LiveLawBiz IBC Weekly Digest: February 16 To February 21
Kirit Singhania
22 Feb 2026 11:30 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
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.
HIGH COURT
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.
NCLAT
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).
NCLT
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.