LiveLawBiz IBC Weekly Digest: March 15 To March 21
Kirit Singhania
22 March 2026 11:30 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
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.”
HIGH COURT
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.
NCLAT
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.”
NCLT
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.