LiveLawBiz IBC Weekly Digest: March 2 To March 7
Kirit Singhania
8 March 2026 10:52 AM IST
HIGH COURT
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.
NCLAT
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."
NCLT
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.
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.