necessary party to the plea seeking removal of GLAS Trust and accordingly upheld the Bengaluru National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) 26 August 2025 order dismissing the CoC's impleadment application.
Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Under Companies Act Cannot Stall IBC Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited. Versus Amit Chaturvedi and Ors. Case Number : C.A. 11417 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 87
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be kept in abeyance on the basis of a Scheme of Arrangement that has become redundant and inoperative for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court reiterated that once the statutory requirements of Section 7 are met, insolvency must proceed notwithstanding any parallel company law proceedings.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran framed the core issue as whether pendency of proceedings relating to a Scheme of Arrangement before the High Court could justify keeping a CIRP in abeyance.
NCLT, NCLAT Cannot Nullify Benami Act Confiscation In IBC Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title : S. Rajendran vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors Case Number : C.A. 7142 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 86
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that insolvency tribunals cannot nullify confiscation of property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, ruling that once property is confiscated under Section 27, it vests absolutely in the Central Government and falls outside the liquidation estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed appeals filed by liquidators who had sought to challenge attachment proceedings initiated under the Benami Act, holding that the IBC does not provide an indirect route to question sovereign action validly undertaken under a penal statute.
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against NCLAT Order Rejecting Insolvency Plea Against Voltas
Case Title : Air Wave Technocrafts Pvt Ltd vs Voltas Ltd
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 84
The Supreme Court has recently refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's decision dismissing the insolvency plea filed by Air Wave Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd against Voltas Ltd, a Tata Group company engaged in air-conditioning and engineering services.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the civil appeal arising out of the NCLAT judgment of November 27, 2025, which had refused to admit insolvency against Voltas for for an operational debt of over Rs 1.20 crores.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With NCLAT Order Upholding CIRP Against Kirtiman Cements
Case Title : Jatinder Oberoi v. Narendra Singh Chhabra & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal 731-733 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 94
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment upholding the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kirtiman Cements and Packaging Industries Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the Civil Appeal filed under Section 62 of the IBC, stating that it was not inclined to interfere with the NCLAT's judgment dated 17 December 2025.
Case Title : The CoC of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd vs Riju Raveendran & Ors
Case Number : C.A. 2594/2026
The Supreme Court of India on Friday continued NCLAT's interim direction restraining the NCLT from passing final orders in the plea before NCLT Bengaluru seeking removal of GLAS Trust from the Committee of Creditors of ed-tech Byju's parent Think & Learn Pvt. Ltd., while issuing notice on the CoC's appeal against rejection of its impleadment application.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued notice on the appeal and directed, “Court is directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. The interim order earlier granted by NCLAT shall continue to operate till the next date of hearing.”
Courts Must Remain Vigilant Against Expanding 'Narrow Boundaries' Of IBC Review: Supreme Court
Case Title : Torrent Power Ltd vs Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors
Case Number : C.A. 11746/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 96
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s (SEML) resolution plan for SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd., cautioning courts against expanding judicial review under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Affirming the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order, which had upheld the National Company Law Tribunal's approval of the plan, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stressed that the IBC prioritises speed and commercial wisdom over prolonged litigation.
Supreme Court Refuses To Frame Guidelines On Parallel Insolvency Against Borrower and Guarantor
Case Title : ICICI Bank Ltd vs ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO.6094 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 92
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that while simultaneous Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRPs) against principal borrowers and corporate guarantors are legally permissible, it will not frame additional judicial guidelines regulating such proceedings, leaving any reform to Parliament and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals arising from orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had either rejected or permitted initiation of CIRP against principal borrowers and corporate guarantors for the same debt.
Supreme Court Allows Set-Off Defence Against Ujaas Energy Though Counterclaim Extinguished Under IBC
Case Title : UJAAS ENERGY LTD vs WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : SLP (C) 29651 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 122
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. to raise a plea of set-off as a defence in arbitration proceedings against Ujaas Energy Ltd., even though its counterclaim stood extinguished after approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih while granting the relief observed:
“Upon a cumulative consideration of all relevant factors, we hold that the respondent, although not entitled to independently pursue its claim by way of counterclaim post approval of the resolution plan, ought to be permitted to raise the plea of set-off at least by way of defence. It is ordered accordingly.”
Case Title : LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Case Number : MISC.APPLICATION NO.1256 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 126
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its February 25, 2025 order dismissing an SLP in a dispute over an agreement to sell a property of a corporate debtor, holding that a disposed Special Leave Petition cannot be reopened on the basis of subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings or rival financial offers before the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the court cannot sit in appeal over the comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or substitute its own view for the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
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.
HIGH COURT
Case Title: Reliance Defence & Engineering Ltd vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 2
Case Number: IA (L) No. 9646 of 2024 in Arbitration Petition No. 1755 of 2015
The Bombay High Court has held that where an arbitral award passed against a company is under challenge, and the company later successfully comes out of insolvency, the award holder cannot retain money withdrawn from court deposits if the claim itself is wiped out under an approved resolution plan.
The court said such amounts must be returned, as the award itself no longer survives.
A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in an order dated December 17, 2025, allowed an interim application filed by Reliance Defence and Engineering Ltd. against Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
High Courts Cannot Exercise Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction Over NCLT In IBC Cases: Bombay High Court
Case Title: S.G. Mittal Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The Satara Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 7
Case Number: Contempt Petition No. 497 of 2025
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that contempt petitions alleging breach of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in insolvency cases cannot be filed directly before the High Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav said that once contempt powers are conferred on the NCLT by law, the High Court should not exercise parallel jurisdiction.
Case Title: Roseland Buildtech Private Limited v. Vihaan 43 Reality Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 10
Case Number: C.S. (COMM.) 812/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed what it described as “luxury litigation” challenging a debt assignment, saying issues of fraud or the existence of debt must be decided by the insolvency tribunal, not a civil court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rejected the suit at the threshold, holding that it was a “mala fide attempt” built on “clever drafting” to derail proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh, saying the case had wasted judicial time and “should never have been filed.”
Bank Can't Freeze Company's Accounts Solely Over ROC's 'Management Dispute' Tag: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ravindra Pratap and another vs Reserve Bank of India and others
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 4
Case Number: MAT No. 989 of 2025, IA No: CAN 1 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has held that a bank cannot freeze a company's accounts merely on the basis of a “management dispute” marking by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), particularly after such marking has been removed on the directions of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation on January 5 while hearing appeals filed by Ravindra Pratap Singh, director of August Agents Limited, challenging the freezing of the company's bank and demat accounts by Axis Bank in June 2021.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Against Bhushan Steel Following Tata Steel Takeover
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 32
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10431/2020 & CM APPL. 33016/2020
Case Title : Tata Steel Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr.
The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral tribunal order that allowed arbitration to continue against Tata Steel, formerly Bhushan Steel, even after its resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was approved. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma allowed Tata Steel's writ petition and quashed the tribunal's October 7, 2020 order. The court said that once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all creditors.
Case Title: Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd vs Dongare Ganesh D
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 26
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11862 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), labour courts and industrial tribunals cannot continue or entertain employee claims, including claims seeking reinstatement without back wages. Justice Arun R. Pedneker made the observation while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd, now Metalyst Forgings Ltd., challenging orders passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal at Aurangabad.
Case Title : MMS Steel and Power Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors
Case Number : WA No. 50 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 12
The Kerala High Court has refused to interfere with the National Company Law Tribunal's rejection of a resolution plan for an insolvent company, even though it had received 100% approval from the Committee of Creditors. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the NCLT was acting within its jurisdiction in examining the resolution plan and that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked merely because the tribunal disagreed with the Committee of Creditors.
Case Title : Arun Kumar Bagla v. SCJ Plastics Ltd.
Case Number : W.P. (CRL) 2165/2019 & CRL. M.A. 32848/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 46
The Delhi High Court has said that a company's inability to pay its dues because of financial distress is a civil issue, not a criminal offense. A director cannot be prosecuted for cheating unless there is clear proof of personal fraud or personal gain. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed cheating charges against a former managing director of Creative Wares Limited, a manufacturing company that later ran into financial trouble and was declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR.
Case Title : Vikas Prakash Gupta v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and Anr. Case Number : W.P.(C) 8974/2025 and CM APPL.38317/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 125
Holding that prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings had already caused serious prejudice, the Delhi High Court has reduced a one-year suspension imposed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on insolvency professional Vikas Prakash Gupta to the period already undergone.
Justice Sachin Datta underscored that “Administrative authorities are required to act within a reasonable period, and any prolonged delay must be justified by cogent reasons.”
Liquidator Can Defend Pending Civil Suits Filed Before Liquidation Under IBC: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Anupam Dikshit v. S.Kumars Nationwide Limited
Case Number : Writ Petition No.5393 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 68
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a liquidator can be impleaded and can defend a civil suit instituted prior to the commencement of liquidation proceedings, observing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not bar the continuation of such pending suits.
“Since Liquidator can sue, I do not see any reason why Liquidator cannot defend an action on behalf of the corporate debtor” Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed.
Case Title : West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs Eastern Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. (In Liqn.)
Case Number : APO/141/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 48
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside an order of a single judge of the court's original side, which upheld the official liquidator's decision treating the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (WBIDC) as an unsecured creditor in the liquidation of Eastern Explosives and Chemicals Ltd. The Court held that once charge documents were submitted prior to adjudication of claims, the official liquidator was bound to consider WBIDC as a secured creditor.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi heard the appeal arising from a single judge's order dated September 18, 2019.
Case Title : Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd vs Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd & Ors
Case Number : OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 237/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS). 92/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 150
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that once a decree holder lodges its claim arising out of an arbitral award before the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), it cannot pursue parallel execution proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A single bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling in a petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd, seeking enforcement of an arbitral award dated November 12, 2021 against Sinnar Thermal Power Ltd, while also seeking to proceed against its group entities at the execution stage.
Municipal Dues Cannot Be Recovered From Auction Purchaser After IBC Liquidation: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Mamta Binani & Anr. vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case Number : WPO 2435 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 53
The Calcutta High Court has held that once liquidation proceedings commence under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, municipal dues must be dealt with strictly within the framework of the Code and cannot be enforced independently against auction purchasers through contractual clauses such as “as is where is” or “whatever there is."
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay examined whether the Kolkata Municipal Corporation could retrospectively revalue a property and levy tax for periods prior to its purchase in liquidation proceedings.
'Ruse To Exploit Mill Land': Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Revive Swadeshi Mills
Case Title : Grand View Estates Private Limited v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors
Case Number : I.A No. 6953 of 2025 in Company Petition No.385 of 2002
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 91
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed an application filed by Grand View Estates Pvt Ltd seeking a stay of winding up proceedings and revival of Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd, holding that the proposal was not a genuine attempt to revive the textile company but an effort to exploit its valuable mill land for real estate development.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the revival plan was “nothing but a ruse to obtain the valuable land for exploitation in real estate market. At the core of the dispute lies 45 acres of land in the heart of city of Mumbai located in prime residential and commercial area which would command astronomical price given the potential of the property for development. The manner in which the Applicant has attempted to lay its hands on this valuable property of the company in liquidation leaves much to be desired,”
Single Judicial Member Of NCLT Can Pass Orders If Authorised By President: Kerala High Court
Case Title : K.N. Narayanan v. The Registrar of Kochi Bench and Anr.
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 5934 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 45
The Kerala High Court on 18 February, held that a Single Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can pass orders if the President of the Tribunal specifically authorises them under the proviso to Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
A Bench of Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition challenging orders passed by a Single Judicial Member of the NCLT, Kochi Bench, upholding the validity of the directions.
IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar MPID Attachment Proceedings In NSEL Scam: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Dulisons Cereals vs State of Maharashtra, National Spot Exchange Ltd
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 137
The Bombay High Court recently held that the interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot bar attachment proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act in connection with the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) payment crisis.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak dismissed an appeal filed by Dulisons Cereals, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Kanta Gupta, challenging an order of the Special MPID Court rejecting its application seeking a stay of proceedings for attachment of its properties.
Case Title : Attukal Devi institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. Represented by its RP v. Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust
Case Number : OP (RC) NO. 223 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 50
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority after finding that an appeal against a corporate debtor had been taken up despite a moratorium being in force under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed, “Under Section 14(1), it is clearly stated that once a moratorium is declared, there cannot be an institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. The appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.”
Bombay High Court Flags Misuse Of IBC By Borrowers To Stall SARFAESI Recovery After Auction Sale
Case Title : Rozina Firoz Hajiani & Ors. Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5157 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 145
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday flagged a disturbing trend of defaulting borrowers invoking provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to frustrate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, even after auction rights had crystallised in favour of auction purchasers.
A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing a writ petition filed by auction purchasers challenging a November 26, 2025 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai, which had halted further steps after accepting the borrowers' claim that a moratorium under the IBC had been triggered.
Moratorium Doesn't Extinguish The Criminal Liability In Terms Of 32A When The Plan Is Not Approved.
Case Title : M/S Jas Infrastructure and Power Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : CRL.A. 1596/2025, CRL.M.A. 34399/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 294
The Delhi High Court on 17 March 2026 held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) only creates a temporary moratorium and does not extinguish criminal liability. Protection under Section 32A is available only after the approval of a resolution plan that brings about a qualifying change in management.
The Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the plea of JAS Infrastructure and Power Ltd. seeking suspension of sentence in a coal block allocation case.
Case Title : Vishal Ganpat Shinde vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 30071 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 164
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed writ petitions filed by a suspended director of Gokul Sugar Industries Ltd and a financial creditor challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal refusing withdrawal of insolvency proceedings. The court held that after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, the corporate debtor is represented by the interim resolution professional and not by the suspended management.
NCLAT
Case Name: Ashok Mansukhlal Kapasi & Ors. v. Bhavi Shah (RP of Techno Forge Ltd.) & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 1
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.643 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has reiterated an insolvency court cannot add new conditions to a resolution plan approved by lenders, and set aside a direction that required 5 percent equity of the corporate debtor to be reserved for public shareholders.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka said the clause had found its way into the order without any basis in the approved resolution plan.
Case Title: Airtech Airconditioning v. Parnika Commercial and Estate Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 2
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.502/2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Wednesday set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, which had dismissed an insolvency application by invoking the Covid-19 bar under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellate tribunal held that the NCLT Delhi failed to consider invoices whose dates of default fell outside the Covid-19 excluded period.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said the approach adopted by the NCLT Delhi was flawed.
NCLAT Upholds Eviction Of Subsidiaries From Corporate Debtor's Properties During Liquidation
Case Title: Fivebro Water Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bijay Murmuria, Liquidator of Doshion Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 3
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1730 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the NCLT Ahmedabad's order directing eviction of two subsidiaries from premises owned by a corporate debtor.
The court held that the NCLT can exercise jurisdiction under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (which gives the insolvency court power to decide questions of law or fact arising out of or connected with insolvency or liquidation) to recover possession and rent during liquidation when the underlying leases are invalid.
Calling Guarantor 'Director' In SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Invalidate Invocation Of Guarantee: NCLAT
Case Title: Ujwal Gupta v Union Bank of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 4
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2001 of 2024
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently ruled that merely describing a personal guarantor as a “Director” in a SARFAESI demand notice does not invalidate the invocation of the personal guarantee, as long as the notice clearly demands payment of the outstanding dues under the guarantee deed.
Case Title: Klassy Enterprises v. Competition Commission of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 5
Case Number: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 33 of 2022
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently upheld a Rs 10 lakh penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India on Klassy Enterprises, holding that paying the tender costs of rival bidders and submitting bids from the same IP address was enough to show bid rigging, even without a written cartel agreement.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha dismissed Klassy Enterprises' appeal against the CCI's March 17, 2021 order.
NCLAT Limits Ansal Properties' Insolvency To Sushant Golf City and Rajasthan Projects
Case Title: Gagan Tandon & Ors. v. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 6
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 500 & 502 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi refused to overturn the insolvency proceedings against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited.
However, it restricted the process to Sushant Golf City in Lucknow and three Rajasthan projects: Ansal Royal Plaza, Orchid Plaza, and Tulip Plaza. The tribunal said extending the insolvency process to projects not linked to the loan securities was “uncalled for” and would disrupt unrelated real estate projects.
NCLAT Upholds ₹5,000 EPFO Allocation In CIRP of Metistech Fabrication Against ₹18.33 Lakh Claim
Case Title: Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs Subhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt Ltd and Anr
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 7
Case Number: Company Appeal AT (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2025
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has upheld a resolution plan that allocated only Rs 5,000 towards provident fund dues claimed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. The tribunal held that the bulk of the EPFO's demand was unenforceable, as it was assessed after insolvency proceedings had already begun.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka dismissed the EPFO's appeal against the resolution plan approved for Metistech Fabrication Private Limited, an Odisha based company. The tribunal said Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars any fresh assessment or recovery action once a moratorium comes into force.
Case Title: In the Matter of: Consortium led by Syonira Invecast Pvt. Ltd v. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2319 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 9
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi has held that no assessment proceedings can be initiated or continued during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and no claim based on such assessment can be enforced against the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) after approval of the Resolution Plan. Section 14 of the IBC introduces a moratorium that halts legal actions against a corporate debtor once insolvency proceedings begin.
NCLAT Expunges Adverse Remarks Against IL&FS Companies In Wind World Insolvency
Case Title : Jogihali Wind Energy Private Limited v. Yogesh Mehra and Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1249 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 21
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has expunged adverse remarks made by the NCLT Ahmedabad against three IL&FS group companies during the insolvency proceedings of Wind World (India) Limited. The appellate tribunal held that the observations were made without evidence and could not be allowed to remain.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey said removing a creditor from the Committee of Creditors is not a minor issue. The tribunal stressed that such decisions require procedural fairness.
Credits To Bankrupt's Bank Account Don't Automatically Vest In Bankruptcy Estate: NCLAT
Case Title : Shubash Chandra Mishra, Personal Guarantor vs Sunil Kumar, Bankrupt Trustee &Anr.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1300/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 17
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has ruled that money lying in the bank account of a bankrupt personal guarantor forms part of the bankruptcy estate and can be frozen by the Bankruptcy Trustee.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said that while all assets belonging to the bankrupt as of the bankruptcy commencement date vest in the trustee, the law treats assets acquired later differently.
Case Title : Rajiv Gupta v. Brijesh Singh Bhaduriya, Ertswhile RP of RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd and Ors.
Case Number : Comp. App.(AT) (Ins) No. 1859/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 16
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi, has refused to interfere with the approval of a resolution plan for RCI Industries and Technologies Ltd., after the successful resolution applicant undertook not to claim any rights over two disputed properties and the plan was approved by the committee of creditors.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said, “Resolution Plan having been approved by the CoC and SRA having offered not to claim any right which has been accepted by Adjudicating Authority, we are of the view that at the instance of the Suspended Directors the said decision cannot be interfered with.”
NCLAT Issues Notice On REC's ₹37.48 Crore Insolvency Appeal Against Poena Power
Case Title : REC Limited v. Poena Power Development Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 92 of 2026
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi on Thursday issued notice on an appeal by Maharatna PSU REC Limited against an NCLT order that rejected its bid to start insolvency proceedings against Poena Power Development Limited, a subsidiary of RattanIndia Power Limited, over an alleged default of about Rs 37.48 crore. REC has challenged the NCLT's refusal to admit its Section 7 petition, which was dismissed on the ground that no legally enforceable debt had arisen. The tribunal had held that the claim stemmed from Redeemable Preference Shares (RPS) that had not become redeemable under the Companies Act, as the parent company lacked profits or funds raised through a fresh share issue.
NCLAT Sets Aside Aman Hospitality CIRP After Suspended Director Undertakes To Pay ₹119 Crore Dues
Case Title : Raj Singh Gehlot, Suspended Director of Aman Hospitality Private Limited v. Anup Kumar, IRP of Aman Hospitality Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 94 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 15
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday set aside insolvency proceedings against Aman Hospitality Private Limited after the suspended director undertook to pay Bank of India's dues within three days, overturning an NCLT Delhi order admitting the company into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra allowed the appeal filed by suspended director Raj Singh Gehlot after taking on record his undertaking to settle the dues of the financial creditor, Bank of India.
NCLAT Lifts 'Impossible Condition' Of ₹40-Crore Security Imposed On Bankrupt Guarantor For US Travel
Case Title : Zankarsinh Kishorsinh Solanki v. Kanhaiyalal Salawat (Bankruptcy Trustee) & Ors. Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2030 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 14
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside a condition imposed by the NCLT Ahmedabad requiring a bankrupt personal guarantor to deposit Rs. 40 crore as security for travelling to the United States. The tribunal held that a person already declared bankrupt cannot be expected to arrange such funds.
A bench led by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that imposing an “impossible condition” amounts to denial of permission to travel.
Case Title : Rakesh Phull (RP of Shivam Continental Pvt. Ltd.) v. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 50 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 13
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has refused to interfere with an order admitting a late claim in an insolvency case. The tribunal said the delay did not, by itself, warrant interference since the liability was already disclosed to bidders during the process.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra noted that the Information Memorandum had flagged the dues. It had also cautioned resolution applicants to make their own enquiries.
“Sat Over Our Order”: NCLAT Seeks ISPT India IRP's Reply In Contempt Case
Case Title : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench v. Anil Kumar Khicha Case Number : Contempt No. 1/2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 531 & 532/2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 12
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has sought a reply from Anil Kumar Khicha, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of ISPT India Pvt Ltd, in contempt proceedings after the tribunal earlier found that an email issued by him in the insolvency proceedings was contemptuous.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain is dealing with the contempt proceedings arising from the insolvency proceedings of ISPT India Pvt Ltd.
NCLAT Upholds Adani Power's ₹4,000 Crore Resolution Plan For Vidarbha Industries
Case Title : Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Bimal Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1281 of 2025 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1317 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 11
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld Adani Power Limited's Rs 4,000 crore resolution plan for Vidarbha Industries Power Limited, rejecting challenges raised by Western Coalfields Limited, a fuel supplier and operational creditor, and an employee representative.
A bench of Chairperson Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that changes made by Adani Power to the acquisition structure after the plan was approved by the committee of creditors were permitted under the plan itself.
NCLAT Quashes NCLT Condition Restricting Use of Rs 20 Crore In Carnival Films Resolution Plan
Case Title : Cine-Corp Filmdom Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Gulla (RP) & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1614 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 10
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has set aside an NCLT Indore order that approved Carnival Films Private Limited's resolution plan but barred the use of nearly Rs. 20 crore lying in the company's bank account to pay creditors.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Arun Baroka said the NCLT had overstepped its jurisdiction. It noted that the NCLT had first recorded that the plan complied with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and then imposed fresh conditions.
Related Party Supplies Not CIRP Costs Without CoC Approval: NCLAT In Amtek Auto Insolvency
Case Title : Lotus Auto Engineering Ltd. v. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1356 & 1357 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 28
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed a Rs 18.98 crore claim by Lotus Auto Engineering Limited, a group company of Amtek Auto Limited, holding that supplies made by a related party during the corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be treated as insolvency resolution process costs unless expressly approved by the Committee of Creditors.
A Principal Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that permission granted by the CoC to undertake related party transactions cannot be equated with approval of expenses as insolvency resolution process costs entitled to priority payment.
NCLAT Dismisses Insolvency Appeal Against Larsen & Toubro Over Dues Claimed By Former Employee
Case Title : Manoj Seth v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2213 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 27
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently dismissed an insolvency appeal filed against Larsen & Toubro Ltd by a former senior employee over alleged unpaid salary and service benefits.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha upheld an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, which had rejected the employee's CIRP plea.
Intent Irrelevant Once Conditions Of Preferential Transaction Are Met: NCLAT Reiterates
Case Title : Rajesh Toshniwal and Anr. Versus Kamal Nayan Jain And Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1437 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 26
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has reiterated that a preferential transaction (Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) works on a statutory deeming fiction. Once the necessary ingredients are met, intent or motive does not matter. The burden shifts to the directors and beneficiaries to show that the transactions were in the ordinary course of business.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha dismissed an appeal filed by the suspended directors of Toshniwal Enterprises Controls Limited.
NCLAT Upholds ₹6.56 Crore Liability on Paranjape Agro Promoter For Fraudulent Stock Write-Off
Case Title : Shri. Hrushikesh Balkrishna Paranjape v. Shri. Ajay Marathe & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1994 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 25
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently held that the promoter-director of Paranjape Agro Products India Private Limited must personally repay Rs 6.56 crore to the company after finding that inventory shown in the books never existed and was written off to defraud creditors at a time when there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency.
A bench of Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey upheld an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai. The Appellate Tribunal agreed that the write-off was not a genuine business decision but a conscious act to erase inflated figures from the accounts.
NCLAT Remands Case After NCLT Failed To Record Finding On Homebuyers' Threshold in Insolvency Plea
Case Title : Mrudul Balwant Kulkarni Vs. Mrs. Kakumanu Lakshmi & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.386 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 24
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has set aside an order of the NCLT Mumbai Bench admitting insolvency proceedings against a real estate developer, holding that the NCLT failed to record a clear finding on the statutory threshold required for homebuyers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The matter has been remanded for a fresh determination limited to this issue.
Case Title : The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. M/s Harshavardhan Cotton and Synthetic Mills Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No.455/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 20
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has held that the provident fund dues of liquidation bound Harshavardhan Cotton and Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. could not have been treated as government dues during liquidation, even though the company had not maintained a separate provident fund account.
The tribunal said that, on the facts of the case, the amount claimed by EPFO had to be treated as a third-party asset and paid before the liquidation waterfall was applied.
No Right To Insist On OTS After Default: NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Against Karanja Terminal
Case Title : Brig. Vikram Singh, Suspended Director of Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Through Vijay P. Lulla, IRP & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1928-1931 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 23
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has upheld the admission of insolvency proceedings against Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., holding that repeated and unsuccessful one-time settlement proposals do not prevent action under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code once debt and default are established.
A bench headed by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Technical Member Barun Mitra, said the settlement proposals relied upon by the corporate debtor never went beyond the stage of proposals, as they did not receive unanimous approval of the consortium lenders.
Case Title : The Committee of Creditors of Nirmal Lifestyle (Kalyan) Pvt. Ltd. v. Shailendra Ajmera, Resolution Professional & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1521 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 22
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has held that a belated expression of interest in an insolvency process cannot be accepted unless a provisional list of bidders is first published and objections are invited. The court reiterated that it is a mandatory requirement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
BREAKING | NCLAT Upholds NCLT Order, Rejects Actor Akshay Kumar's Insolvency Plea Against Cue Learn
Case Title : Akshay Kumar Bhatia v Cue Learn Private Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.454 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 31
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on Friday upheld an NCLT order refusing to start insolvency proceedings against Cue Learn Private Limited over a payment dispute arising from an endorsement deal with actor Akshay Kumar Bhatia.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey agreed that the disagreement between the parties could not be resolved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : V. Nagarajan v. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Case Number : IA No. 30/2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 14 of 2022 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 30
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has dismissed an appeal filed by the liquidator of Cethar Limited, refusing to excuse a 495-day delay in amending an avoidance application filed during a company's insolvency proceedings.
The tribunal held that the delay amounted to “gross negligence” and could not be condoned by relying on Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a provision that allows courts to extend procedural timelines but limits such extension to 30 days.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain ruled that this power cannot override Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, which requires amendments to pleadings to be carried out within 14 days when no specific time is fixed.
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Admission Against Karanja Terminal Over ₹330 Crore Default
Case Title : Brig. Vikram Singh v. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1928-1931 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 29
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has upheld the initiation of insolvency proceedings against Karanja Terminal & Logistics Private Limited, a port operator, after rejecting its claim that a proposed settlement with lenders had stalled insolvency action.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra agreed with the National Company Law Tribunal that the corporate insolvency resolution process was rightly admitted.
Case Title : Subrata Sardar, Suspended Director of Vivek Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and Vivek Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.45 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 35
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently observed that a corporate guarantor cannot avoid insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by describing its guarantee obligation as a “contingent liability” in its balance sheets.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey.
Case Title : National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 532 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 36
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently held that receivables from refinance transactions extended by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) are third-party assets held in trust and cannot form part of the borrower's insolvency estate.
A coram of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that NABARD's statutory rights under Section 29 of the NABARD Act are not waived merely because it filed its claim in Form-C during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
NCLAT Closes Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against IRP After Accepting His Unconditional Apology
Case Title : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal v. Anil Kumar Khicha
Case Number : Contempt No. 1/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 37
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai, has closed contempt proceedings against an Interim Resolution Professional who “sat over” the tribunal's interim stay order and proceeded despite it, after accepting his unconditional apology.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain, in its order dated January 29, 2026, recorded that it had earlier directed that “the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 was directed to be kept in abeyance.”
Case Title : Puro Natural Sugars JV v. Shree Warana Sahakari Bank Ltd and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1003 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 38
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that once an approved resolution plan expressly extinguished securities and attachments of personal guarantors and attained finality, dissenting financial creditors could not continue recovery proceedings against such assets.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra allowed an appeal filed by Puro Natural Sugars JV and deleted portions of a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order that had restricted the scope of release of guarantor and third-party assets.
Case Title : IndusInd Bank Limited and Link Intime India Private Limited v Mrs. Neetu R. Menda
Case Number : CP (AT) /38/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 39
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the restoration of 5,000 equity shares of IndusInd Bank to their original holder, holding that the bank and its Registrar and Transfer Agent acted negligently in issuing duplicate share certificates to a third party.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra observed, “We note that the Appellant was negligent and had not followed the due procedure in issue of duplicate share certificates. The registered shareholder was nevour kept in the loop and was never informed. As per the law and guidelines prescribed, the duplicate share certificate could have been issued only to the registered shareholder, and not to any body else.”
Case Title : Maheshkumar Bachubhai Patel V Shubh Cottom & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1856/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 40
Holding that the claim was not time barred and that all the invoices had to be considered for determining the statutory threshold, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the admission of insolvency proceedings against Rajeshwari Cotspin Ltd.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “Thus, threshold has to be determined on basis of the invoices taking all the invoices and cannot confine to only last invoice of Rs. 19 lakhs.”
Case Title : Akshay Kumar Rout V Indo Laminates Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1455/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 41
Holding that the purchase of stamp paper and subsequent execution of a loan agreement cannot be any relevant consideration for rejecting a CIRP plea, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has set aside the dismissal of an insolvency plea.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The observation of the Adjudicating Authority that the stamp paper was purchased on 12.02.2025 and agreement was executed on 01.03.2025 can not be any relevant consideration for rejecting Section 7 application. Observations in Para 23 and 24, as noted above, can not be basis for rejection of the application.”
Case Title : Chandresh Jajoo v Vikas Garg
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1713/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 42 To Read th
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that the issue of formation and determination of opinion by a resolution professional in respect of preferential, undervalued, extortionate, and fraudulent (PUFE) transactions cannot be examined at the threshold level on a stand-alone basis while the avoidance applications are pending consideration before the adjudicating authority.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed,
“We are of the considered view that the issue of formation of opinion and determination of opinion on PUFE transactions cannot be examined at the threshold level on a stand-alone basis dehors the avoidance applications.”
Case Title : Pink Rose Chemicals Pvt. Ltd & Ors Vs Premraj Ramratan Laddha & Ors Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2215/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 43
An ex parte order passed without issuing notice cannot be sustained, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held, setting aside a Mumbai NCLT order that had allowed a preferential transaction application in the liquidation of Euro Ceramics Ltd.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka said that omission to direct notice is larger than some procedural breach.
NCLAT Affirms NCLT New Delhi Order Rejecting Insolvency Plea Against Bajaj Appliances
Case Title : T.J. Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Bajaj Appliances Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1707 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 44
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently dismissed an insolvency plea against Bajaj Appliances Ltd., holding that a pre-existing dispute barred initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka upheld the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi's October 18, 2023, order rejecting the application filed by T.J. Communication Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : Pragiti Construction V Committee of Creditor and Rajeev Ranjan Singh
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2330/2024 and 2331/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 45
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that a resolution applicant who is not a financial creditor cannot vote on and approve its own resolution plan, declaring such approval void ab initio as it violates Section 30(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey.
CoC Members Entitled Only To Fair And Liquidation Value, Not Full Valuation Reports: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 23/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 46
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has recently observed that a resolution professional is not required to share full valuation reports with lenders (CoC) during insolvency proceedings. The tribunal referred to Regulation 35(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which provides that after receipt of resolution plans, the resolution professional shall provide the fair value and the liquidation value to members of the Committee of Creditors after obtaining confidentiality undertakings. It held that the regulation does not mandate disclosure of the complete valuation reports.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed an appeal filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited.
Case Title : Mukul Somany Vs DBS Bank Ltd &Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 999/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 47
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently set aside the NCLT Kolkata's order admitting DBS Bank's Section 95 application against Mukul Somany, a personal guarantor of Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd, holding that the bank had not invoked the guarantee before initiating insolvency proceedings.
Limitation For IBC Appeal Runs From Pronouncement Date, Not Knowledge: NCLAT Dismisses CIRP Appeal
Case Title : Lalremsiem Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd
Case Number : 05.02.2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 48
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal challenging the admission of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a private company as time-barred. It held that the limitation under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the order, not from the date of knowledge.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed:
“For counting the statutory period of 30 days for filing the appeal, the same is to be counted from the day after the date of pronouncement of the impugned order. The date of knowledge of impugned order is immaterial for limitation computation.”
Authorisation, Stamping, and IU Defects Cannot Block Insolvency Petition: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title : Vinodkumar Nihalchand Parmar Vs Anuj Bajpai and Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1395/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 49
On 6 February, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi held that defects in authorisation, stamping, and Information Utility records cannot invalidate a Section 7 insolvency petition when the debt and default are acknowledged by the corporate debtor.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed the appeal of Vinodkumar Nihalchand Parmar, which challenged an NCLT Mumbai Bench order admitting the petition filed by Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. against Dee Plone Polyster Pvt Ltd.
Case Title : Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd Vs Padhe Constructions Pvt Ltd Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2372/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 50
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside an order of the NCLT Mumbai bench that had dismissed a CIRP plea filed by Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd against Pandhe Constructions Pvt Ltd as time-barred.
The appellate tribunal held that the NCLT misapplied the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation directions and failed to properly consider acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed:
“Therefore, the aforesaid factual and legal position would suggest that the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 3 of 2020 in its correct prospective and has also failed to take into cognizance Section 18 of the Limitation Act as also the averments made by the financial creditor with regard to acknowledgment of debt by principal borrower, which has been duly recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in para 2.7 of the impugned order.”
Case Title : Jasvinder Singh Makan Vs Anish Kumar Sanghi
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2025/2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 735/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 51
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld an order holding that payments of Rs.19.66 lakh made to a suspended director of a company were preferential transactions under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Dismissing two appeals filed by Jasvinder Singh Makan, the tribunal said repayment of unsecured loans to a director during financial distress cannot be treated as a routine business transaction.
"Repayment of unsecured loans to a director at a time, when the Corporate Debtor was facing financial difficulty, and when a secured financial creditor had substantial outstanding dues, cannot be regarded as a routine business transaction. By receiving these payments, the Appellant clearly obtained a benefit which he would not have received in the same manner in the event of liquidation under Section 53 of the Code. We therefore are of the view that such transactions cannot be classified as ordinary business transaction" the bench of Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed.
Case Title : Religare Finvest Limited Vs Strategic Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 398/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 53
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently dismissed an appeal filed by Religare Finvest Limited against the National Company Law Tribunal's order rejecting its Section 7 insolvency plea against Strategic Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey held that insolvency proceedings cannot be initiated against a Financial Service Provider.
NCLAT Condones 3-Day Delay In Filing Appeal As NCLT Order Uploaded Eight Months After Pronouncement
Case Title : Pranav Varshney v. A. Viswanadha Sarma, RP (for Unibera Developers Pvt. Ltd.) & Anr.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2031 of 2025 & I.A. No. 7931 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 52
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has condoned a delay in filing an appeal against an order passed in an interlocutory application after noting that the National Company Law Tribunal's order was uploaded nearly eight months after it was pronounced, and that the delay attributable to the appellant was only three days.
The order in an application filed in the insolvency proceedings of Unibera Developers Private Limited was pronounced by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, on March 11, 2025 but was uploaded on the tribunal website only on November 6, 2025. The appeal was filed on 9 November 2025.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey allowed the condonation application filed by Pranav Varshney.
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited Vs Roadwings International Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 46/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 54
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has recently held that the power of attorney issued to an officer of Srei Equipment Finance Limited to initiate and defend legal proceedings, including proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, remained valid despite the discharge of its administrator.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said, “In the present case, it therefore follows that the Administrator having issued POA to Sohan Jha and the POA having been ratified both by the IMC and the fresh Board of Directors, actions taken by the POA holder cannot be said be suffer from irregularities on grounds of lack of valid authorisation.”
Case Title : Harish Kumar Mittal Vs State Bank of India and Rajas Shreeram Bodas
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2363/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 55
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the admission of a personal insolvency petition filed by State Bank of India (SBI) against former Mercator Limited director Harish Kumar Mittal over dues of Rs. 236.19 crore, holding that his objection that his reply affidavit was not taken on record did not establish a violation of natural justice.
A three-member bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed Mittal's appeal against the order of the NCLT, Mumbai which had admitted the petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Rainbow Papers Ruling Not Ground To Reopen Approved Resolution Plan Over Belated Tax Dues: NCLAT
Case Title : State Tax Officer Vs Hasti Mal Kachhara & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1275/2023 & 1276/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 59
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has observed that the Supreme Court's ruling in Sales Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited does not permit reopening of an approved resolution plan at the instance of a government department that failed to challenge the rejection of its claim at the appropriate stage. In Rainbow Papers, the Supreme Court had held that statutory government dues could qualify as secured debts and could not be ignored in a resolution plan.
Dismissing twin appeals filed by the State Tax Officer, a Bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka underlined that finality of an approved resolution plan cannot be unsettled merely because the claim relates to government dues.
Case Title : Committee of Creditors of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. Vs Riju Ravindran & Ors Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) 475/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 60
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai has held that a Committee of Creditors (CoC) can litigate in its own name under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, even though it does not possess juristic personality in the classical sense. The ruling came in proceedings involving Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of edtech firm Byju's.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain observed, “Therefore, since CoC is a statutory body and a decision- making entity, to deny it it's legal existence for all purposes merely because it is neither a juristic person might be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
NCLAT Directs YG Estates To Hand Over Supertech Ecociti, 34 Pavilion Maintenance To RWAs In 30 Days
Case Title : Supertech Ecociti Apartment Owners Association v. Hitesh Goel (IRP) of Supertech Limited & Anr.
Case Number : I.A. No. 5459 of 2025 In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 406 of 2022 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 61
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently directed YG Estates Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. to hand over maintenance of Supertech's Ecociti and 34 Pavilion projects in Noida to their registered apartment owners' associations within 30 days.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that since 99 percent of the homebuyers had taken possession and the associations were duly registered under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act, maintenance must be transferred under Section 14(5).
Direct Disbursement To Corporate Debtor Not Mandatory To Qualify As Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Vistra ITCL (India) Limited Vs Vithal Madhukar Dahake & 2 Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1110/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 62
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Tuesday observed that direct disbursement of funds to a corporate debtor is not mandatory for a debt to qualify as a “financial debt” under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha observed,
“We carefully observe that the Section does not use the word “to the Corporate Debtor” after word “disbursed”. From the statutory language, the essential ingredients of financial debt are Existence of a debt, Disbursement of money, Consideration for time value of money and Commercial effect of borrowing.”
NCLAT Refuses To Condone Delay In Appeal; Limitation Starts From Pronouncement, Not Uploading
Case Title : RP for Trading Engineers International Ltd. Versus Uttrakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : I.A. No. 5773 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1475 of 2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 63
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has rejected an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an insolvency appeal by the Resolution Professional of Trading Engineers International Ltd., holding that in the facts of the case limitation commenced from the date the order was pronounced in open court and not from the date it was uploaded on the NCLT website.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra found that the National Company Law Tribunal's order dated June 11, 2025 had been pronounced in open court in the presence of the appellant and his counsel. The appeal was e-filed on August 28, 2025.
NCLAT Allows AMNS To Replace ArcelorMittal India In ₹1,300 Crore Essar Steel RTU Appeal
Case Title : ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No.1951 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.1038 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 65
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has allowed ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Private Limited to be transposed as the appellant in a pending appeal arising from the Rs 1,300 crore Right to Use charges dispute linked to the Essar Steel insolvency resolution process.
The company will replace ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd., the original successful resolution applicant, in the proceedings. The tribunal clarified that the transposition will be subject to the applicant assuming all liabilities under the challenged order.
NCLAT Dismisses Dhoot Brothers' Plea, Upholds Insolvency Proceedings As Videocon Guarantors
Case Title : Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot Versus State Bank Of India
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1443 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 66
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed appeals filed by Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot and Pradeep Nandlal Dhoot, brothers of Videocon founder Venugopal Dhoot, clearing the way for insolvency proceedings against them in their capacity as personal guarantors to debt-ridden Videocon Industries Ltd.
A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that the applications moved by the State Bank of India under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were filed within limitation. The tribunal noted that the guarantees had been invoked in 2018 and the insolvency proceedings were initiated within three years of that invocation.
Case Title : Mosco International Commodities Private Limited Versus SBEC Sugar Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 860 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 67
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld the dismissal of a Section 9 insolvency plea against SBEC Sugar Limited, holding that the Rs 1 Crore threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be satisfied on the date of filing the petition and not on the date of issuing the demand notice.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by Mosco International Commodities Private Limited after finding that the operational debt had fallen below Rs 1 Crore on the initiation date, that is, the date the Section 9 CIRP plea was filed.
120-Day Timeline For Personal Insolvency Resolution Process Is Directory, Not Mandatory: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title : Purushottam Behera v. State Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 258 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 68
On 26 February, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, held that the 120-day timeline for completing the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is directory and not mandatory.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey set aside the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai, which had refused to extend the process beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal clarified that the Adjudicating Authority does not lose jurisdiction merely because the timeline under the IBBI Regulations has expired.
Project Segregation In CHD-Vann Real Estate Insolvency Justifies 525-Day CIRP Exclusion: NCLAT
Case Title : Hans Raj Bhogra Vs Rajesh Kumar Parakh
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 361/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 70
Holding that in a real estate insolvency involving multiple projects, the period till segregation of a project from the CIRP was liable to be excluded, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has allowed exclusion of 525 days in the CHD-Vann matter and set aside the NCLT's rejection of the plea.
A Bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed that the insolvency pertained to a real estate company with several projects, and different orders had been passed from time to time segregating projects from the CIRP. Since the last such segregation concerning CHD-Vann was allowed only on November 21, 2025, “the said period is required to be excluded,” the tribunal held.
Pre-March 2020 Defaults Not Covered By Section 10A Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi
Case Title : Irfan Khan Suspended Director of M/s Western Energetics Pvt. Ltd vs, Rakesh Kumar Goswami Proprietor of Lamsyn Enterprises & Anr
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1392 of 2023 & I.A. No. 4976 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 69
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on 24 February, held that Section 10A of the IBC cannot bar Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiation where the debt had fallen due prior to 25 March 2020, clarifying that dishonour of cheques during the COVID-19 suspension period does not alter the original default date.
The Principal Bench, comprising Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, dismissed an appeal filed by Irfan Khan, suspended director of Western Energetics Pvt. Ltd., challenging the Jaipur Bench of the NCLT's initiation of CIRP under Section 9 of the Code.
No TDS Refund Set Off In Shri Jalaram Rice Industries Liquidation As No Claim Was Filed: NCLAT
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Ahmedabad Vs Kiran Shah
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1705/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 71
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad. It held that in the liquidation of Shri Jalaram Rice Industries Pvt Ltd, the department could not adjust a TDS refund against an earlier tax demand because it had not filed any claim in the liquidation proceedings. “Appellant having not filed any claim question of claiming set off does not arise,” the bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed.
Case Title : Arvind Kumar Vs Beacon Trusteeship Limited & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 171/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 72
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently upheld insolvency proceedings against real estate firm Arcturus Developers Pvt. Ltd., holding that its debentures were never converted into shares and continued to remain financial debt.
A Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra dismissed an appeal filed by the company's suspended director, Arvind Kumar. The case concerned 50,00,000 Optionally Convertible Debentures issued by the company in 2019 to raise funds.
NCLAT Replaces NCLT's Two-Week Deadline With 90 Days For Nobal Buildtech To Pay ₹90 Crore Settlement
Case Title : Harvinder Singh Sikka Vs Nobal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 256/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 63
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has given Nobal Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 90 days to pay Rs 90 crore under a settlement, replacing the two-week window earlier granted by the New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal. The New Delhi Bench of the NCLT had revived the company's insolvency process on January 7, 2026 and later extended limited protection only until February 4, 2026. The company had sought more time to complete the settlement.
Modifying that order, a bench of Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said sufficient cause had been shown to grant 90 days.
Pre-Existing Dispute In Ledgers: NCLAT Dismisses Drive India's Insolvency Appeal Against Essline
Case Title : Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. Through Its Authorized Representative Vs. Essline Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 197 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 73
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd.'s insolvency appeal against Essline Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., holding that a pre-existing dispute between the parties was real and documented long before the insolvency notice was issued.
A bench of Judicial Member Justices Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held:
“The present is a case where notice of dispute was issued by the Corporate Debtor immediately after receiving of the demand notice and materials brought in reply to Section 9 application clearly proves that the plea raised by the Corporate Debtor that it does not owe any amount to the Appellant was supported by its ledgers. In any view of the matter, there were correspondences between the parties as noted above which clearly reflect the pre-existing dispute between the parties.”
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Against Frost International, Says Bank Can't Be Faulted Over Unfiled Plan
Case Title : Uday J. Desai v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 187 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 74
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, on 27 February, dismissed an appeal filed by the ex-director of Frost International Ltd., rejecting the argument that Bank of India acted unfairly by not considering a restructuring under the RBI's Prudential Framework dated 7 June 2019 before initiating insolvency. -
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, upheld the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai order admitting the Section 7 application.
NCLAT Reaffirms IBC Proceedings Against Personal Guarantor Not Barred By SARFAESI Action
Case Title : Vibu Venkatsubramanian Vs State Bank of India & ARCK Resolution Professional LLP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1228/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 84
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reiterated that the pendency of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar the initiation of personal insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), noting that the Code overrides other laws.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra observed, “As per provisions of Section 238 of IBC, 2016, the Code overrides other laws and there is no bar of filing application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 during the pendency of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.”
NCLAT Dismisses Rolta Employees' Appeal Challenging Resolution Plan Payout
Case Title : Mohammed Ismail Ansari& Ors Vs Dr Mamta Binani & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 241/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 83
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently dismissed an appeal filed by former employees of Rolta India Ltd challenging the approval of the company's resolution plan, holding that the payout made to them complied with the terms recorded by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding payment of their dues.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra noted that the NCLT had recorded that the resolution plan would provide payment to employees equal to the higher of (i) twelve months' salary entitlement or (ii) the percentage payable to unsecured financial creditors.
Case Title : Rakshit Dhirajlal Doshi & Mr Ashit Doshi Vs Mr Chirag Shah
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1855/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 82
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that remuneration paid to directors for their managerial services cannot be treated as fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (which deals with fraudulent or wrongful trading carried on with intent to defraud creditors) in the absence of proof of such intent.
Setting aside an order of the Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal in the CIRP of Doshion Water Umbrella (Cuddalore) Pvt. Ltd., the appellate tribunal said there was no cogent evidence to show fraudulent intent behind the payments.
Case Title : Mangalam Global Enterprise Limited Versus Catalyst Trusteeship Limited and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 81
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that a fixed deposit forming part of the corporate debtor's assets in the Information Memorandum cannot be withheld after approval of a resolution plan when no claim asserting lien or security was filed during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
A coram of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that claims not asserted during CIRP stand extinguished once the resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLAT Dismisses Sri Bajrang Wind Park Insolvency Plea Against Inox Wind Over Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : Bajrang Wind Park Developers Versus M/s Inox Wind Infrastructure Services Limited and Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 630 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 80
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Sri Bajrang Wind Park Developers challenging the rejection of its Section 9 insolvency petition against Inox Wind Infrastructure Services Limited. The tribunal held that email correspondence and reconciliation discussions between the parties showed the existence of a pre-existing dispute.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka held, “From the pleadings and particularly email exchange which is on record, one can safely come to a conclusion that these are not spurious or moonshine disputes and these were pre-existing disputes. Thus, the Company petition under Section 9 of the Code is not maintainable and cannot be allowed.”
Case Title : D.N.V Srinivasa Raju Vs IDBI Bank Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1189/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 79
Reiterating that acknowledgment of liability in balance sheets extends limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has upheld the admission of IDBI Bank's Section 7 insolvency application against Hindustan Insecticides Limited.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that the insolvency application was not barred by limitation, as the corporate debtor had acknowledged the subsisting liability in its audited financial statements within the limitation period.
Judicial Custody Of MD No Ground To Claim Natural Justice Violation If Counsel Appeared: NCLAT
Case Title : Durga Prasanna Mishra Vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 78
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently observed that the principle of natural justice is not violated merely because the Managing Director of a corporate debtor was in judicial custody during insolvency proceedings, where the company was duly represented by counsel.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed: “The Appellant being in custody from 25.10.2025 till 26.11.2025 cannot be any ground for alleging violation of principle of natural justice when on 22.08.2025, Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has appeared and prayed for time to file reply.”
Winding Up Petitions Transferred From High Court To NCLT Cannot Be Admitted Mechanically: NCLAT
Case Title : Navin Ashokkumar Aswani Vs Falcon Industries and Rajendra Sanghi
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 109/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 76
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that a winding up petition transferred from a High Court to the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be admitted mechanically. Even if the High Court had already admitted the winding up petition, the NCLT must independently examine whether the requirements for admission under Section 9 of the Code are satisfied.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “After transfer of the Winding Up Petition by the High Court to the NCLT after admission of the Winding Up Petition, NCLT has not to mechanically admit the petition and has to examine the application in accordance with provisions of the I&B Code and to pass a judicial order after considering as to whether the application need to be admitted under Section 9 or not"
NCLAT Holds Section 198 Cannot Be Used To Extend IBC Appeal Deadline, Rejects IBBI's 103-Day Delay
Case Title : Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No. 391 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 75
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that a provision allowing delay to be excused when the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India fails to perform a statutory duty cannot be used to extend the strict deadline for filing appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed, “The said provision of Section 198 can have no relevance with regard to Section 61 of the IBC, which provides for limitation for filing an Appeal. The Appellant has not been able to refer to any provisions under the IBC, where the Board has been required to perform a function of filing an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within the specified time."
Case Title : Reliance Realty Limited Vs Alturist Customer Management India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2077/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 86
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently upheld the dismissal of an insolvency plea filed by Reliance Realty Limited against Altruist Customer Management India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the dispute between the parties over rental liability was genuine and could not be resolved through proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka observed that the disagreement raised by the corporate debtor was substantive in nature.
Case Title : Rajeev Khurana v. Sh. Arvind Kumar, RP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1332 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 87
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Tuesday observed that disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against the Resolution Professional (RP) in other Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRPs) cannot be relied upon to invalidate the claim verification exercise undertaken in the CIRP of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, "We are of the view that disciplinary action in other cases are not relevant for invalidation of the claim verification exercise undertaken by the RP in the present CIRP. The IBC envisages distinct remedial mechanisms for regulatory oversight of insolvency professionals, which cannot be conflated with adjudicatory proceedings under Section 60(5) of the IBC. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority was justified is not being swayed by the rationale of this argument either.”
Case Title : Tejinder Pal Setia v Sh. Arvind Kumar
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1348 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 88
On Tuesday 10 March, the Principle Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi held that a forensic audit report commissioned by suspended management is inadmissible due to bias, conflict of interest, and a breach of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) confidentiality.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra, was hearing an appeal by the suspended management of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. challenging the inadmissibility of a forensic audit report they had independently commissioned during CIRP.
Case Title : Suman Chopra Vs Arvind Kumar
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1331/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 90
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Tuesday upheld the rejection of a homebuyer's claim filed four days before a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting to vote on resolution plan, noting that under the CIRP Regulations, belated claims can be admitted only if they are submitted up to seven days before such meetings.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, "When we look at the above CIRP Regulations, it is amply clear that the RP can accept claims only up to seven days before the date on which the CoC is to approve the resolution plan. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant had not submitted their claims seven days before the CoC meeting to approve the resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority had therefore not committed any error in the given facts and circumstances in not acceding to the request of the Appellant for admission of their claims."
Liquidator Cannot Appeal His Own Replacement As He Is Not 'Person Aggrieved' Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Ramachandran Subramanian Vs Anil Kohli and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (EARCL).
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 267/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 91
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday held that a liquidator cannot maintain an appeal challenging his replacement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), ruling that removal from such a statutory assignment does not create a vested entitlement to continue in office.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed, “It is well settled that once the Adjudicating Authority, for reasons recorded, directs replacement of a Liquidator, he cannot claim continuation as a matter of right. Section 61 permits an appeal by a 'person aggrieved'. Removal from a statutory assignment, without affecting any independent civil or proprietary right, does not automatically create a vested entitlement to continue and such a person cannot be treated as 'person aggrieved' and would therefore have no locus to maintain an appeal before this tribunal merely on the ground of replacement,”
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Against Al-Dua, Rejects Plea That Debt Was Transferred To Another Company
Case Title : Mohd. Zaheer Vs Ashu Agencies & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1526/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 93
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the admission of insolvency proceedings against Al-Dua Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., rejecting the plea of its ex-promoter Mohd. Zaheer that the company was not liable to pay the operational debt as the liability had been transferred to another entity under a Share Purchase Agreement.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that the defence of transfer of liability was not established, observing, “The corporate debtor is neither entitled to benefit of the Section 41 of the Contract Act, 1872 nor the contract under which the corporate debtor has liability to pay for outstanding dues of the operational creditor can be said to have been novated within meaning of Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. We, thus are of the view that there being debt and default committed by the corporate debtor, adjudicating authority has rightly admitted Section 9 application.”
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Ltd. v. Seikh Abdul Salam, RP of Jai Gokul Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 848 and 1009 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7183 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 92
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, which had declared the confirmation of an auction sale and the sale certificate in respect of the corporate debtor's share in a mortgaged property as null and void, holding that the same had been issued after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and during the moratorium.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The subject properties having already been sold and sale confirmation has been made in favour of the Auction Purchaser on 20.11.2023, i.e. much before commencement of the CIRP on 01.01.2024, moratorium had no effect on the sale having already become absolute. The order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Adjudicating Authority is unsustainable.”
IBC Applies To Multi-State Cooperative Societies Despite MSCS Act Excluding Companies Act: NCLAT
Case Title : Mehsana Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Swastik Ceracon Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1956/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 95
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently held that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can be maintained against a multi-state cooperative society. It said the jurisdiction of the insolvency tribunal cannot be excluded by relying on the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, which excludes the applicability of the Companies Act, 2013.
The ruling came while the tribunal upheld a direction requiring Mehsana Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd to refund 56 lakh to Swastik Ceracon Limited in a dispute arising out of insolvency resolution proceedings.
Case Title : Minita D Raja Vs The Cosmos Co-Op Bank Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1799/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 97
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that the Adjudicating Authority can fix the fees of the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional only in cases where the applicant initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) has not proposed the fee and that otherwise the power to determine such expenses lies exclusively with the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
The coram of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha observed, “We observe that only in case, the applicant seeking initiation of CIRP, if do not propose fee of the IRP then only, there is a jurisdiction vested to the Adjudicating Authority to fix the expenses under Regulation 33(2) of the CIRP Regulations. We find that the CoC enjoys exclusive powers of fixing the fees and expenses to be incurred by the resolution professional based on the commercial wisdom of the CoC. We further observe that there is no jurisdiction vested to the Adjudicating Authority on this aspect.”
Third Parties Entitled To Certified Copies Of NCLT Orders To File Appeals: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : SA Jhan Mohammed vs Ashish Vyas
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 70/ 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 96
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, on 27 February, observed that certified copies of NCLT orders must be issued even to third parties who were not part of the original proceedings if they seek to challenge the order in appeal.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain was hearing an appeal filed by SA Jhan Mohammed against an order concerning Maan Sarovar Properties Development Pvt Ltd.
Case Title : Era Infra Engineering Ltd Vs Alok Kumar Agarwal, IRP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1693/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 98
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that approval of the resolution plan of Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (EIEL), the holding company of Haridwar Highways Project Ltd. (HHPL), does not prevent creditors from initiating insolvency proceedings against HHPL and corporate guarantor Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (EIIL), while dismissing appeals filed by EIEL challenging admission of Section 7 petitions.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed that, “The rights of the financial creditor under Section 7 to proceed against the principal borrower and the corporate guarantor are separate and independent rights, which rights can be exercised by the financial creditor without any kind of fetter from the approval of the resolution plan of the EIEL.”
Case Title : IDBI Bank Ltd Vs Ravindra Kumar Goyal
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 853/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 99
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 16 March, held that the “deeming” fiction created by law empowers the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to continue as the Resolution Professional (RP) even if not formally confirmed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the first meeting. A Bench of Judicial Member Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed:
“The objective of IBC is a time bound resolution of a Corporate Debtor and hence, Section 16(5) of the IBC read with Regulation 17(3) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 seeks to prevent a situation where a time bound CIRP gets stalled merely because the CoC fails to confirm the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the Ld. NCLT as the Resolution Professional, or fails to appoint someone else as the RP.”
Case Title : Vave India Energy Solutions Private Limited Vs Eastman Auto & Power Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1612/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 100
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently refused to allow insolvency proceedings to be initiated in a dispute between Vave India Energy Solutions Private Limited and Eastman Auto & Power Limited. The tribunal found that the case arose from complaints about defective batteries supplied under warranty and that the liability had been disputed before the statutory demand notice was issued.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra observed, “It is sufficient that the pre-existing dispute is genuine and is raised prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016. Considering that the dispute was raised prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016, the Ld. NCLT has rightly rejected the application of the Operational Creditor.”
Filing CIRP To Evade Tax Liabilities Amounts To Fraud: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Gopal Trading Company Vs Ravindra Kumar Goyal and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 222/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 101
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on 17 March, held that initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a corporate debtor to evade tax liabilities amounts to fraud under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed: “Thus, what seems to underpin the reason for triggering CIRP proceedings was clearly to circumvent the tax liability. It is clearly evident from the timing of CIRP admission that the moratorium provision was being put to use by the Appellant to shield themselves from their tax liabilities and not as a genuine resolution tool.”
Case Title : Velocity Enterprises Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 538 & 539 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 102
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi on Friday directed that the bank guarantee furnished by Velocity Enterprises, a subcontractor engaged by Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) for erection and maintenance of substations, shall not be invoked for six months beyond its expiry on March 31, 2026. The order came in the first appeal filed after the National Company Law Tribunal approved Adani Group's Rs 15,000-crore resolution plan for the company.
The matter was heard by a bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra.
RBI Circular Cannot Override IBC; Written Agreement Not Mandatory To Prove Financial Debt: NCLAT
Case Title : Subham Capital Private Limited Vs Vedic Realty Private Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2068/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 103
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that RBI circulars requiring written loan agreements cannot override the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal observed that it is “a clear derivative” of its earlier judgments that the RBI circular does not prevail over IBC proceedings and that a written agreement is not mandatory to establish financial debt under the Code.
Case Title : Subham Capital Private Limited Vs Vedic Realty Private Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2068/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 104
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that Subham Capital Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to file a fresh Section 7 petition against Vedic Realty Pvt. Ltd. after breach of a settlement agreement, ruling that the subsequent default gave rise to a new cause of action and was not barred by res judicata. A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed:
“The breach of settlement clearly gave rise to a new cause of action in favour of the Appellant to file a Section 7 application and the Adjudicating Authority had misdirected itself by applying the principles of res judicata in the present case.”
Case Title : SPS Steels Rolling Mills Limited Vs Central Bank of India
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 352/2024 and 353/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 106
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently held, in the insolvency of SPS Steels Rolling Mills Ltd, that the successful resolution applicant is not required to specify every asset of the corporate debtor in the resolution plan, and assets not mentioned in the information memorandum do not cease to belong to the corporate debtor after approval of the plan.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, after examining the insolvency regulations governing the contents of the information memorandum and the resolution plan, observed, “We find that in above quoted regulations regarding Resolution Plan, no such stipulation has been made that SRA is bound to give such specific details of the assets being taken over. The Appellant gave its Resolution Plan based on the information memorandum prepared by the Resolution Professional. It is also observed that in information memorandum there was no clause that any assets not mentioned in the information memorandum will not be passed on the Appellant being the SRA, or in other words such assets will be given to Erstwhile CoC.”
Case Title : Sunrise Industries Vs Umesh Gupta
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2269/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 107
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently observed that fairness in insolvency asset sales cannot be viewed from the perspective of a single bidder alone, while dismissing Sunrise Industries' appeal seeking consideration of its higher bid submitted after the deadline in the liquidation process of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed that,
“Fairness is a constant that works differently in different factual context. And it needs to be understood in the context. The appellant who worries about denial of fairness to it has overlooked fairness to which the second respondent is entitled to. It is desperate to realise its dues....Fairness does not exist to the exclusion of all, but works in conjunction with all. It is not a one-way street.”
Case Title : Indu Jain Vs Birla Jewels Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1840/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 108
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench at New Delhi has recently allowed an appeal filed by a sole proprietorship against rejection of its insolvency plea, holding that a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is maintainable at the instance of a proprietorship concern. The tribunal relied on earlier precedent to hold that proprietorship firms are competent to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process.
NCLAT Refuses To Stay Adani's Rs 15,000 Cr Resolution Plan For JAL on Vedanta's Challenge
Case Title : Vedanta Limited Vs. Bhuvan Madan Resolution Professional of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 552 and 553 /2026
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on Tuesday refused to stay the implementation of Adani's ₹15,000-crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) while hearing a plea by the Vedanta Group challenging the approval of the plan by the Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said that “the implementation of the resolution plan shall go on, however, the action shall abide with the result of the case,” while declining to grant an interim stay on the March 17, 2026 order approving the plan submitted by Adani Enterprises Limited.
CIRP Must Remain Confined To Single Project, Cannot Affect Other Projects: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Navin M. Raheja v. Vipul Jain & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2168 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 109
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi, on 20 March 2026 held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by the allottees of a single real estate project must stay confined to that project and cannot extend to other projects of the developer.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra disposed of an appeal filed by the suspended director of Raheja Developers Ltd., Navin M. Raheja, against the NCLT, New Delhi. The NCLT had admitted a Section 7 application filed by the allottees of project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise).
Case Title : Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs AS Met Corp Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 210/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 111
In a case that was transferred to the Principal Bench after a controversy over alleged attempts to influence a judicial member, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside the admission of insolvency proceedings against KLSR Infratech Ltd and dismissed a Rs 3.79-crore claim filed by A.S. Met Corp Pvt Ltd, holding that a genuine dispute existed between the parties and imposing costs of Rs 10 lakh on the operational creditor.
Limitation Act Cannot Extend Time To Appeal Against Liquidator's Rejection Of Claim Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Sansar Investment & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (Liquidator)
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.466/2024 and (IA No.1271/2024) CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 111
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has recently held that the 14-day limitation period for filing an appeal against a liquidator's decision under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a self-contained time limit and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act through Section 238A of the Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey held that Section 238A applies only where the Code does not itself prescribe a specific limitation period and that Section 42 contains a self-contained time limit for filing an appeal.
After Submitting EoI Under RFRP, Resolution Applicant Cannot Question Its Clauses: NCLAT
Case Title : Goldendreams Buildcon Private Limited v. Snehal Arvind Kamdar (RP of Somerset Construction Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 112
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that a resolution applicant cannot question clauses of the Request for Resolution Plan after submitting its Expression of Interest under the same RFRP, while challenging rejection of its resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “When the Appellant had submitted their EoI basis the RFRP, they cannot now turn around to question any of the clauses of the RFRP. Having submitted their EoI in terms of the RFRP tantamount to subscribing to the clauses of the RFRP and that having been done, applicability of Clause 12 cannot be questioned at this stage when the plan has been rejected.”
Successive Fraud Plea Not Maintainable Under IBC After Finality Of CIRP Admission: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : N.K Kurian v. K. Easwara Pillai
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 557/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 113
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai on Tuesday held that a party cannot file successive applications under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to indirectly reopen insolvency proceedings that have already attained finality.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed the appeal filed by N.K. Kurian, the suspended Managing Director of Mango Meadows Agricultural Pleasure Land Pvt Ltd, noting deliberate concealment of material facts and abuse of process.
Case Title : BSE Limited Vs Avil Menzes & Ors and BSE Limited Vs Mrudula Brodie & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1786/2025 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1862/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 114
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday held that once dues against a corporate debtor stand crystallised and the dispute relates to recovery affecting the insolvency or liquidation process, the matter falls within the ambit of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In such cases, the National Company Law Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass directions concerning the assets of the corporate debtor, even if the action originates under the securities law.
Case Title : Raja Sekhara Rao Narayanam and Ors. vs. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.98/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 115
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has recently held it is not required to examine the reasons behind a bank's decision to reject a one-time settlement proposal while deciding whether insolvency proceedings should continue, so long as debt and default are established.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the suspended directors of Anand Bharathi Fertilisers (India) Pvt Ltd against the admission of insolvency proceedings at the instance of Canara Bank.
Case Title : Atul Babulal Prajapati and Pinal Prajapati Vs Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2273/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 117
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Wednesday held that extinguishment of receivables through accounting entries can amount to a transfer of property under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and where such adjustments benefit related parties and reduce the corporate debtor's asset pool, the transaction may be treated as preferential under Section 43 of the Code.
Limitation To File Appeal Under IBC Begins From Date Of Pronouncement In Open Court: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Mukesh Sumermal Sanghvi v. R. D. Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1194 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 116
The Principle Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), at New Delhi on 25 March, held that the limitation period to file an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, begins from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open court, not from the date of its uploading on the NCLT portal.
A Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka clarified that uploading constitutes only an administrative act.
NCLAT New Delhi Upholds NCLT Order Cancelling Anil Syal Property Auction Over Procedural Lapses
Case Title : Akshat Gupta Vs Union Bank of India &Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1577/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 119
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 25 March, held that the auction of Anil Syal's 50% undivided share in a Uday Park residential flat was procedurally flawed due to inadequate notice, undervaluation, and lack of stakeholder consultation, justifying fresh valuation and re‑auction.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by successful bidder Akshat Gupta.
Case Title : Nandani Singh v. Sandeep Kr. Bhatt and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.60 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 118
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on 25 March, held that in the case of a continuing guarantee enforceable on demand, the limitation under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, runs from the date of the enforceable-demand notice and not from the date of execution of the guarantee document. A Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed:
“It is far too fundamental a point that where a deed of guarantee provides for its invocation through a demand, then the liability under the same becomes enforceable only on demand. It is admitted that the notice under Sec.13(2) SARFAESI Act was issued on 27.02.2019 and the default commenced 27.04.2019. Necessarily the petition filed under Sec.95 IBC on 30.12.2021 is within time.”
NCLAT Flags Petty Litigation By Income Tax Dept, Calls For CBDT Policy Action In IBC Case
Case Title : Income Tax Officer Vs M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP & Mr. Prashant Agarwal Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 286/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 120
Calling the appeal a “perfect example for wastage of valuable public resources," the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department in an insolvency matter and directed that the issue be brought to the notice of the Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for appropriate policy action against such litigation.
The appellate tribunal made the observation while upholding the approval of the resolution plan of Solar Voltaic Power LLP and rejecting the challenge raised by the Income Tax Department, which had sought a higher allocation towards its tax dues.
Acknowledgment Of Debt By Corporate Debtor Is Acknowledgment By Guarantor, Extends Limitation: NCLAT
Case Title : Phoenix Arc Private Limited Trustee of Phoenix Trust Versus Mr. Rajendra Himmatlal Salot
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2185 of 2024
CITATION : LLBiz NCLAT 121
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that acknowledgment of debt in a corporate debtor's financial statements extends the limitation period against personal guarantors, setting aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which had dismissed insolvency proceedings as time-barred. “We note that an acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
And that such a position has been settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v Bishal Jaiswal”, the tribunal said.
CIRP Cannot Be Revived After Resolution Plan Approval And Liquidation: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : MR. G. MADHUSUDHAN RAO Vs SRA OF BHEEMA CEMENTS LIMITED
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 146/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 122
On 18 March 2026, the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be revived after approval of the resolution plan and initiation of liquidation.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey, dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. G. Madhusudhan Rao, Ex-Resolution Professional and Chairman of the Monitoring Committee of Bheema Cements Limited.
Case Title : Sushant Chhabra & Anr. v. Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 443 & 444 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 123
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Friday held that a fresh insolvency application against a personal guarantor filed during the subsistence of an interim moratorium triggered by an earlier application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is void from the outset and cannot be validated even if the earlier proceedings are later withdrawn.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said, “The interim moratorium in Section 96 has statutory consequences, which interim moratorium although shall come to an end when application is either dismissed or admitted or withdrawn, but during the period when interim moratorium is operating, any initiation of proceeding shall be non-est in law."
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Consortium of Crown Steels and Sunrise Industries & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1683/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 123
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday held that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) cannot be directed to revive a concession agreement for the development of a multi-level parking and commercial project at the New Delhi Railway Station under the Airport Express Line.
The tribunal noted that the agreement had been terminated in 2017, well before the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Prime Infrapark Pvt Ltd, the special purpose vehicle to which the concession was assigned.
Non‑Issuance Of NOCs By Financial Creditor Not Fraud In Insolvency Proceedings: NCLAT New Delhi
Case 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.
NCLT
Common Resolution Professional For Group Companies Not Barred Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Jubin Kishore Thakkar v. Ashutosh Agarwala & Anr
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 1
Case Number: I.A. No. 59/2025 IN C.P. NO. 881(IB)/MB/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai recently held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not prohibit the appointment of a single resolution professional for companies belonging to the same corporate group. According to the tribunal, such an appointment does not by itself create a conflict of interest.
A coram of Judicial Member Lakshmi Gurung and Technical Member Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer, while dismissing a plea seeking removal of a common resolution professional, refused to remove Ashutosh Agarwala as the resolution professional of KLT Automotive and Tubular Products Limited.
Case Title: JVS Comatsco Industries Pvt Ltd vs Pankaj Kumar Tibrewal, Committee of Creditors of Incab Industries Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 2
Case Number: I.A. (IB) No. 685/KB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 1684/KB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata , has recently held that a bidder who joined the first round of the insolvency process but stayed out of the second, restored round cannot later challenge a resolution plan approved by lenders.
A coram of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah, in an order dated December 3, observed that participation in the restored CIRP process is essential to challenge the same.
Liquidator Cannot Claim Fee On SARFAESI Realisations Outside Liquidation Estate: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Totla v. State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 3
Case Number: IA No. 1002 (AHM) 2025 in C.P.(IB) 74 (AHM) 2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad recently held that when a secured creditor enforces its security interest under the SARFAESI Act without involving the liquidator, the amount realised does not form part of the liquidation estate. The liquidator therefore count in that sale to compute the liquidator's fee.
A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, while dealing with an application filed by liquidator Ramesh Kumar Totla against State Bank of India in the liquidation of Raghuvanshi Cotton Ginning and Pressing Private Limited
Refunds Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Cannot Be Enforced Under Insolvency Jurisdiction: NCLT Chennai
Case Title: R Venkatakrishnan (RP) M/s Star Trace Pvt Ltd v. Hindustan Copper Ltd
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 4
Case Number: IA/IB/2365/CHE/2024 in IBA/304/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has held that refunds claimed under the Vivad Se Vishwas–I Scheme, a government COVID-19 relief measure that allows MSMEs to seek return of most performance guarantees forfeited during the pandemic, cannot be enforced through insolvency proceedings under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Insolvency Threshold For Transferred Cases Depends On Filing Date, Not Transfer Date: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title: Lapp India Private Limited v. Schenker India Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 5
Case Number: IA (IBC) 635 /2025 in TP (IBC) 05/ 2024 in CP 21/2014
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has recently held that winding-up and insolvency cases transferred from High Courts continue to be governed by the monetary threshold that applied when they were first filed, and not by the higher limits introduced later.
The tribunal made this ruling in a dispute between logistics firm Schenker India Private Limited and Lapp India Private Limited.
NCLT Bengaluru Dismisses Insolvency Plea Over Rs 428 Crore Claim Against Atria Group Firm
Case Title: Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr. v. Atria Brindavan Power Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 6
Case Number: CP (IB) No. 185/BB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has dismissed an insolvency plea seeking to recover over Rs. 428 crore from Atria Group's renewable energy arm, Atria Brindavan Power.
The plea was filed by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited. It said the case was about recovering money, not resolving insolvency.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada found that the insolvency process was being used as pressure tactic against a solvent company.
NCLT Jaipur Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Jaipur Company for Malicious Voluntary Insolvency Plea
Case Title: M.D Suitings Pvt Ltd v. State Bank of India and Ors
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 10
Case Number: IA No. 251/JPR/2023 in CP No. (IB)- 11/10/JPR/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on a Jaipur-based company after holding that it had misused the insolvency process to block recovery action by State Bank of India.
The tribunal dismissed the insolvency petition filed by M.D. Suitings Pvt. Ltd. for its own insolvency under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, finding it to be fraudulent and malicious.
NCLT Mumbai Approves ₹16.10 Crore Klassic Wheels' Resolution Plan for Indian Refrigerator Company
Case Title: Silveroak Home Appliances Pvt Ltd vs Indian Refrigerator Company Ltd
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 8
Case Number: IA (PLAN)/37/2025 in CP (IB)/252(MB)2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has approved a Rs. 16.10 crore resolution plan submitted by Klassic Wheels Ltd for the revival of debt-laden Indian Refrigerator Company Ltd, bringing the resolution process to an end.
A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati, in an order dated December 19, 2025, held that the plan complied with all mandatory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and therefore deserved approval.
IBC Cannot Waive Statutory Requirements Under Other Laws: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: AmitKumar Rishi Kumar Bhabhda & Ors vs Amit Chandrasehkhar Poddar & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 7
Case Number: IA (I.B.C) No. 5599/MB/2023 in CP (IB) No. 1620/MB/2017
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has recently held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not wipe out the need for statutory approvals or licenses required under other laws, even after a resolution plan is approved or a company is sold as a going concern during liquidation.
The tribunal made it clear that the insolvency framework is meant to streamline timelines, not to bypass regulatory compliance.
Case Title: Central Bank of India v. A Dominic Savio
Case Number: CP(IB)/217(CHE)/2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 18
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai recently held that insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can be initiated against a personal guarantor even if he is a foreign citizen and does not own any assets in India.
The tribunal said nationality and absence of property in India do not prevent the Code from applying.
A coram of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam rejected the objection to the maintainability of the proceedings against the personal guarantor of Oceanic Edibles International Ltd, which is already under liquidation.
NCLT Ahmedabad Orders Recovery of ₹2 Lakh Costs From Personal Guarantor As Arrears of Land Revenue
Case Title: Yash Thakarshibhai Gajera and Anr v. Bank of India
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 20
Case Number: CP(IB)/322(AHM)2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has directed that costs of Rs 2 lakh imposed earlier on a personal guarantor be recovered as arrears of land revenue, after finding that he had repeatedly ignored its order and failed to pay the amount.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma noted that the personal guarantor had shown continued and wilful non-compliance.
Fraud Has No Look-Back Period, Directors Cannot Use Lapse Of Time As Shield : NCLT Kochi
Case Title: K.J. Vinod vs Mukeshbhavan Mukesh Karthikeyan & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 22
Case Number: IA(IBC)/303/KOB/2024 in CP(IBC)/57/KOB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has held that allegations of fraudulent and wrongful trading are not restricted by any fixed look-back period, and directors cannot avoid personal liability merely by arguing that the conduct took place long ago. It therefore directed the suspended directors of a Kochi-based insolvent company to jointly contribute Rs 11.95 crore to the company's assets.
Case Title: Dhyaneshwar Shankar Unde Proprietor of Swadarshan Dairy Products v. Shukla Dairy Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM)
Case Number: CP (IB) No.239/9/AHM/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has dismissed an insolvency plea against Shukla Dairy Private Limited, holding that once parties settle and the case is closed, an operational creditor cannot reopen insolvency proceedings without clear bank records showing a fresh default.
A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma said bare allegations of non-payment are not enough, especially when the corporate debtor places specific proof of payment on record.
Case Title: Prem Agarwal v. Anil Kumar Satyanarayan Agarwal
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 23
Case Number: I.A. No.1389/NCLT(AHM)/2025 in CP(IB) No.211/9(AHM)2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently held that a settlement between an operational creditor and a suspended director cannot be used to withdraw a company from insolvency once the Committee of Creditors is in place.
Dismissing a withdrawal plea in the insolvency of Vimla Fuels & Metals Limited, the tribunal said such a private arrangement cannot override the claims of financial creditors exceeding Rs 61 crore.
Avoidance Provisions Under Insolvency Code Are Restorative, Not Punitive: NCLT Kochi
Case Title: CA Sreenivasan PR vs Astern Realtors Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 26
Case Number: IA(IBC)/239/KOB/2025 IN CP(IBC)/12/KOB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has clarified that the avoidance provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are meant to undo the preferential effect of certain transactions and restore the corporate debtor's estate, not to impose punitive liability on the beneficiary.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel made the observation while partly allowing an avoidance application filed by the Resolution Professional of Astern Properties and Developers Pvt Ltd under Sections 43 and 44 of the Code.
NCLT Mumbai Approves Sagacious Capital's Rs 110 Crore Plan To Revive Reliance Innoventures
Case Title: JC Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt Ltd vs Reliance Innoventures Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 27
Case Number: I.A. 62/2024 in C.P. NO. 1154(IB)/MB/2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has approved a Rs. 110.10 crore resolution plan submitted by Sagacious Capital Pvt Ltd for the revival of debt-ridden Reliance Innoventures Pvt Ltd. The tribunal held that once a plan satisfies the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the tribunal cannot interfere with the commercial decisions of lenders.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati observed that the resolution plan complied with statutory requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC and the relevant CIRP Regulations.
Case Title: Ramachander Rao Bikumalla and Splendid Metal Products Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 13
Case Number: IA (IBC) No. 124 of 2022 in CP (IB) No. 504/10/HDB/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has held that when a corporate debtor has received full consideration and acted upon a slump sale transaction, he cannot later reclaim the property on the ground that the agreement was unregistered, as such conduct is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri dismissed a set of applications filed by the liquidator of Handum Industries Ltd, which has been under liquidation since June 11, 2021.
The approval came on January 6, 2026, following resolutions passed by the boards of the companies on February 4 and February 12, 2025. Under the scheme, the appointed date for the first leg of the demerger has been fixed as October 1, 2024, while the second leg will take effect from January 1, 2025.
CIRP Claims Cannot Rely On 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Omkara Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. Gigeo Construction Private Limited and ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 30
Case Number: CP (IB) 1180 (MB)2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently ruled that secured creditors cannot rely on the 12-year limitation period for enforcing mortgage rights when filing claims in a corporate insolvency resolution process. For insolvency claims, the Tribunal said, the applicable limitation period is three years.
The decision was delivered by a coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar.
Case Title: Abhay Narhar Kadam vs Vakati Balasubramanyam Reddy
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 29
Case Number: IA (IBC) NO. 3078 OF 2025 IN CP (IB) NO. 144/MB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has dismissed a challenge by a suspended director seeking disclosure of valuation reports and other Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) documents. The court held that valuation reports are confidential and cannot be shared with persons who are themselves potential or competing resolution applicants.
Fraud Claims On Insolvency Admission Must Be Raised In Appeal, Not In Later NCLT Pleas: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title: Pramila Bajoria & Ors vs Eastern Udyog Finance Ltd & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 31
Case Number: IA (IB) NO. 1583/KB/2024 IN C.P (IB) NO. 309/KB/2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has recently held that allegations of fraud or collusion in the admission of insolvency proceedings cannot be raised months later through a fresh application and must be pursued through the appellate route provided under the law.
A bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra said former promoters cannot use Section 65 of the Insolvency Code to challenge an admission order they never appealed.
Case Title: Sanctuary Apartment Owner's Association vs K. Parameswaran Nair and Ors
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 35
Case Number: IA (IBC)/265/KOB/2024 in CP (IBC)/05/KOB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has ruled that apartments and project land covered only by sale or construction agreements cannot be treated as “assets held in trust” for homebuyers when a builder enters insolvency. The tribunal said such properties continue to belong to the builder during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process until sale deeds are executed and registered.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel said the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not permit property to be taken out of the insolvency process merely because buyers have entered into agreements or paid money.
MoU Between Debtor And Creditor Is Only Acknowledgment, Not Proof Of Debt: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Mulraj Mody vs Westin Habitats Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 33
Case Number: RCP (IB)/16(MB)2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has said that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) can, at best, show an acknowledgment of debt, but it cannot, by itself, prove that a financial debt exists or that there has been a default. The tribunal said documents showing the original loan and actual disbursal of money are necessary to trigger insolvency proceedings.
A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar dismissed a petition filed by Mulraj Mody against Westin Habitats Pvt Ltd, which sought initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) based on MoUs and settlement documents.
NCLT Mumbai Approves Supreme Capinfra's Rs. 96 Crore Plan To Revive C & M Farming
Case Title: Orion Resolution & Turnaround Pvt Ltd vs Committee of Creditors of C and M Farming Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 38
Case Number: IA (PLAN)/66/2025 in CP (IB)/1031(MB)2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has approved a Rs 96.81 crore resolution plan for the revival of C and M Farming Ltd, a poultry business. The tribunal held that once a resolution plan meets the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it cannot interfere with the commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors. A coram comprising Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati passed the order on January 9. The bench found the plan to be fully compliant with Section 30(2) of the Code and the applicable regulations.
Delay In Seeking Revised Valuation Of Asset Not Enough To Term It Sham: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Subhash Ganpatrao Buty vs Pankaj Bhattad
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 37
Case Number: IA NO. 5019 of 2025 in CP No. (IB) 1180 (MB) 2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that a revised valuation obtained after discovery of additional restrictions on a property cannot be dismissed as a sham merely because there was a delay in seeking such revision. It said valuation is a technical exercise and must be assessed in light of the facts available to the valuer at the relevant time.
Disputed Property Cannot Be Excluded From Information Memorandum After CoC Approval: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Jayesh Krushnakant Parekh vs Orion Resolution & Turnaround Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 36
Case Number: IA (IBC) No. 2137 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 1031/MB/2021
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and awaits confirmation, permitting amendments to the Information Memorandum would unsettle the resolution process.
Case Title: Techntrans Construction India Pvt Ltd vs SBI
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 40
Case Number: IA (IBC)/1616/2025 in CP (IB)/74/94/HDB/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently ordered the bankruptcy of Pasam Laxmi Srinivas Reddy, the personal guarantor of Techtrans Constructions India Private Limited, an infrastructure firm. The tribunal said there was no repayment plan on record and no way forward for resolution. The order was passed by Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri. Setting out the reason in clear terms, the bench said, “Admittedly, the repayment plan has not been submitted by the personal guarantor, and since there is no resolution plan for resolving the insolvency, we accept the prayer of the applicant and admit this petition to declare the personal guarantor bankrupt.”
NCLT Hyderabad Orders Dissolution of Srianagha Sky Scrapers After Voluntary Liquidation Under IBC
Case Title: Srinagha Sky Scrapers Pvt Ltd and Registrar of Companies, Telangana
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 41
Case Number: CP (IB)/110/59/HDB/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has recently ordered the dissolution of Srianagha Sky Scrapers Private Limited, a Hyderabad-based infrastructure company, after recording the successful completion of its voluntary liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order was passed by the Hyderabad Bench on January 8, 2026. A coram comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri, said it was satisfied that the process was carried out strictly as required under the law.
Requests For Time Or Settlement Does Not Amount To Pre-Existing Dispute Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Incred Value Plus Pvt Ltd vs Atum Capital Pvt Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 44
Case Number: CP (IB)/894/MB/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has held that requests for time, settlement, or proposals for alternative arrangements does not amount to a dispute under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and therefore do not negate an admitted liability. A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar, in an order dated January 12, said such communications far from raising a genuine dispute, often reinforce acknowledgement of debt.
Recall Order Cannot Cure Failure To File Claims During Liquidation: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title: Pratham Realty Developers v. Nirav Tarkas and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 43
Case Number: IA/377(AHM)2021 in C.P. (I.B.) No. 03 (AHM) 2017
Holding that reopening a matter for fresh hearing cannot make up for a failure to follow mandatory legal procedures, the National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad has dismissed an insolvency-related application filed by Pratham Reality Developers Private Limited against Stratus Foods Pvt. Ltd The application sought payment of licence fees, occupation charges and other dues during the liquidation process.
Case Title: Sagar Sharma & Anr. vs Committee of Creditors & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 45
Case Number: I.A. NO. 4764 OF 2025 IN C.P. NO. (IB) 1241 (MB) OF 2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has clarified that a member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is not barred from voting on a resolution plan merely because its related persons have an interest in the consortium of a resolution applicant. It said insolvency law does not prescribe any such disqualification on the ground of conflict of interest. A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar dismissed an application filed by the suspended promoters of Hotel Horizon Pvt Ltd challenging the approval of a resolution plan during its corporate insolvency resolution process.
Interest-Free Loans, Write-Offs Not Fraudulent Per Se Without Intent: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian vs Arun Kumar Maiti and Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 46
Case Number: IA 2839 of 2024 In CP IB 1555 of 2017
The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that accounting irregularities or regulatory violations, including the grant of interest-free advances, do not by themselves amount to fraudulent trading. It clarified that fraudulent trading can be established only when there is clear, cogent evidence showing an intent to defraud creditors, assessed in the context of the company's business model.
Financial Creditor Cannot Avoid Liquidation Costs After Settling Dues Through OTS: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title: Ravindranath Narayana Rao v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd
Case Number: I.A. No. 397 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 286/BB/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 49
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has held that a financial creditor that participated in the liquidation process and secured its dues through a one-time settlement cannot later avoid paying its share of liquidation costs for the ime it had taken part in it. A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada directed Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd to bear its proportionate share of liquidation expenses in the liquidation of Alpine Wineries Pvt Ltd.
NCLT Admits Insolvency Plea Against Aman Hospitality Over ₹119 Crore Default
Case Title: Bank of India v. Aman Hospitality Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT(DEL) 51
Case Number: CP (IB) – 276(ND)/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi has admitted Bank of India's insolvency plea against Delhi- based Aman Hospitality Private Limited over a default of about Rs 119 crore, excluding its equity, following a plea by Bank of India. A coram comprising President Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi passed the order on January 12, 2026. The dispute arises from loans sanctioned for Aman's five-star hotel project in Shahdara, Delhi. Between 2010 and 2011, a banking consortium extended facilities aggregating over Rs 160 crore. Bank of India was one of the lenders.
NCLT Mumbai Rejects GNIDA Plea To Recall 2017 Shirdi Industries Resolution Plan
Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs Devendra Padamchand Jain
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 48
Case Number: IA 3803 of 2024 In CP IB 839 of 2017
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has dismissed an application filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) seeking recall of a 2017 order approving Rakesh Agarwal's resolution plan for Shirdi Industries Ltd. It held that GNIDA was informed of the insolvency process and failed to file its claim despite specific notice. A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar held that Noida authority could not allege violation of principles of natural justice after it chose not to participate in the insolvency process. It ruled that the approval of the resolution plan was neither ex parte nor illegal.
NCLT Admits 'Sip On' Maker Manpasand Beverages To Insolvency Over ₹25 Crore Dues
Case Title: Tetra-Pak India Private Limited v. Manpasand Beverages Limited
Case Number: CP(IB) 812 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 56
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has admitted Manpasand Beverages Limited, the maker of the popular mango drink Sip On, into corporate insolvency proceedings on a plea by iits packaging partner Tetra Pak India Private Limited. The plea was admitted over unpaid dues of more than Rs 25 crore for the supply of packaging material, machinery and related services provided by Tetra Pak to Manpasand under multiple agreements.
Participating Interest In Oil Block Qualifies as 'Property' Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd vs Amit Chandrakant Shah & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 47
Case Number: IA 4589 of 2025 In CP IB 973 of 2020
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has ruled that rights under Production Sharing Contracts are “property” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. As a result, a company's participating interest in an onshore oil block must be treated as an asset during insolvency and cannot be excluded from resolution. A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar dismissed an application filed by Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd seeking exclusion of the Participating Interest (PI) held by Frost International Ltd in an onshore oil block in the Cambay Basin from the insolvency process.
Case Title: Krithika Subramanian v. Indian Bank
Case Number: CP(IB)/257(CHE)/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has recently observed that merely filing an insolvency petition after the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not, by itself, indicate an attempt to delay or obstruct recovery proceedings. A coram of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramanian was hearing a petition filed by a personal guarantor seeking initiation of personal insolvency resolution proceedings under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Full Payment Of Admitted Claim In Guarantor's CIRP Bars Creditor's Recovery From Principal Borrower
Case Title: Omkara Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. Amit Pareek
Case Number: IA(IBC)/137/GB/2024 IA(IBC)(Plan)/1/GB/2024 and IA(IBC)/50/GB/2025 in CP(IB)/9/GB/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (GUA) 59
The NCLT Guwahati has recently held that full settlement of an admitted claim under a resolution plan in the corporate guarantor's CIRP discharges the debt, extinguishing the creditor's rights against both the borrower and the guarantor. A coram of Judicial Member Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Yogendra Kumar Singh was dealing with applications arising out of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of National Plywood Industries Limited.
Case Title: Santanu T Ray vs Sunil Kumar Trivedi & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 58
Case Number: IA 4619/2023
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has suggested that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India issue an advisory to insolvency professionals and financial creditors on reducing their dependence on information supplied by suspended management and on actively using third-party sources to reconstruct company records. A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar made the suggestion while dealing with an application filed by the resolution professional of Neo Corp International Ltd, who alleged fraudulent transactions during the period before the company entered insolvency.
Mere Pendency Of Appeal Does Not Stall Bankruptcy Proceedings: NCLT Kochi
Case Title: Tata Capital Limited v. Bobby Abraham
Case Number: IA(IBC) /488 /KOB/2025 in CP (IBC)/ 42//KOB/2024 & IA(IBC) /490 / KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/ 44/ KOB/ 2024 & IA(IBC)/ 491/KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/ 51/KOB/2024 & IA(IBC)/ 489/ KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/ 52/KOB/ 2024 & CP(IBC)/ 492/KOB/ 2025 in CP(IBC)/ 53/ KOB/2024
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 60
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, on 14 January held that the mere pendency of an appeal does not operate as a stay on proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), in the absence of a specific interim order from the appellate forum. A Bench presided over by Judicial Member Vinay Goel was dealing with a batch of applications filed by Tata Capital Limited seeking initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against five personal guarantors of Simtel Trading Corporation Private Limited.
NCLT Mumbai Sets Aside Reclassification of PNB from Secured To Unsecured Creditor In Arshiya CIRP
Case Title: Punjab National Bank vs Pankaj Mahajan
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 64
Case Number: IA 2913 of 2025 IN CP (IB)/ 3143 (MB) 2019
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently set aside the resolution professional's (RP) unilateral reclassification of Punjab National Bank (PNB) from a secured to an unsecured creditor in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Arshiya Ltd. A bench of Technical Member Prabhat Kumar and Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey held that once PNB's claim had been admitted, the resolution professional had no authority to alter its classification. It held that any such change could only be made pursuant to directions of the adjudicating authority
Case Title: Consortium of Ashdan Properties Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 55
Case Number: I.A. NO. 3032 OF 2025 IN C.P. NO. (IB) 1241 (MB) OF 2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) are required to exercise due care and diligence while submitting resolution plans. It said the applicants cannot later fault the insolvency process merely because they discovered additional information from the public domain. A coram comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar dismissed an application filed by the consortium of Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd., a PRA in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Hotel Horizon Private Ltd.
Party Taking Over Contract Cannot Deny Liability By Claiming No Privity: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Baij Nath Ram Nath (India) Pvt Ltd vs Trivenimudrai Project Ltd
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 54
Case Number: CP (IB) No. 265/MB/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that where a party steps into the shoes of the original contracting entity and expressly assumes contractual obligations, it cannot subsequently evade liability by pleading absence of privity of contract. It said that a party that has solemnly entered into a written arrangement acknowledging specific obligations cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by later denying those very obligations.
Negative Cash Balances, Salary Mismatches Alone Don't Prove Fraud: NCLT Ahmedabad
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 65
Case Number : I.A. No. 828/NCLT(AHM)/2020 in CP(IB) No. 17/7(AHM)2019
Case Title : Bhavi Shreyans Shah (Liquidator) v. Champat Sanghvi and Ors.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has held that accounting lapses such as a small negative cash balance, salary mismatches, and routing of funds through non-consortium banks do not, by themselves, amount to fraudulent or wrongful trading under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Kumar Sharma said that every irregularity in accounts cannot be treated as fraud.
Financial Creditor Cannot Avoid Liquidation Costs After Settling Dues Through OTS: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title: Ravindranath Narayana Rao v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd
Case Number: I.A. No. 397 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 286/BB/2019
Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 49
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has held that a financial creditor that participated in the liquidation process and secured its dues through a one-time settlement cannot later avoid paying its share of liquidation costs for the ime it had taken part in it. A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada directed Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd to bear its proportionate share of liquidation expenses in the liquidation of Alpine Wineries Pvt Ltd.
Defying CIRP Orders 'Not In Public Interest', Amounts To Civil Contempt: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Pravin R. Navandar vs Sagar Sharma & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 57
Case Number: Cont.A. (IBC)/33/MB/2025 IN CP(IB) No. 1241 of 2022
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that deliberate disobedience of its directions during a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), even on the ground that the quantification of a financial creditor's claim is pending in appeal, is against public interest and amounts to civil contempt. Allowing a contempt application filed by the resolution professional (RP) of Hotel Horizon Private Limited against its suspended directors, coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar said that their conduct “meets the ingredients of section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
NCLT Delhi Admits Rana Kapoor Family Company Bliss House Into Insolvency Over ₹922-Crore Default
Case Title : J.C. Flower Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bliss House Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 585/ND/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 87
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi has admitted Bliss House Private Limited, a real estate firm promoted by the family of Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor, into insolvency over alleged defaults of about Rs 922.46 crore. The tribunal held that an arbitral award can extend the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings even if the award is under challenge.
A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri admitted a CIRP plea filed by J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited.
NCLT Upholds ₹1 Notional Admission Of MCD's Rs 6,000-Crore Claim Against MEP Infrastructure
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ravindra Kumar Goyal
Case Number : IA (I.B.C) No. 5963/MB/2024 IN CP (IB) No. 973/MB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 83
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has upheld the treatment of a Rs. 6,000-plus crore claim filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the insolvency process of MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. The tribunal refused to interfere with the notional admission of the claim and its classification as unsecured.
A bench of Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan held that the admission of MCD's claim at a notional value of Rs. 1 did not warrant interference. The remaining amount of Rs. 6,073.35 crore continued to be reflected as a contingent claim in the insolvency process.
Case Title : Sarga Hotel Pvt Ltd and Anr vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd Case Number : I.A.(IB) No. 2481/KB/2024 in C.P. (IB) No. 302/KB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 85
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has held that electricity dues linked to a corporate debtor's lessor cannot be imposed on a successful resolution applicant or used to deny a fresh electricity connection for revival of the corporate debtor.
A bench of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah observed that once a resolution plan is approved, the corporate debtor is entitled to a clean slate, with only those pre-CIRP claims extinguished that were duly admitted during the insolvency process.
NCLT Mumbai Approves Rs 345.6 Crore Hirani Ventures Plan For E-Commerce Magnum
Case Title : J.C. Flowers Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd vs E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd
Case Number : IA (I.B.C) (Plan) No. 115/MB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 84
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has approved a Rs. 345.60 crore resolution plan submitted by Hirani Ventures Pvt Ltd for E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd. The tribunal said it cannot interfere with the commercial decisions of lenders once a resolution plan complies with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt held that the plan met all requirements under Section 30(2) of the Code.
NCLT Mumbai Approves ₹467 Crore JSW Infrastructure Plan For NCR Rail Revival
Case Title : Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd vs NCR Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Case Number : IA (I.B.C) (Plan) No.87/MB/2025 in CP (IB) No.1079/MB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 82
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has approved a Rs 467.47 crore resolution plan submitted by JSW Infrastructure Limited for the revival of NCR Rail Infrastructure Limited, which operates a private freight terminal at Khurja in Uttar Pradesh. The plan was approved after receiving 100 percent voting approval from the Committee of Creditors.
A coram of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt, in an order pronounced on January 22, 2026, held, “In view of the aforesaid discussions and the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the Plan meets the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A), and 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations. The Plan is not in contravention of any of the provisions of Section 29A of the Code, as undertaken by the SRA, and is in accordance with the law.”
Case Title : India Bank v. Nipun Verma
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 571/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 81
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has recently admitted Indian Bank's insolvency petition against Nipun Verma, a personal guarantor for Frost International Limited, after rejecting his objection that the claim was time-barred.
A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar held that the petition was filed within limitation. The tribunal said limitation was saved both by the Supreme Court's Covid extension orders and by a subsequent acknowledgement of debt in the borrower's audited accounts.
IBC Moratorium Not Automatic, Applies Only After Express Order: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) vs ICICI Bank Ltd
Case Number : IA (I.B.C)/1983 (MB) 2025 & IA (I.B.C)/2915 (MB) 2025 IN C.P. (IB)/1371(MB)2017 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 80
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai recently held that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not commence automatically on the insolvency commencement date and can take effect only when it is expressly declared by the adjudicating authority. On this basis, the tribunal dismissed applications filed by Patanjali Foods Ltd., formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., which came under Patanjali following approval of a resolution plan, seeking retrospective application of the moratorium against ICICI Bank and reversal of debits amounting to Rs 65.83 crore from the corporate debtor's bank accounts.
Approved Resolution Plan Cannot Be Modified Even If Plan Allows It: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Shanti G.D. Ispat and Power Pvt Ltd vs Dhiren Shantilal Shah & Ors
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 5533 of 2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 271/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 71
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has held that a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be modified or amended after approval by the adjudicating authority, even if the plan itself contains a clause permitting such modification. The tribunal said that once a plan receives statutory approval under Section 31 of the Code, it attains finality and becomes binding on all stakeholders, including the successful resolution applicant, which cannot be reopened on contractual grounds.
OCDs Not Converted Into Equity By Notice Alone: NCLT Admits CIRP Against Arcturus Developers
Case Title : Beacon Trusteeship Limited v. Arcturus Developers Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB) – 209/ND/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 76
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi has admitted insolvency proceedings against Arcturus Developers Private Limited for a default of Rs 1,258.73 crore, holding that a mere conversion notice does not legally convert debt into equity unless mandatory statutory steps are completed.
A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri held that Optionally Convertible Debentures (OCDs) continue to retain the character of “financial debt” in the absence of actual allotment of equity shares.
Case Title : Joshi v. Shikharchand Jain, Liquidator of Dhanlaxmi Solvex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : TP No. 246 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 75
The National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, has held that a labor court award by itself cannot give priority to old workmen's dues in liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal said that priority for workmen's dues is limited to amounts arising in the twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date as per waterfall mechanism
A coram of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta said a prior labour adjudication cannot alter the IBC waterfall under Section 53.
Case Title : Unity Small Finance Bank Limited v. Bafna Motors Private Limited.
Case Number : 110. IA/80/2026 C.P. (IB)/344(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 73
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has recently clarified that a resolution professional's duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are limited to taking custody and control of a corporate debtor's assets and do not extend to improving their value.
A bench of Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati noted that the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Bafna Motors began on October 14, 2025.
NCLT Ahmedabad Admits Another Blu-Smart Entity To Insolvency Over Rs 142 Cr Default
Case Title : Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Blu-Smart Charge Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 483/7/AHM/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 66
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has admitted Blu-Smart Charge Private Limited into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process after a default of Rs 142.95 crore on debenture payments.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma admitted a petition filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The bench said the material on record clearly showed the existence of a financial debt and a default.
NCLT Mumbai Dismisses Workmen's Belated Wage Claims Against IL&FS, Cites Moratorium
Case Title : S.A. Azad, Authorised Representative of Workmen vs Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd.
Case Number : IA (COMPANIES.ACT)/120 (MB) 2025 IN CP/3638 (MB) 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 79
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has dismissed an application filed by S.A. Azad, the authorised representative of 31 workmen, seeking admission of wage claims against Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. (IL&FS). The tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds that the claims were barred by the 2018 moratorium and filed beyond the extended timelines, while also noting that the workmen were not directly employees of IL&FS.
NCLT Amaravati Cautions Against Presuming Corporate Actions Are Always Properly Approved
Case Title : Global Enterprise and Another vs Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB)/57/7/AMR/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 72
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Amaravati, while admitting a real estate company into insolvency, held that the absence of a board resolution authorising the borrowing of funds and execution of promissory notes on behalf of the company did not, in the facts of the case, defeat the existence of a financial debt.
At the same time, it cautioned against a mechanical reliance on the doctrine of indoor management to validate such transactions.
NCLT Ahmedabad Admits Takshashila Heights Into CIRP After Supreme Court Order
Case Title : Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Takshashila Heights Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 104 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 89
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad Bench has recently admitted real estate developer Takshashila Heights Private Limited into insolvency after the Supreme Court dismissed the company's challenge to its financial creditor, leaving no discretion under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. V. G. Venkata Chalapathy allowed the Section 7 CIRP plea filed by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited.
Case Title : Athena India Oppurtunities v. Mr. Bhuvan Madan, RP
Case Number : IA (IBC) NO. 1614 OF 2025 IN CP (IB) NO. 1245/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT(MUM) 90
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has directed the Committee of Creditors to reconsider Athena India's modified resolution plan in the insolvency of Arshiya Northern FTWZ Limited, a logistics and warehousing company operating a Free Trade and Warehousing Zone.
The tribunal held that denying an opportunity to consider value-enhancing modifications was arbitrary and contrary to the objective of value maximization under the insolvency framework
Pledged Shares Already With Creditor Need Not Be Returned During CIRP: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Maitreya Doshi vs Kanak Doshi & Ors
Case Number : IA (IBC) NO. 3117 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 74
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that, in the facts of the case, pledged shares that were already lying in the custody of a secured creditor before the start of the corporate insolvency resolution process did not need to be transferred back to the corporate debtor's demat account during insolvency.
A bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati held that, in this case, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code allows only preservation of the existing asset position during CIRP and does not permit enhancement of the corporate debtor's assets by taking away a secured creditor's security.
Case Title : Sanctury Apartments Owner Association v. K Parmeshwaran Nair and Ors.
Case Number : IA(IBC)/265/KOB/2024 CP (IBC)/05/KOB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC)92
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has recently held that a homebuyers' association cannot challenge the insolvency framework after submitting a resolution plan under it while hearing the insolvency of Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Private Limited.
The order was passed by Judicial Member Vinay Goel. The tribunal said a party cannot accept the decisions of the Committee of Creditors and later question the same decisions after stepping into the role of a resolution applicant.
NCLT Mumbai Admits Smaaash Leisure To Insolvency Over Rs. 32 Crore Unpaid Debt
Case Title : J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt Ltd Vs Smaaash Leisure Ltd
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/698(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 95
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has admitted an insolvency petition filed by J.C. Flower Asset Reconstruction Ltd against Smaash Leisure Ltd, a popular Indian gaming and entertainment company engaged in sports simulation technology and virtual reality games, for default of Rs. 32.19 crores.
Smaaash Entertainment is the operational entity that runs and markets the “Smaaash” brand, while Smaaash Leisure Ltd is a group company. Smaaash, which had undergone insolvency proceedings, was revived after a resolution plan submitted by Nazara Technologies Pvt Ltd was approved on May 7, 2025.
NCLT Approves ₹919-Crore Oberoi Realty-Led Plan To Revive Hotel Horizon
Case Title : Pravin R. Navandar vs Consortium Of Oberoi Realty Limited, Shree Aman Developers Private Limited And JM Financial Properties And Holdings Limited
Case Number : IA (IBC) (PLAN) No. 110 of 2025 in CP (IB) 1241 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 96
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has approved a Rs 919-crore resolution plan submitted by a consortium comprising Oberoi Realty Ltd, Shree Aman Developers Pvt Ltd and JM Financial Properties and Holdings Ltd for the revival of debt-laden Hotel Horizon Pvt Ltd.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar noted that the resolution plan complied with all mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and applicable regulations.
RP Cannot Refuse Creditor Substitution Merely Because CoC Has Approved Resolution Plan: NCLT Kolkata
Case Title : AUTHUM INVESTMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs SWAPNIL JAIN Case Number : I.A (IB) NO. 1800/KB/2024 IN C.P(IB) NO. 1699/KB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 94
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kolkata has held that a resolution professional cannot refuse substitution of a financial creditor merely because the corporate insolvency resolution process has progressed substantially or because a resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) but is yet to receive approval of the adjudicating authority.
A coram of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra observed that under the insolvency law, a valid assignee of financial debt steps into the shoes of the assignor and acquires all statutory rights including participation and voting in the CoC.
NCLT Directs 33 Schools Using 'Presidium' Brand to Deposit Trademark Revenue Into CIRP Account
Case Title : AAA Insolvency Professionals v. Praveen Kumar and Ors.
Case Number : IA No. 652/ND/2024 in CP (IB) No. 559 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 97
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at New Delhi has directed 33 schools operating under the “Presidium” name to render accounts of amounts received and profits generated from use of the trademark and deposit the same into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) account of Presidium Educational Institution Private Limited.
A coram of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi held that the continued use of the trademark without a valid licence amounts to infringement of the corporate debtor's statutory and proprietary rights.
Case Title : Axis Bank Ltd Vs Sevenhills Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA (IBC) (PLAN)/1/2026 IN TCP (IB)/32/7/AMR/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 98
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Amravati has approved a Rs. 884.82 crores resolution plan submitted by Capri Global Holdings Pvt Ltd for revival of Sevenhills Healthcare Pvt Ltd. The tribunal reiterated that once a resolution plan satisfies the statutory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, judicial interference with the commercial wisdom of lenders is impermissible.
Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli noted that the plan met all requirements under the Code and the applicable CIRP Regulations, including provisions relating to payment of insolvency resolution costs, treatment of operational creditors and protection of dissenting financial creditors.
NCLT Chennai Directs Re-Verification of SBI Claim In Apollo Polyvinyl Insolvency
Case Title : Canara Bank v. Ashok Sheshadri and Anr
Case Number : IA (IBC) 2022/ (CHE)/ 2023 In CP (IB) 226/ (CHE)/ 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 101
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has recently held that a resolution professional cannot mechanically admit a lender's claim during insolvency proceedings when it distorts voting power in the committee of creditors. The tribunal ordered a fresh verification of the claim admitted in favour of the State Bank of India in the insolvency of Apollo Polyvinyl Private Limited.
A coram of Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy said higher diligence was required in such cases. This was especially so where the claim of a consortium member exceeded that of the lead bank.
Inconsistencies Between E-Auction Notice And Process Memo Vitiate Liquidation Sale: NCLT Amaravati
Case Title : State Bank of India vs IND TOB International Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC)/52/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 118
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Amaravati has prima facie held that inconsistencies between an e-auction sale notice and the auction process memorandum create serious ambiguity regarding the assets offered for sale and render the liquidation auction process legally unsustainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli was dealing with applications filed by the suspended directors of IND TOB International Pvt Ltd, which is undergoing liquidation. The company was admitted into liquidation in proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India in 2021.
Case Title : Indian Bank vs Nipun Verma
Case Number : C.P. (IB) No. 571/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 105
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that a delay in issuing a statutory demand notice does not invalidate personal insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code so long as the insolvency plea is filed within time.
The tribunal clarified that the limitation runs from the date of default and not from the date on which the demand notice is issued.
The ruling was delivered by a coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar while admitting a personal insolvency application filed by Indian Bank against Nipun Verma, the personal guarantor of Frost International Limited.
Case Title : Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
Case Number : I.A. No. 4135/2024 in C.P. No. 4087(IB)/MB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 115
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently directed Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) to release payments due for work executed under its contracts with Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd., which had been withheld pursuant to a GST department garnishee notice. It held that pre-CIRP claims of the GST department stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan.
Case Title : The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise v. C.S Ramachandran and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/506/KOB/2025 In CP(IBC)/21/KOB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 113
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed the tax department's plea to include a Rs 6.06 crore belated GST claim in the insolvency process of SDF Industries Limited, holding that claims cannot be entertained after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel held that permitting the tax department to raise its claim at such a stage would reopen settled stages of the corporate insolvency resolution process and undermine the process.
Case Title : Pankaj Ramdas Majitha vs Yes Bank
Case Number : I.A. 384 OF 2025 IN CP No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 100
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently held that the unilateral liquidation and appropriation of a corporate debtor's fixed deposit by a bank during insolvency proceedings amounts to an impermissible recovery action barred by the moratorium.
“Section 14 of the Code imposes a complete bar on any action to recover, foreclose, or enforce any security interest against the assets of the Corporate Debtor once the CIRP has commenced and the moratorium under Section 14 has kicked in,” the tribunal observed.
Jet Airways Liquidation: NCLT Directs Distribution Of Sale Proceeds Despite Pending Workmen Claims
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Satish Kumar Gupta
Case Number : I.A. NO. 4757 OF 2025 IN C.P. (IB) NO. 2205 (MB) 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 109
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has directed the liquidator of Jet Airways (India) Ltd to proceed with the distribution of liquidation proceeds under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that indefinite deferment of distribution defeats the objective of timely value realisation.
A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar heard an application filed by State Bank of India on behalf of the assenting financial creditors. The application sought directions to the liquidator to distribute proceeds realised from the sale of Jet Airways' assets, including its Bandra-Kurla Complex property in Mumbai.
Case Title : Sai Infinium Limited v. Anand Multitrade
Case Number : IA 1520 (AHM) 2025 in C.P. (IB) 315 (AHM) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LlBiz NCLT (AHM) 108
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has directed issuance of contempt notices to Sai Infinium Limited and its representatives after holding that a recall plea contained “contemptuous” allegations against the Bench. The tribunal also rejected the recall plea..
A coram of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy made the observation while dismissing an application filed by the corporate debtor seeking recall of an ex parte order dated November 12, 2025.
Attachment During Insolvency Unenforceable, But NCLT Kochi Cannot Lift Consumer Forum Order
Case Title : Buildwell and Anr v. Joseph Velivil and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/85/KOB/2025 in IA(IBC)/325/KOB/2023 in CP(IB)/01/KOB/2021 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 107
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has recently held that an attachment ordered by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission during an insolvency moratorium is legally unenforceable but said it lacks jurisdiction to itself remove or set aside the attachment.
A bench led by Judicial Member Vinay Goel said the attachment could not survive the moratorium or the approval of the resolution plan of the corporate debtor, under which the claim had already been dealt with.
Case Title : Yash Manish Pethani vs Pankaj Ramandas Majithia
Case Number : CP No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 104
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has dismissed six applications seeking recognition as financial creditors in the insolvency of E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd. It held that a purported allotment in a proposed real estate project, without proof of disbursement, does not create a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt rejected applications filed by six individuals, including Yash Manish Pethani and members of the Adani family, against the resolution professional of E-Commerce Magnum Solution Ltd.
NCLT Ahmedabad Extends Blu-Smart Mobility Insolvency Process By 90 Days
Case Title : Catalyst Trusteeship Limited v. Blu-Smart Mobility Limited
Case Number : IA/124 (AHM) 2026 in C.P. (IB)/205 (AHM) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 103
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has granted an additional 90 days to complete the insolvency process of Blu-Smart Mobility Limited, extending the deadline beyond January 24, 2026.
The insolvency proceedings against the company had begun on July 28, 2025, after the tribunal admitted a petition filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : Canara Bank Limited vs Poonam Anoop Wadhera
Case Number : IA(IBC)/5600(MB)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 123
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has admitted personal insolvency resolution proceedings against Poonam Anoop Wadhera, the personal guarantor of Frost International Limited, in connection with a default of Rs 671.56 crore.
A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar admitted the petition filed by Canara Bank Limited under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
CIRP Can Be Initiated Only On Default, Not On Apprehension Of Inability To Pay: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Rajshree Silk Mills Private Limited.
Case Number : CP (IBC)/201/AHM/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 125
A corporate insolvency resolution process can be initiated only upon the occurrence of default and not on a mere apprehension of inability to pay debts, the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has held while rejecting a voluntary insolvency application filed by a textile company under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The matter was heard by a coram comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy.
Case Title : State Bank of India vs Madhucan Toll Highways Ltd
Case Number : Company Petition IB/154/7/HDB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 126
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently observed that an Inter-Creditor Agreement meant to ensure coordinated action among consortium lenders does not prevent an individual financial creditor from initiating insolvency proceedings, even as it declined to admit the petition on the facts of the present case.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri observed:
“In view of the overriding effect of the IBC, the Inter-Creditor Agreement that has been entered between some of the consortium members, at no stretch of imagination, will come in the way of admission of the petition under Section 7 of IBC when debt and default is proved beyond doubt.”
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd vs Mahesh Chandulal Shah
Case Number : C.P. (IB) NO. 305/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 120
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently observed that default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a factual state of non-payment and minor variations in the dates of default in notices issued under SARFAESI and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to a personal guarantor cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when the debt and failure to pay are otherwise clearly established.
A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd under Section 95 of the Code against Mahendra Chandulal Shah. He had stood as a personal guarantor for credit facilities availed by C. Mahendra Exports Ltd.
NCLT Ahmedabad Slaps ₹1 Lakh Costs On Sintex-BAPL Creditor, Upholds Finality Of Resolution Plan
Case Title : Ganesh Electricals v. Ashish Chhawchharia & Ors.
Case Number : IA/758(AHM)2024 in IA/187(AHM)2023 in CP (IB) No. 759 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 128
On 9 February, the National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad, (NCLT) dismissed an operational creditor's request for full payment after the resolution plan for Sintex-BAPL Limited, a plastic products maker, was approved.
A Bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma, imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the applicant, Ganesh Electricals, for pursuing litigation against settled law, holding that a concluded Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be reopened simply because a creditor took a haircut under the plan.
Case Title : Abhay Narayan Manudhane vs My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society & Ors
Case Number : I.A. No. 3781 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 129
On 9 February, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, lifted an interim injunction that had blocked third-party rights over land linked to Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL), ruling that the Tribunal cannot extend temporary protection if it lacks jurisdiction to grant final relief.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey heard the matter following a reference under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, arising from a split decision in an earlier NCLT Mumbai Bench. The Technical Member had concluded the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, while a Judicial Member had proposed making the interim order absolute.
Case Title : True Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inox Wind Ltd.
Case Number : RST. A(IBC)/31(CH)2024 in CP(IB) No. 114/CHD/HP/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 130
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh recently observed that a counsel's personal difficulties, including childcare responsibilities as well as technical glitches, do not amount to “sufficient cause” for repeated non-appearance in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Dismissing a third application seeking restoration of an insolvency petition filed by True Steels Private Limited, the Tribunal said the IBC is a time-bound code that requires strict diligence from operational creditors.
IBC Cannot Be Used To Legitimize Proceeds of Crime: NCLT Recalls Alchemist Limited CIRP
Case Title : Directorate of Enforcement Through its Deputy Director v. Alchemist Limited Case Number : I.A. NO. 1997 OF 2025 IN C.P. IB NO 275 (ND) OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 131
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at New Delhi has recalled its own order admitting insolvency proceedings against Alchemist Limited, holding that the Code cannot be used to legitimise proceeds of crime.
The tribunal found that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was “vitiated by fraud, collusion and malicious intent.”
A Bench of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the operational creditor, Sai Tech Medicare Private Limited. The amount has been directed to be deposited with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) within ten days.
NCLT Kochi Rejects Plea To Implead CBI In Corporate Petition Alleging Oppression And Mismanagement
Case Title : Mrpn Minority Share Holder Customer Welfare Association, Represented by Smt. Asha Mary Cherian v/s Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd & 6 Others
Case Number : CP/35/KOB/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 136
The Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 February dismissed an application by MRPN Minority Share Holder Customer Welfare Association, seeking to implead the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a pending company petition against Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The application alleged key managerial persons of the company of oppression and mismanagement.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Shri Vinay Goel, held that impleading an investigating agency while a probe is ongoing is neither necessary for adjudicating corporate governance disputes nor conducive to the administration of justice.
Case Title : Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt Ltd vs SAS iTower Pvt Ltd Case Number : IA No. 393/2025 In CP(IB) No.187/9/HDB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 134
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently held that a mistake warranting recall of order must be apparent on the face of the record and attributable to an error of the tribunal, and not to the failure of a party to place relevant material before it.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri on February 11, 2026, dismissed a recall application filed by Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt. Ltd.
NCLT Ahmedabad Slaps ₹2 Lakh Cost on Dharmadev Infra Director, Admits ₹20.97 Crore Insolvency Plea
Case Title : UG Fincon Advisors LLP v. Dharmadev Infrastructure Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB) No.417/7/AHM/2025 with I.A. No. 45/AHM/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 137
Calling it a “counterblast” and an abuse of process, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad has imposed ₹2,00,000 in personal costs on a director of Dharmadev Infrastructure Limited while admitting an insolvency petition over dues of ₹20,97,43,678. A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma dismissed an application filed under Sections 60(5) and 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that no ingredient of fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings was established
Case Title : Savino Ceramic Private Limited v. M/s Fontana Impex Private Limited
Case Number : CP(IBC)/40/KOB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 141
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed an insolvency petition after holding that an operational creditor cannot rely solely on an interest clause printed on invoices to inflate the claim amount and cross the statutory Rs. 1 crore threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, in the absence of any binding agreement for payment of interest.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel rejected a Section 9 plea filed by Savino Ceramic Private Limited against Fontana Impex Private Limited, observing that the claimed default of Rs. 1,52,29,080.50 included Rs. 71,64,651 towards interest, which had no contractual foundation.
NCLT Allahabad Reserves Verdict On Vedanta Plea Against CoC Approval Of Adani's JAL Plan
Case Title : Vedanta Ltd. v. Bhuvan Madan, RP of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : IA No. 01/2026 in CP (IB) No. 330/ALD/2018
The National Company Law Tribunal at Allahabad has reserved its orders on Vedanta Limited's challenge to the Committee of Creditors' approval of Adani Enterprises' resolution plan for insolvent Jaiprakash Associates Limited.
Vedanta was one of the resolution applicants in the process.
The matter was heard by Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma, who reserved orders after hearing Vedanta and the Resolution Professional.
Case Title : GIC Housing Finance Ltd vs Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA No. 3109 of 2025 IN CP(IB) No.651/MB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 133
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, recently held that in a real estate insolvency, homebuyers' and a housing finance company's secured interests cannot overlap. Where the builder has undertaken repayment obligations, the financier's interest must be protected.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt, on 29 January allowed an application filed by GIC Housing Finance Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Karrm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
NCLT Guwahati Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Against Maxim Infrastructure For Pre-CIRP Dues
Case Title : Maxim Infrastructure & Real Estate Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer
Case Number : IA(IBC)/176/GB/2024 In CP(IB)/4/GB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (GUA) 135
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Guwahati Bench, has ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen tax assessments for dues it failed to claim during a company's insolvency process.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Yogendra Kumar Singh on January 15, allowed an application filed by Maxim Infrastructure & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. It quashed reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018–19.
NCLT Delhi Appoints Two-Member Committee To Monitor Jaypee Infratech Project Progress
Case Title : IDBI Bank v. Jaypee Infratech Ltd
Case Number : IA 5944/2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 144
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, recently appointed a two-member expert committee to assess the progress of construction of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) projects under the approved resolution plan.
A Bench comprising President Ramalingam Sudhakar and Technical Member Ravindra Charurvedi passed the direction while hearing multiple applications raising concerns regarding delays and grievances of homebuyers.
Bank's No Dues Certificate Not Determinative At CIRP Admission: NCLT Jaipur
Case Title : Canara Bank v. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CP No. (IB) 68/7/JPR/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 145
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur, has admitted Prayag Polytech Private Limited into insolvency over a Rs.34.14 crore default to Canara Bank.
The bench of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar held that disputes over “No Dues Certificates” cannot defeat a Section 7 petition at the threshold.
NCLT Mumbai Says Mumbai, Delhi Airport Operators Are Unsecured Creditors In Jet Airways Liquidation
Case Title : Mumbai International Airport Ltd, Airports Authority of India Ltd, Delhi International Airport Ltd vs Jet Airways
Case Number : IA 644 OF 2025, APPEAL 34 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 146
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has recently held that Mumbai International Airport Ltd (MIAL) and Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) are not secured creditors in the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, rejecting their contention that airport regulations conferred a lien over aircraft for unpaid dues
NCLT Ahmedabad Refuses Travel Relief To Personal Guarantor With ₹2717 Crore Liability
Case Title : Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad v. Samir Ganeshbhai Marathe & Anr.
Case Number : IA/1178(AHM)2025 in C.P.(IB)/313(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 147
The National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad, on 12 February rejected a travel permission plea filed by Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad, a personal guarantor facing liabilities of Rs. 2,717.88 crore, holding that his proposal to travel abroad for employment could jeopardise the time-bound bankruptcy process.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy held that the applicant's presence was “absolutely necessary for the further inquiry and day to day progress of the proceedings.”
NCLT President Submits Enquiry Report After NCLAT Calls Chennai Bench Order “Rather Dubious”
Outgoing NCLT President Chief Justice (Retd.) Ramalingam Sudhakar has firmly rejected allegations of impropriety against the Chennai Bench, stating that “no material has emerged suggesting any impropriety, bias or departure from judicial discipline.” The report was submitted pursuant to an enquiry ordered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited in the insolvency proceedings of Regen Powertech Private Limited.
Resolution Professional Cannot Seek Removal Of Statutory Lien Created Before CIRP: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Anurag Jain vs Income Tax Officer
Case Number : IA 3271 of 2025 In CP 1475 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 148
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has held that while the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code mandates a resolution professional to preserve and take control of the assets of the corporate debtor, it does not confer any specific authority to seek removal of statutory attachments or liens lawfully created prior to commencement of the insolvency.
On February 13, a bench comprising Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati held that a statutory lien validly created before initiation of CIRP cannot be nullified merely because insolvency proceedings have commenced.
NCLT Mumbai Admits Insolvency Plea Against Reliance Ornatus Over ₹133.88 Crore Default
Case Title : Creative Ashtech Engineering Projects Private Limited Vs. ROEVPL Ventures Private Limited
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/176/MB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 149
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has admitted an insolvency application filed by Creative Ashtech Engineering Projects Private Limited against Reliance Ornatus Enterprises and Ventures Private Limited Ventures Private Limited, holding that a financial debt of Rs. 133.88 crore and default stood established.
A bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar held, “In view of the aforesaid findings, this Application bearing C.P. (IB) No. 176/MB/2025 filed under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, by Creative Ashtech Engineering Projects Private Limited, the Applicant (FC) for initiating CIRP in respect of ROEVPL Ventures Private Limited, the CD, is admitted.”
Case Title : Carnet Elias Fernandes v. Jagdish Kumar Parulkar & Anr.
Case Number : IA 305 (MP) 2025 in CP (IB) 49 (MP) 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 150
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has held that mere reflection of a Director Identification Number (DIN) as “Approved/Active” on the MCA portal is not sufficient to establish eligibility to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The tribunal dismissed an application filed by Carnet Elias Fernandes, Suspended Management/Promoter of GEI Power Limited, challenging the Resolution Professional's decision declaring him ineligible to submit a resolution plan under Sections 29A(e) and 29A(f) of the Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta held that an online DIN status, in the absence of a clear and categorical order passed by the competent authority removing the disqualification, cannot establish eligibility to participate in the resolution process.
Case Title : Nithiyanathan Ramachandran v. Shri K. Boothalingam and Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC)/ 17 (CHE)/2023 in IBA/31/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 152
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has dismissed an application filed by the liquidator of Srivatsa International Private Limited alleging that the company's suspended directors committed fraud by mortgaging a property to Yes Bank.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy held that offering property as collateral to secure credit for the corporate debtor's business operations does not by itself amount to fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Bengaluru Rejects EPFO Claim For PF Dues In Dunlop Polymers Insolvency
Case Title : The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) v. Dunlop Polymer Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA No.741/ 2025 in CP(IB) No.123/BB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 154
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has dismissed an application filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) in the insolvency proceedings of Dunlop Polymers Private Limited. The tribunal held that EPFO cannot seek remittance of provident fund dues during the moratorium when its claim has not been admitted in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada held that the relief sought would amount to enforcement of statutory dues during the subsistence of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Such enforcement is impermissible.
NCLT Mumbai Allows Saraswat Bank To Make Clarificatory Amendments To Section 7 Petition
Case Title : Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Limited Aaacorp Exim India Private Limited
Case Number : IA/3713/2024 C.P. (IB)/682(MB)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 158
On 5 February 2026, the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed Saraswat Co‑operative Bank Limited to amend its pending Section 7 petition against AAACORP Exim India Private Limited to correct the date of default, NPA classification date, and outstanding dues of Rs. 15.59 crore.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati, held that that such amendments are permitted if they are clarificatory, necessary for effective adjudication, and do not create a new case or prejudice the corporate debtor.
Mere MOU For Flat Allotment Not Financial Debt Without Disbursal To Corporate Debtor: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Wescon Housing India Private Limited vs. Mr. Pankaj Ramdas Mathia and Ors. Case Number : IA (I.B.C) No. 4491/MB/2025 in CP (IB) No. 364/MB/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 159
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai recently held that a payment made under an MOU for allotment of 3,000 sq ft of FSI in a proposed real estate project does not qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 if there is no disbursal to the corporate debtor and no element of time value of money.
A Bench of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt said, “There is nothing to show that money was disbursed by the Applicant against the consideration for the time value of money so as to be treated as a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.”
Mere Non-Payment Of Ordered Amount Not Civil Contempt, Execution Is Proper Remedy: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Renahan Vamakesan v. Anish Lawrence and Anr
Case Number : Contempt Petition (IBC)/2/KOB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 160
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has recently observed that mere non-payment of amounts directed under its orders does not automatically amount to civil contempt and that execution proceedings are the appropriate remedy.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed that contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, cannot be routinely invoked as a substitute for execution of orders.
Non-Issuance Of NOC By Financial Creditor After Default Cannot Stall Insolvency: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd vs Vatika Ltd
Case Number : IA (I.B.C)/1537(CH)2025 in CP(IB) No. 45/Chd/Hry/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 157
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has rejected a plea by homebuyers seeking dismissal of insolvency proceedings against Vatika Ltd. The tribunal held that non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the debenture trustee, which was required for execution and registration of conveyance deeds in favour of plot buyers, cannot by itself obstruct proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code once a financial default has occurred.
The matter was heard by Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal. The bench observed that issues arising after the occurrence of default cannot dilute the statutory consequences flowing from an admitted default.
Case Title : Insta Capital Pvt Ltd & Ors vs JBS Enterprises Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/546/MB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 161
The National Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai has admitted an insolvency petition against JBS Enterprises Ltd, formerly known as JBS Enterprises Private Limited holding that a corporate debtor cannot escape liability merely because loan documents were executed in its earlier name prior to conversion from a private limited company to a public limited company.
A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar said that once the corporate debtor has availed and benefited from financial facilities, it cannot rely on technical defects in its own documentation to defeat proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Even Without Plea, NCLT Kochi Examines Covid-19 Suspension Bar, Rejects CIRP Pleas
Case Title : Lakshmi Venkateshwara Traders v. KKR Products and Marketing Private Limited Case Number : CP(IB)/39/KOB/2025 & CP(IB)/02/KOB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 162
Holding that the statutory Covid-period bar under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be examined even in the absence of a specific defence, the NCLT Kochi Bench dismissed two insolvency petitions against KKR Products and Marketing Private Limited. The tribunal found that the alleged defaults arose during the pandemic suspension period (Section 10A).
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel examined the applicability of the statutory bar under Section 10A of the IBC even though no formal defence invoking the provision had been raised by the corporate debtor.
MSME Protections Must Be Invoked By Corporate Debtor, Not Personal Guarantors: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Tata Capital Limited v. Mr. Jinu Varghese
Case Number : CP(IBC)/30/KOB/2025 & CP(IBC)/31/KOB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 166
The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, has held that benefits under the MSMED Act, 2006 and the RBI MSME restructuring framework must be specifically invoked by the corporate debtors. Personal guarantors have no independent right to claim such relief.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Vinay Goel admitted insolvency petitions filed by Tata Capital Limited against personal guarantors Jinu Varghese and Geeba Kolliyelil Jenny and declared a moratorium in their respect.
Case Title : OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd v. AKMG Alloys Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IBC)/282(CHE)/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 167
Admitting a power generator's insolvency plea against its industrial consumer, the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, has held that a company cannot escape liability for electricity dues by claiming the power was consumed by its lessee. The tribunal ruled that liability under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code flows from privity of contract, not from actual usage of services.
A coram of Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy admitted the Section 9 petition filed by OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd over unpaid electricity dues arising from a Power Supply Agreement dated April 1, 2018.
TDS On Interest Alone Not Enough To Cross Insolvency Threshold: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title : Wild dreams Trading Company Pvt.Ltd v. Ascendancy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 335/Chd/J&K/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 168
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has dismissed a Section 7 CIRP plea after holding that deduction of TDS on alleged interest cannot be treated as an acknowledgment of liability to cross the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The coram of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal was hearing a petition filed by Wild Dreams Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. seeking initiation of CIRP against Ascendancy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Mr. Mallampati Madhu.
Case Number : Company Petition IB/144/95/HBD/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT(HYD) 169
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) declined to admit a petition filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings against Mallampati Madhu, the personal guarantor of TN (DK) Expressways Limited, holding that such action would be inequitable while a substantial arbitral award of Rs. 288.96 crores in its favour remains under challenge and unrealised.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri observed: “In view of the arbitral award (of Rs. 288.96 crores) in favour of the Principal Borrower being substantially higher than the amount of default (of Rs. 138.27 crores)… initiation of CIRP against the guarantor would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Applicant.”
NCLT Mumbai Admits CIRP Plea Against Baggit India Pvt Ltd Over ₹1.11 Crore Operational Debt
Case Title : Sunrise Global Tradelinks vs Baggit India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB)/764/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 171
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai had admitted an operational creditor's insolvency petition against Baggit India Private Limited, an Indian handbags and fashion accessories company over a debt of Rs 1,11,84,020.
A coram of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar held that the application filed by Sunrise Global Tradelinks was complete in all respects and that default stood established.
Case Title : Metro Tyres Limited Vs M/S Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA 4/2026 in IB no 397/ND/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 183
The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has recently ordered the liquidation of electric scooter maker Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. after the company's insolvency resolution process ended without approval of any resolution plan.
A bench of Judicial Member Bachu Venkat Balaram Das and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri held that once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) expires without an approved plan, liquidation must follow under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : N.K Kurian v. K Easwara Pillai
Case Number : IA(IBC)/115/KOB/2024 in CP(IB)/06/KOB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 182
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi on Friday held that a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be considered during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in the absence of a liquidation order.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed that the statutory framework places schemes under Section 230 at the post-liquidation stage and dismissed the application seeking its sanction as premature.
NCLT Delhi Refuses To Initiate CIRP On Shikhar Dhawan's Plea Against Legends League Cricket Operator
Case Title : Shikhar Dhawan Vs Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited
Case Number : C.P. IB/533/ND/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 180
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at New Delhi on Thursday refused to initiate insolvency proceedings against Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd on a plea filed by Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan alleging a default of over Rs. 1.24 crore in unpaid player fees. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. owns and operates the Legends League Cricket, a franchise-based T20 tournament featuring retired international cricketers.
A bench of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi held that Dhawan failed to establish that the claimed operational debt had become due and payable.
NCLT's Residuary Jurisdiction Under IBC Cannot Be Used To Reopen NCLAT Findings: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Bhupinder Singh Rajput Vs Civic Services Holding Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA/235 (AHM) 2024 In CP(IB) 497/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 177
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently dismissed an application filed by Bhupendra Singh Rajput, holding that its jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to reopen or circumvent findings of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed, “The jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is supervisory and residuary in nature and cannot be exercised to reopen or circumvent findings rendered by the Appellate Tribunal, directly or indirectly.”
NCLT Kolkata Admits CIRP Against Saket Infra, Rules FRR Framework Cannot Bar Insolvency Proceedings
Case Title : Aditya Birla Finance Ltd vs Saket Infra Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA (IB) No. 613/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 273/KB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 176
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kolkata on 17 February, held that the RBI's Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation (FRR) for MSMEs cannot override the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or prevent a financial creditor from initiating insolvency proceedings once default is established.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra observed that the plea of MSME protection was unsustainable in the absence of any contemporaneous MSME certificate produced before the lender during loan sanction or restructuring, while admitting an insolvency petition filed by Aditya Birla Finance against Saket Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Tribunal Not A 'Court' Under BNSS, Cannot Order Prosecution For False Evidence: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Delhi Liquors vs Badri Prasad
Case Number : IA/423(MP)/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 25 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 175
The National Company Law Tribunal at Indore ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to initiate criminal prosecution under Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that such powers are vested only in courts and not in statutory tribunals. Section 215 bars cognisance of certain offences relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings except on a complaint by the concerned court, while Section 379 lays down the procedure for such courts to conduct an inquiry and file a complaint before a magistrate.
The Tribunal comprising Judicial Member Mohan P. Tiwari and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed: “The Tribunal does not possess powers akin to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, nor does it exercise criminal jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Its powers are limited, confined and circumscribed strictly by the statute creating it. It cannot assume jurisdiction by implication, analogy or equity. Penal provisions must receive strict construction. In the absence of express legislative inclusion of tribunals within the meaning of “Court” under BNSS, this Tribunal cannot invoke Sections 215 or 379 of the said enactment.”
Case Title : Ujaas Energy Ltd v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 21/BB/2026
The National Company Law Tribunal at Bengaluru on Wednesday issued notice to Public Sector Undertaking Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in a petition filed by Ujaas Energy Limited, seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code over an alleged default of Rs 8.41 crore arising out of an arbitral award.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada passed the order.
Financial Hardship No Ground To Reject Insolvency Plea Once Default Is Established: NCLT Jaipur
Case Title : Epicrop Organics Limited v. Cropberry Foods Private Limited
Case Number : CP No.(IB)-68/9/JPR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 174
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur has observed that financial hardship and liquidity constraints are not legally recognised grounds to reject an insolvency petition once default is established under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A coram of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar admitted an application filed by Epicrop Organics Limited and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Cropberry Foods Private Limited.
NCLT Ahmedabad Denies Secured Creditor Priority To State Tax Dept. In Diamond Power Liquidation
Case Title : State Tax Officer Vs Nitin Parikh
Case Number : IA/1060 (AHM) 2025 in CP (IB)28 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 173
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad, has recently reiterated that priority in liquidation is governed strictly by Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), while dismissing a plea by the State Tax Officer to be treated as a secured creditor in the liquidation of Diamond Power Transformer Ltd.
“The priority of claims during liquidation is governed strictly by Section 53 and no deviation is permissible based on general statutory charges created under other enactments,” a coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed.
Case Title : Dr. Ayyappan Nair Raghavan Pillai v. CoC of M/s Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited
Case Number : IA(IBC)/2/KOB/2026 in IA(IBC)/379/KOB/2025 in CP(IB)/22/KOB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 172
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has recently observed that insolvency proceedings cannot be converted into a full-fledged evidentiary trial. It ruled that powers under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be used to reopen the commercial evaluation undertaken by the Committee of Creditors.
Dismissing an application filed by an unsuccessful resolution applicant in the insolvency process of Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Judicial Member Vinay Goel held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction in matters concerning approval of a resolution plan is limited by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Revival Of Insolvency After Settlement Breach Not A Recovery Action: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : SN Global v. Aksa Paper Mills Private Limited.
Case Number : Res. App. 33 of 2025 in CP(I.B) NO. 165 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 184
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad, recently observed that when a settlement recognised by a judicial order is breached, the revival of insolvency proceedings does not amount to using the insolvency process as a recovery tool but merely restores the legal consequence that had already been adjudicated.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma made the observation while reviving insolvency proceedings against Aksa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : M/s Aidem Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. News24 Broadcast India Limited.
Case Number : TP (Co. Act.)- 38(PB)/2023 Old CP No. 451/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 185
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi, on 13 February, dismissed three petitions seeking the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) filed by Aidem Ventures against NEWS24 Broadcast India Limited, holding that the claims involved pre-existing contractual disputes and were primarily aimed at recovery of dues, not resolution of the corporate debtor.
A Bench comprising President Ramalingam Sudhakar and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi observed that under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Adjudicating Authority cannot adjudicate contractual disputes at the CIRP initiation stage.
Case Title : State Tax Officer-3 vs. Mr Alok Kailash Saksena
Case Number : IA No. 497 of 2020 in CP (IB) 116/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 186
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently held that the liquidator of Gujarat Foils Ltd. was justified in rejecting a VAT and CST claim of about Rs 211.87 crore filed by the State Tax Department during the company's liquidation, finding that the liabilities were still disputed and pending before appellate authorities.
A bench of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. V.G. Venkata Chalapathy observed that the claim could not be admitted when the underlying tax demands had not been finally determined.
Case Title : Tata Power EV Charging Solutions Ltd vs Cab-Eez Infra Tech Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) 478 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 187
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has allowed the withdrawal of Rs. 1.9 crore insolvency proceedings initiated by Tata Power EV Charging Solutions Ltd. against Cab-Eez Infra Tech Ltd. after the parties reached a settlement.
On February 2, 2026, a bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati permitted withdrawal of Tata Power's insolvency plea under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after noting that the companies had entered into consent terms.
Bankruptcy Trustee Not Automatically Discharged Upon Filing Of Section 138 Application: NCLT Delhi
Case Title : Viram Vishal Minhas and anr v. Hulas Rahul Gupta and Ors .
Case Number : I.A. No. 5175/ND/2025 IN C.P.(IB) – 985/ND/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 189
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 18 February, held that a Bankruptcy Trustee does not automatically stand discharged merely upon filing an application under Section 138 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Discharge occurs only upon the adjudicating authority passing an appropriate order.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri clarified that mere filing under Section 138(1) does not effectuate discharge, and the tribunal must actively consider the application before granting it.
NCLT Mumbai Allows Amendment In Oppression Petition After Expiry Of Limitation Period
Case Title : Tirupati Sankalp Realtors Private Limited v. Ruhi Realty Private Limited and Ors. Case Number : I.A. No. 178 of 2023 IN C.P. No. 1631/MB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 188
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 23 February allowed an amendment to a company petition under Rules 11 and 155 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, holding that a delay in filing amendments does not prevent changes needed to address the real issues, especially when the new facts could not have been discovered earlier.
A Bench, comprising Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan and Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar, was hearing an interlocutory application filed by Tirupati Sankalp Realtors Pvt. Ltd. seeking amendment of a petition instituted under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Case Title : Mahaveer Exim Vs CA, Tejas Shah
Case Number : IA/741(AHM)2025 In CP(IB) No.141/NCLT/AHM/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 191
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) recently observed that Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a residuary provision that helps the tribunal facilitate insolvency proceedings but cannot be used to grant blanket exemptions from other laws.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed,
“It is clarified that the jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code is residual and facilitative, and does not extend to granting blanket statutory exemptions or overriding substantive provisions of other enactments, except to the limited extent expressly recognized under Sections 31, 32A and 238 of the Code, and judicial precedents extending clean-slate principles to going concern sales under Regulation 32(e).”
Income Tax Refunds Determined During CIRP Form Part of Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Wind World (India} Limited Vs The Income Tax Department
Case Number : IA/996(AHM)2025 In C.P.(IB) 14(AHM) of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 190
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently observed that income tax refunds determined during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) form part of the assets of the corporate debtor and must remain available for the insolvency resolution process.
A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed that, “Once the refund is determined under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the said amount constitutes a receivable of the Corporate Debtor and therefore forms part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor which must remain available for the insolvency resolution process.”
Case Title : SREI MULTIPLE ASSET INVESTMENT TRUST Vs. ODISHA SLURRY PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITE
Case Number : IA(IB) No.64 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CUT) 193
The National Company Law Tribunal's Cuttack bench on Tuesday dismissed a recall application filed by SREI Multiple Asset Investment Management Trust seeking recall of the orders admitting Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd (OSPIL) into insolvency and approving its resolution plan. The tribunal held that the attempt amounted to an abuse of the legal process and reflected a lackadaisical attitude.
A bench comprising Acting President Deep Chandra Joshi and Technical Member Banwari Lal Meena observed that the applicant had attempted to undo a successful resolution nearly three years after the plan had attained finality, including affirmation by the Supreme Court. “This Adjudicating Authority sternly notes that the present Applicant's Application is indicative of the fact that the applicant has clearly abused the process of law and has tried to undo a successful resolution of a Respondent No. L after almost 3 years since the plan has been upheld by none other than the Apex court of the country. During the proceedings as weIl, the applicant has shown lackadaisical attitude.” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Suburban Diagnostics (India) Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/195/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 194
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has ordered the dissolution of Suburban Diagnostics (India) Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Dr Lal PathLabs, after the successful completion of its voluntary liquidation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar passed the order while noting that the process was conducted in “accordance with law”.
NCLT Bengaluru Issues Notice To Flipkart On Insolvency Plea Alleging Rs 4.37 Crore Default
Case Title : Netambit Value First Services Pvt Ltd Vs Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 329/BB/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru on Wednesday issued notice to Walmart-owned e-commerce company Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. on an insolvency petition alleging a default of Rs 4.37 crore under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The petition has been filed by Netambit Value First Services Pvt. Ltd., an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the Code. A bench of Judicial Member Mahendra Khandelwal and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi issued the notice after hearing counsel for the petitioner.
IBC Moratorium Operates Automatically, Not Dependent On Creditor's Knowledge Of CIRP: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Nishant Agrawal Vs Income Tax Department
Case Number : IA/366(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/48(MP)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 198
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has recently observed that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, operates automatically from the insolvency commencement date and is binding even if the creditor or statutory authority had no knowledge of the admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
A bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta observed, “The statutory prohibition under Section 14(1) is absolute and automatic, and does not depend upon whether a creditor or statutory authority had actual knowledge or notice of the admission order. Any person, authority or institution whether a private creditor or a statutory instrumentality of the State is equally bound by the moratorium from the date of its commencement.”
Personal Guarantor Can Face Insolvency Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Liquidation: NCLT Indore
Case Title : State Bank of India Vs Sumit Rajpal
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/24(MP)2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 199
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has recently held that insolvency proceedings can be initiated against a personal guarantor even when liquidation proceedings against the corporate debtor are pending. The tribunal observed that the issue before it was, “whether an Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated against the Personal Guarantor of a Corporate Debtor when the Liquidation Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor are already pending?” and held that “the above issue is answered in the affirmative.”
The order was passed by Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta on an application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by State Bank of India.
Case Title : Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd Versus Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 2291/KB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 200
The National Company Law Tribunal's Kolkata bench has recently observed that once the competent Real Estate Regulatory Authority levies and realizes late fee in exercise of its statutory powers, such levy assumes the character of a statutory charge payable to the State authority and cannot be ordered to be refunded in insolvency proceedings unless it is challenged before the appropriate appellate forum under the RERA law.
A bench of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah dismissed an application filed by Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt Ltd, which is undergoing resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Bengaluru Admits CIRP Against VOI Jeans Retail India Over ₹1.11 Crore Operational Debt Default
Case Title : Raymond UCO Denim Pvt Ltd v. VOI Jeans Retain Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 204/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 201
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has admitted a petition filed by Raymond UCO Denim Pvt Ltd seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against VOI Jeans Retail India Pvt. Ltd. for an operational debt of Rs 1.1 crore.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada passed the order. Raymond UCO Denim, the operational creditor engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying denim fabrics, approached the Tribunal alleging that VOI Jeans Retail had defaulted in payment of Rs 1,11,75,455 towards invoices raised for supply of fabrics between December 31, 2023 and February 25, 2024.
NCLT Chandigarh Rejects Omkara ARC Plea Over 1267-Day Belated Claim In Vikas WSP CIRP
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd. Vs Mr 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) 203
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has dismissed a plea filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. seeking admission of its claim in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Vikas WSP Ltd., holding that a claim filed 1267 days after the prescribed deadline and after approval of the resolution plan cannot be entertained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Refusing to condone the delay, the bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh said the IBC is meant to ensure time-bound insolvency resolution and cannot be used to revive recovery claims at a late stage of the process.
Case Title : GKS Associates vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/949(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 207
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai Bench has dismissed an insolvency petition filed by GKS Associates against Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd, a leading construction company headquartered in Mumbai, holding that an operational creditor cannot artificially inflate the claim amount through unilateral interest entries to meet the statutory threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar while dismissing the petition observed: “It is therefore safe to conclude that the present Section 9 Application has been filed by artificially inflating the alleged default through an interest claim which has no contractual or legal basis. Accordingly, the interest component claimed by the Applicant cannot be included while computing the amount of default. Upon exclusion of the said interest, the principal amount falls below the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the IBC.”
GKS Associates claimed a total default of Rs 1.38 crore, comprising Rs 77.24 lakh as principal and Rs 61.53 lakh as interest, alleging non-payment of dues arising from the supply of scaffolding and shuttering materials on hire basis for projects including Ozone Metrozone in Chennai, Christian Medical College in Vellore, and IIT Palakkad. The work orders were issued between July 2017 and January 2022 and invoices were raised periodically for equipment hire charges.
Case Title : Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vs Vijakumar V. Iyer
Case Number : MA No. 4013/MB/2019 In CP (IB) No. 302/MB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 210
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that security deposits of post-paid subscribers and unspent balances of prepaid subscribers in the insolvency proceedings of Dishnet Wireless Ltd must be treated as operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
"We have no hesitation in holding that the amount of security deposit balances refundable to post paid subscribers and the amount of un-spent balances in prepaid plans are the money collected in excess of the rates prescribed by TRAI.”, a coram of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt observed.
Part Payment By Third Party Does Not Discharge Corporate Debtor's Liability Under IBC: NCLT Cuttack
Case Title : Patnaik Steel International Ltd vs SSAB Energy & Mineral Ltd
Case Number : CP IB 23 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CUT) 211
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Cuttack recently observed that the acceptance of a part payment from a third party cannot be treated as a substitution of the corporate debtor for the entire outstanding liability, particularly when the corporate debtor itself continued to make substantial payments toward the same debt.
A coram of Acting President Deep Chandra Joshi and Technical Member Banwari Lal Meena made the observation while allowing an insolvency application filed by Patnaik Steel International Ltd against SSAB Energy and Minerals Ltd. (corporate debtor) for default in payment arising from the supply of iron ore fines.
NCLT Chandigarh Admits Paytm Insolvency Plea Against Eyemyeye Over ₹3 Crore Ads' Dues
Case Title : ONE97 Communications Limited Vs Eyemyeye Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 67/Chd/Hry/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 214
The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted an insolvency petition filed by One97 Communications Ltd. (Paytm) against Eyemyeye Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, over unpaid dues of more than ₹3 crore arising from digital advertising and related services.
The bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Eyemyeye Private Limited for a total operational debt of Rs 3,03,53,925.94.
Ahmedabad NCLT Admits IDBI Trusteeship's Insolvency Petition Against Guarantor Over ₹100 Crore Debt
Case Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Mr Kamlesh Gondalia
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/188(AHM)2025 With IA/140(AHM)2026 in C.P.(IB)/188(AHM)2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 217
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Monday 16 March, admitted a personal insolvency application filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services against Kamlesh Gondalia, personal guarantor of Takshashila Heights India Pvt. Ltd.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr VG Venkata Chalapathy, directed initiation of insolvency proceedings against the guarantor and imposed a moratorium of 180 days, staying legal proceedings and restricting transfer of assets. The Bench stated:
“It is immaterial whether the CD is or not under CIRP and the factual position is the CD has been admitted in to CIRP and various appeals before Honble Supreme Court havebeen turned down.”
Amaravati NCLT Holds Recovery Certificate Triggers Fresh Cause Of Action
Case Title : ASREC (India) Ltd. Vs. Visakha Prime Properties Constructions Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB)/30/7/AMR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 218
The Amaravati Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 4 March admitted a Section 7 application filed by ASREC (India) Ltd. against Visakha Prime Properties Constructions Ltd., holding that a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal creates a fresh cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli and Technical Member Umesh Kumar Shukla noted that the petition filed in July 2025 was within limitation, being instituted within three years of the recovery certificate dated 19 October 2024.
Personal Guarantor Insolvency Pleas Governed By 3-Year Limitation Under Limitation Act: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Kiran Ratilal Sheth
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/410(MB)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 219
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has reiterated that in the absence of a specific limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, applications filed under Section 94 by personal guarantors are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period, and dismissed a personal insolvency petition as time-barred and procedurally defective.
Case Title : The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II vs. Mr. Raju Palanilkunnathil Kesavan and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (IBC)/11/KOB/2025 In IBA/51/KOB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 220
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has recently held that a statutory authority cannot raise fresh claims at the fag end of a liquidation process, observing that the insolvency framework does not permit reopening concluded claims after earlier dues have already been admitted and paid.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel dismissed an appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, EPFO, which sought condonation of delay in filing an additional claim in the liquidation of Trivandrum International Health Services Limited.
Case Title : Employee Provident Fund Organisation v. NDA Metaoxides Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : I.A (IBC) No. 481/JPR/2025 in CP No. (IB)-64/9/JPR/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 221
The National Company Law Tribunal at Jaipur has held that Section 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which excludes provident fund dues from the liquidation estate, does not permit the creation or quantification of liabilities during the moratorium.
The tribunal further held that provident fund claims cannot be admitted when they are based on post-moratorium assessment proceedings or are unsupported by proof of employment and identifiable beneficiaries.
Validity Of Telangana VAT Attachment Pending In HC Cannot Be Decided In CIRP: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited AND KOBO Biotech Limited Case Number : CP(IB) No. 277/7/HDB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 219
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad recently held that issues relating to the validity of attachment under the Telangana Value Added Tax (TVAT) Act, particularly where such attachment is already under challenge before the High Court, cannot be adjudicated in insolvency proceedings.
The observations were made by a bench of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri while deciding an application filed by the resolution professional of Kobo Biotech Ltd seeking removal of attachment over the corporate debtor's property.
NCLT Allahabad Approves Adani's ₹15,000 Crore Resolution Plan For Jaiprakash Associates
Case Title : Bhuvan Madan, RP of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs Committee of Creditors Jaiprakash Associates Ltd
Case Number : IA (PLAN) No. 11/2025 in CP (IB) NO.330/ALD/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 223
The Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday approved the ₹15,000-crore resolution plan submitted by Adani Enterprises Limited for insolvent Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). The order was pronounced orally on March 17, 2026, by a bench of Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
Homebuyers' Advances Used For Project Development Are Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Ajay Sanadhyav Vs M/S Vatsalya Builders and Developers Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.230/MB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 224
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently reiterated that amounts paid by homebuyers in a real estate project will qualify as financial debt if the money is used for financing and development of the project. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, a bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar observed,
“Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the upfront amounts paid by the Applicants to the CD were utilized for financing and development of the Project and, therefore, possess the commercial effect of borrowing and qualify as 'financial debt' within the meaning of Section 5(8)(f) of the Code. Consequently, the applicants, being allottees in a real estate project, are entitled in law to be classified and treated as Financial Creditors under Section 5(7) of the Code.”
NCLT Indore Admits ₹95.31 Crore Insolvency Plea By Central Bank Of India Against Narmada Extrusions
Case Title : Central Bank of India Ltd vs. Narmada Extrusions Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/21(MP)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 225
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 13 March admitted an insolvency petition filed by Central Bank of India against Narmada Extrusions Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 over default in repayment of financial debt of more than Rs. 95.31 crore.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta held that the Financial Creditor had established the existence of financial debt and the occurrence of default by the Corporate Debtor.
Personal Guarantor's Non-Compliance With Repayment Plan Allows Bankruptcy Proceedings: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan (in the matter of M/s Tata Capital Limited v. Mrs Molly G) Case Number : IA(IBC)/74/KOB/2026 in CP(IBC)/14/KOB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 227
The Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 26 February, held that a personal guarantor's failure to submit a repayment plan despite sufficient opportunities has the same effect as rejection of a repayment plan, allowing creditors to initiate bankruptcy proceedings.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional of a personal guarantor to Tata Capital Limited
IBC Does Not Require Same Due Date On All Invoices For Insolvency Plea: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : ABV Electronics vs Anmol Innovative Electronic Pvt Ltd
Case Number : C.P. (IB) No. 459/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 230
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently observed that there is no requirement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that the due dates of all invoices must be identical to trigger insolvency proceedings.
The ruling came in a petition filed in June 2024 by ABV Electronic, an operational creditor, seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Anmol Innovative Electrical Private Limited for default in payment of dues arising from supply of electrical goods
Ojas Tradelease CIRP: NCLT Mumbai Sets Aside 21-Year Acropolis Mall Lease As Fraudulent Under IBC
Case Title : Aegis Resolution Services Pvt Ltd vs Praxis Home Retail Ltd
Case Number : IA 5114 of 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION (IB) NO. 865 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 229
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that leasing a commercial asset like Acropolis Mall on long-term unfavourable terms without periodic escalation cannot be treated as a bona fide business decision and is detrimental to the interests of the corporate debtor and its creditors.
A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar allowed an application filed by the Resolution Professional of Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Pvt. Ltd. under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which deals with fraudulent trading.
Case Title : Arrhum Tradelink Private Limited Vs Shri Manoj Khattar
Case Number : IA No. 685 of 2025 IN CP (IB) No. 135 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 226
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an application filed by Arrhum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., the successful bidder for Vimal Oil & Foods Ltd. in liquidation, seeking reliefs including extinguishment of past liabilities, restoration of listing status, and exemptions from securities law compliance under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy held that corporate debtor had been sold on an “as is where is”, “as is what is”, “whatever there is” and “without recourse” basis
Case Title : Biomatiques Identification Solutions Private Limited v. Wipro Limited
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 210/BB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 231
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru on Wednesday dismissed an insolvency petition filed against Wipro Ltd, holding that a pre-existing dispute regarding the supply and quality of biometric devices barred initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada held that insolvency proceedings cannot be invoked as a substitute for recovery of disputed contractual claims.
IBC Cannot Replace Statutory Process For Determination And Recovery Of GST Liability: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : The Central Goods and Service Tax Department vs K. Vatsa Kumar & Ors
Case Number : IA (IBC)/332/2026 in CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 232
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad on Wednesday observed that liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be employed as a substitute for the statutory process governing determination and recovery of GST liability.
The bench of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri delivered the ruling in an application filed by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Department seeking directions against the liquidator of Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd and MCM Pacific Pte Ltd in relation to the sale of Phase-III assets.
Case Title : IFCI Limited vs NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 940 of 2025 IN C.P. (IB) No. 1020/MB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 233
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai on Tuesday held that relinquishment of security in the liquidation of a principal borrower does not affect a mortgage created in favour of the lender by a third-party corporate debtor, and the lender can still claim secured creditor status in the debtor's separate insolvency proceedings. A bench of Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan, while deciding an application filed by IFCI Ltd seeking recognition of its claim of Rs. 520.04 crore as a secured creditor in the CIRP of Replenish Reality Pvt Ltd, observed:
“Merely because the Principal Borrower has undergone a liquidation process in separate proceedings, and for that matter, the security interest created by the Principal Borrower has been relinquished by the Applicant, has no impact on the third party securities.”
S.94 IBC | Parallel SARFAESI, DRT Proceedings No Bar To Personal Guarantor Insolvency: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Ramdhari Mittal v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited through Assistant Vice President and Ors
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 76 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 237
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has held that insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be rejected merely because recovery proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or under the SARFAESI Act.
The tribunal also observed that the exact quantum of debt can be verified during the process and does not affect admission at this stage.
Case Title : Rumit Lifecare Vs Shari Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : C.P.(IB/21(AHM)2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 238
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has reiterated that interest mentioned only in invoices without any contractual stipulation cannot be counted as operational debt for determining the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, while dismissing a plea filed by an operational creditor seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings. The bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed that,
“Where interest is claimed solely on the basis of unilateral terms printed in invoices, without evidence of acceptance by the corporate debtor, the same cannot be treated as undisputed operational debt for the purpose of admission of a petition under Section 9 of the Code.”
Case Title : Telangana Housing Board vs Koncept Nirman Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Intervention Petition (IBC)/8/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 239
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has held that third parties cannot ordinarily be impleaded in proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code at the pre-admission stage unless their presence is indispensable for determining the existence of financial debt and default.
The observations came in an order dated March 9, 2026, passed by a bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri while dismissing an intervention petition filed by the Telangana Housing Board seeking impleadment in the insolvency proceedings against Indu Eastern Province Projects Pvt Ltd.
Fraud Must Be Clearly 'Found,' Not Presumed To Invoke Fraudulent Trading Under IBC: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Kobo Biotech Limited v. Mr. Urja Vijaykumar Shah and Ors
Case Number : I.A (IBC) No. 26 of 2025 IN C.P (IB) No.277/7/HDB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 240
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that proceedings under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which deals with fraudulent and wrongful trading by directors, cannot be sustained on mere suspicion and require a clear finding of intent to defraud supported by cogent evidence.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri passed the ruling while dismissing an application filed by the Resolution Professional of Kobo Biotech Limited seeking directions against the suspended directors to contribute amounts to the assets of the corporate debtor for alleged fraudulent and wrongful trading under Section 66 of the IBC.
Case Title : Canara Bank vs. BNH Infra Projects India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB) No.98/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 241
The Bengaluru Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on March 16 admitted insolvency proceedings against BNH Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd. over a loan default of about Rs 11.3 crore, after Canara Bank claimed total outstanding dues of over Rs 64 crore.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada noted that the respondent was proceeded ex parte due to failure to appear and comply with the tribunal's directions, observing that there was conscious abstention on the part of the respondent.
Case Title : Kampalapura Narasimaiah Jayalakshmi and Ors v. M/s Vistara Media Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA No. 768/ 2025 in CP(IB) No. 21/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 244
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has held that no third party has a right to intervene at the pre-admission stage of a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, reiterating that the Tribunal's scope at that stage is limited to examining the existence of financial debt and default.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada was dealing with an interlocutory application seeking permission to intervene in an insolvency petition filed by Mysore Mercantile Company Ltd against Vistara Media Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : ERICSSON INDIA PVT LTD V/s RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONAS LIMITED
Case Number : IA(I.B.C)/2200( MB)2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 245
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has partly allowed an application by former Reliance Communications Ltd director Anil Dhirajlal Ambani seeking access to insolvency records of the company, including documents furnished to the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation, holding that a suspended director cannot be denied pre-CIRP records required to defend himself in proceedings based on those materials.
Case Title : Allahabad Bank vs Anoop Kumar Wadhera
Case Number : CP (IB) 798 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 247
The National Company Law Tribunal's Mumbai bench has admitted an insolvency application filed by Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) against Anoop Kumar Wadhera, personal guarantor to Frost International Ltd, in a case involving a default of approximately Rs 285.77 crore. A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar, while admitting the petition and initiating an insolvency resolution process against Wadhera, observed:
“Considering the above facts and circumstances and upon perusal of the documents on record, the C.P. (IB) / 798 / MB /2024 filed under Section 95 of the Code, hereby Admitted and the Insolvency Resolution Process stands initiated against Anoop Kumar Wadhera viz. the Personal Guarantor herein.”
Case Title : Sanwar Mal Tiwari v. Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC) No.22/JPR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 248
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur has dismissed an application filed by the erstwhile Resolution Professional of Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. seeking ratification of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs, holding that determination of such costs lies exclusively within the domain of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A coram of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar also held that no interlocutory application is maintainable after the disposal of the main petition.
Mere Non-Reflection Of Funds In Books Not Proof Of Fraud Under IBC: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Kizhakkekkara Kuriakose Jose v. A.D Krishnan
Case Number : IA(IBC)/272/KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/29/KOB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 249
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed an application filed by the liquidator of Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd against its suspended Managing Director, holding that mere non-reflection of amounts in the books of accounts cannot by itself establish fraudulent diversion of funds under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed that allegations of fraud must be supported by cogent and credible evidence and cannot be sustained on assumptions or incomplete material.
Case Title : Canara Bank vs. Supreme Ahmednagar Karmala Tembhurni Tollways Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.66/Chd/Hry/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHA) 250
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh recently held that mere pendency of arbitration cannot be a ground to defer insolvency proceedings once debt and default are established.
A bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh while admitting a Tollways company to CIRP observed, “Mere pendency of arbitration does not constitute a realizable asset or extinguish an admitted financial liability. In contrast, the Financial Creditor has established a debt of ₹ 283.95 crores as on 31.10.2024, well above the statutory threshold, and default stands proved. Accordingly, the pending arbitration proceedings do not furnish a valid ground to defer or reject admission of the present application.”
Liquidation Can Be Recalled Using Inherent Powers Where Debt Is Settled: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Maximus Arc Limited v. Ms. Mummaneni Vasra Laxmi
Case Number : IA (IBC)/1942/2025 in Company Petition IB/36/7/HDB/2022 U/s 7 of IBC CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 252
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 March, held that even though the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, does not expressly provide for withdrawal of liquidation proceedings, the Tribunal can exercise its inherent powers in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri recalled the liquidation process against Ravi Cranes & Movers Ltd., preventing the liquidation from proceeding further.
NCLT Indore Rejects Suspended Management Plea To Join GEI Power Resolution Plan Approval Proceedings
Case Title : Carnet Elias Fernandes Vs Jagdish Kumar Parulkar RP of GEI Power Ltd Case Number : Inv.P/1(MP)2026 in IA(Plan)/5(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/49(MP)2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 251
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected a plea by the suspended management of GEI Power Ltd. seeking to take part in the proceedings where the Tribunal is considering approval of the company's resolution plan, holding that former management cannot intervene at this stage after the lenders have already approved the plan.
Refusing the request, the tribunal said that allowing such participation would go against the limited role of the court at the plan approval stage, observing that, “Impleading the Applicant at this stage would have the practical effect of inviting commercial objections to a plan that has already been approved by the CoC with the requisite voting share, which would directly impinge upon the commercial wisdom of the CoC and would be contrary to the settled law on the subject."
Case Title : Bank of Maharashtra v. Smt. Nukala Savithri and ors.
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 181/95/HDB/2022u/s. 95 of IBC, 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 254
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently reiterated that an objection based on insufficient stamp duty on a guarantee deed cannot defeat proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, admitting a personal insolvency petition filed by Bank of Maharashtra against Nukala Savithri, personal guarantor to SVSVS Projects Private Limited.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri heard the petition filed for initiation of insolvency resolution against the personal guarantor, arising from default in repayment of credit facilities granted to the corporate debtor.
IBC Cannot Be Misused To Impede Recovery Process Under SARFAESI: NCLT Delhi
Case Title : Viveck Goel v. Federal Bank and Ors.
Case Number : C.P (IB) No. 4/ND/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 256
The National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, has recently dismissed an application filed under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which allows a personal guarantor to initiate insolvency proceedings against himself, holding that the provision cannot be used to stall recovery proceedings already underway under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal said the plea was a tactical attempt to take advantage of the interim moratorium under the IBC.
NCLT Chandigarh Orders Promoters Responsible For Insolvency To Vacate Majestic Hotels' Property
Case Title : Mr. Navneeet Gupta Vs Mr. Jasbir Singh Khangura & Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC/2486(CH)/2024 In CP(IB) No.180/Chd/Pb/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 257
On 17 March, the Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in the insolvency proceedings of Majestic Hotels Ltd. (corporate debtor), directed the promoters and related parties to vacate portions of the company's flagship property, Hotel Majestic Park Plaza in Ludhiana.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member K. Biswal and Technical Member K.K. Singh observed: “The intent as per the provisions of the IBC is that if the Corporate Debtor has failed to meet its obligations in payment to the Creditors, then following the process as provided in the Code, management of the CD is to be handed over to a third person who could resolve the condition of insolvency of the said Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, R1 and R4 either individually or jointly cannot claim to be treated at par with third party creditors as they are the ones responsible for the failure of the CD and bringing it to the condition of insolvency.”
Parties Cannot Reopen Claims Invoking Tribunal's Review Powers After Plan Is Approved: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation Through- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Naveen Kumar Sood, Erstwhile RP of Ujaas Energy Limited and Anr. Case Number : Review Application/1(MP)2024 in (MP) CP(IB) 9 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 262
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 19 March 2026 held that once a resolution plan is approved, parties cannot reopen claim classification by invoking the Tribunal's inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta dismissed a review application filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), which sought to modify the order approving the resolution plan of Ujaas Energy Limited.
Penal Provisions Under IBC Require Proof Of Wilful Conduct: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Kuldeep Verma, RP of KS Oils Ltd v. Ramesh Chandra Garg and Ors
Case Number : IA 164 of 2018 in TP 60 of 2019 [CP(IB) 32 of 2017]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 264
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 20 March, held that Sections 70, 72, and 74 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be invoked without clear and cogent evidence of wilful intent or fraudulent conduct.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta rejected an application seeking penal action against the erstwhile management of K.S. Oils Ltd.
Non‑Compliance Of Form FA Cannot Defeat Insolvency Settlement Backed By CoC Approval: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. R Sugumaran v. Safire Machinery Company Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/1766(CHE)/2024 in TCP(IBC)/141/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 261
On 23 March, the Chennai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that non-filing of Form FA during insolvency proceedings would not defeat a settlement where all dues were satisfied and Committee of Creditors (CoC) approval was already in place. Form FA is the prescribed application to formally request withdrawal of insolvency proceedings once the parties have reached a settlement.
A Bench of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam closed the insolvency proceedings against Safire Machinery Company Private Limited
NCLT Ahmedabad Relies On DRT Judgment To Prove Execution Of Personal Guarantees Despite No Originals
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Rushi Pradeep Mehta
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/97(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 259
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad recently relied on a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) judgment, along with prior admissions and affidavits, to hold that the execution of personal guarantees stood proved even in the absence of original documents, observing: “It is further observed that even though the original documents are not produced, the existence and execution of the guarantee stand established from (i) the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, (ii) the admission of the Personal Guarantor in earlier proceedings, and (iii) the affidavit of the consortium leader bank. In proceedings under the Code, strict rules of evidence are not applicable and _ the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to rely upon secondary evidence where sufficient foundation is laid.”
No Asset Or Repayment Assessment Needed At Admission Stage For Personal Guarantor IRP: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. S Senthil Kumar v. Canara Bank
Case Number : CP(IB)/325 (CHE)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 263
The Chennai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 23 March held that at the stage of admission under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority need not assess the repayment capacity or sufficiency of assets of a personal guarantor.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramanian admitted the petition filed by Senthil Kumar, a personal guarantor to Biogen Fertilizers India Private Limited, seeking initiation of an Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) against himself.
OTS Proposals By Corporate Debtor Extend Limitation Against Personal Guarantors: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Rushi Pradeep Mehta
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/97(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 259
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad recently held that One Time Settlement proposals made by the borrower can amount to acknowledgment of liability and extend limitation in insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed, “The OTS proposals placed on record demonstrate acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even if such proposals were initiated by the Corporate Debtor, the liability of the Personal Guarantors being coextensive under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such acknowledgment ensures to the benefit of the Financial Creditor against the guarantors as well, in the absence of any contractual exclusion. Further, the judgment and Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal constitute a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, the application is held to be within limitation.”
Case Title : Santanu T. Ray vs Axis Bank
Case Number : I.A. (IBC) 1521(KB) of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 265
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has held that the procedural requirements under the IBBI Circular dated November 4, 2025, which provides for approaching the PMLA Special Court for restitution of attached assets, cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat or delay the relief sought in the present application during an ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Kaizen Power.
A coram of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah observed: “In that view of the matter, the procedural requirement as envisaged under the aforesaid Circular cannot be applied retrospectively so as to defeat or delay the relief sought in the present application, particularly when the issue pertains to custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor during subsistence of CIRP.”
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.
NCLT Ahmedabad Approves Niyogi Enterprise's ₹35.9 Crore Capital Reduction
Case Title : Niyogi Enterprises Private Limited (In the matter of reduction of share capital)
Case Number : CP/12(AHM) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 270
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad has approved a Rs 35.9 crore capital reduction by Niyogi Enterprise, holding that the scheme does not prejudice any stakeholder and that objections raised by the Income Tax Department can be examined independently under applicable law.
A bench of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. V.G. Venkata Chalapathy was dealing with a petition under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking confirmation of the reduction of the company's issued, subscribed, and paid-up 9% redeemable non-cumulative non-convertible preference share capital to nil.
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.
IBBI
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's (IBBI) Disciplinary Committee has recently suspended the registration of insolvency professional Anil Anchalia for two years for continuing to operate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) bank account of Gemus Engineering Limited after the commencement of liquidation. The CIRP of Gemus Engineering Limited commenced on April 30, 2024 pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, which appointed Arun Kumar Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Anchalia was subsequently appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP) on July 18, 2024.
IBBI Suspends Byju's Former Resolution Professional Pankaj Srivastava For Three Years
The Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has suspended the registration of insolvency professional Pankaj Srivastava for three years, holding that he improperly reconstituted the Committee of Creditors in the insolvency of Think and Learn Private Limited, the parent company of the ed-tech firm Byju's, and misled the Adjudicating Authority.
In its order dated February 24, 2026, the Committee, comprising Whole Time Members Bhushan Kumar Sinha and Jayanti Prasad, held that Srivastava filed two separate applications before the Tribunal, both stating that the Committee of Creditors was constituted on August 21, 2024, but showing entirely different compositions.
IBBI Introduces Electronic Forms To Monitor Insolvency Processes Of Personal Guarantors
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on March 6, 2026, introduced a set of electronic forms to monitor insolvency resolution processes involving personal guarantors to corporate debtors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As per the circular, resolution professionals currently submit periodic updates regarding such processes through emails which, the Board noted is “time-consuming and inefficient”.
To address this, the IBBI has developed a set of electronic forms which, according to the Board, will facilitate systematic and transparent record-keeping and seamless reporting.
IBBI Simplifies Liquidation Reporting With Four New Online Forms
Circular No: IBBI/LIQ/91/2026
Date: January 05, 2026
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has introduced a simplified framework for reporting liquidation updates to the board. To facilitate the same, the Board has introduced four new online forms that track a company's liquidation from start to finish.
In a circular issued on Monday (Januray 5) , the Board said the revised system applies from January 1, 2026, and replaces the existing liquidation reporting framework.
Directors No Longer Need Annual KYC, MCA Moves Filing To Three-Year Cycle
Notification: Gazette Notification No. G.S.R 943 (E) dated 31st December, 2025
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has relaxed compliance requirements for company directors by moving Director Know Your Customer filings from an annual exercise to once every three years.
The change was notified on December 31, 2025, through the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2025, and will take effect from March 31, 2026.
As per the new rules, individual directors who hold a Director Identification Number as on March 31 of a financial year will no longer have to complete KYC every year. Instead, they will be required to file a KYC intimation once after every three consecutive financial years.
IBBI Appellate Authority Raps Valuer Over 'Nil' Valuation of Assets Worth ₹960 Crore In Uniply CIRP
The Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has set aside a lenient three-month suspension imposed on a registered valuer for assigning nil value to financial assets worth over Rs 960 crore, including cash, during the insolvency process of Uniply Industries Limited.
In an order dated January 7, 2026, IBBI Chairperson Ravi Mital said the penalty was far too mild and sent the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee for fresh consideration. The valuer, R. Vaidyanathan, has also been barred from taking any new assignments until the show cause notice is finally decided.
OTHER STORIES
Lok Sabha Passes IBC Amendment Bill 2025
The Lok Sabha on Monday passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, bringing in a creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process and tightening timelines for admission and disposal of cases under the Code.
According to Finance Minister Niramala Sitharaman, the bill seeks to replace the pre-packaged insolvency regime with a more efficient one. "The earlier framework was not fully utilised. It is now being replaced by a new creditor-initiated insolvency framework featuring out-of-court settlements, debtor-in-possession, and creditor-in-control models,", she said.