LiveLawBiz IBC Weekly Digest: March 9 To March 14
Kirit Singhania
15 March 2026 2:45 PM IST
HIGH COURT
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.”
NCLAT
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.”
NCLT
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.
IBBI
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.