LiveLawBiz IBC Monthly Digest: March 2026
Kirit Singhania
1 April 2026 11:20 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.”
Case Title : LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Case Number : MISC.APPLICATION NO.1256 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 126
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of its February 25, 2025 order dismissing an SLP in a dispute over an agreement to sell a property of a corporate debtor, holding that a disposed Special Leave Petition cannot be reopened on the basis of subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings or rival financial offers before the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the court cannot sit in appeal over the comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or substitute its own view for the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited vs Bhuvan Madan
Case Number : Diary No. 18505 of 2026
Vedanta Ltd has moved the Supreme Court assailing the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order declining interim relief against implementation of Adani Enterprises' resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
The plan, approved by the NCLT on March 17, 2026, with a 93.81% CoC vote, is under challenge over the alleged non-consideration of Vedanta's higher bid in breach of the value maximisation objective under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
HIGH COURT
Single Judicial Member Of NCLT Can Pass Orders If Authorised By President: Kerala High Court
Case Title : K.N. Narayanan v. The Registrar of Kochi Bench and Anr.
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 5934 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 45
The Kerala High Court on 18 February, held that a Single Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can pass orders if the President of the Tribunal specifically authorises them under the proviso to Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
A Bench of Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition challenging orders passed by a Single Judicial Member of the NCLT, Kochi Bench, upholding the validity of the directions.
IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar MPID Attachment Proceedings In NSEL Scam: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Dulisons Cereals vs State of Maharashtra, National Spot Exchange Ltd
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 137
The Bombay High Court recently held that the interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot bar attachment proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act in connection with the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) payment crisis.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak dismissed an appeal filed by Dulisons Cereals, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Kanta Gupta, challenging an order of the Special MPID Court rejecting its application seeking a stay of proceedings for attachment of its properties.
Case Title : Attukal Devi institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. Represented by its RP v. Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust
Case Number : OP (RC) NO. 223 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 50
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority after finding that an appeal against a corporate debtor had been taken up despite a moratorium being in force under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed, “Under Section 14(1), it is clearly stated that once a moratorium is declared, there cannot be an institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. The appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.”
Bombay High Court Flags Misuse Of IBC By Borrowers To Stall SARFAESI Recovery After Auction Sale
Case Title : Rozina Firoz Hajiani & Ors. Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5157 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 145
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday flagged a disturbing trend of defaulting borrowers invoking provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to frustrate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, even after auction rights had crystallised in favour of auction purchasers.
A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing a writ petition filed by auction purchasers challenging a November 26, 2025 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai, which had halted further steps after accepting the borrowers' claim that a moratorium under the IBC had been triggered.
Moratorium Doesn't Extinguish The Criminal Liability In Terms Of 32A When The Plan Is Not Approved.
Case Title : M/S Jas Infrastructure and Power Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : CRL.A. 1596/2025, CRL.M.A. 34399/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 294
The Delhi High Court on 17 March 2026 held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) only creates a temporary moratorium and does not extinguish criminal liability. Protection under Section 32A is available only after the approval of a resolution plan that brings about a qualifying change in management.
The Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the plea of JAS Infrastructure and Power Ltd. seeking suspension of sentence in a coal block allocation case.
Case Title : Vishal Ganpat Shinde vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 30071 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 164
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed writ petitions filed by a suspended director of Gokul Sugar Industries Ltd and a financial creditor challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal refusing withdrawal of insolvency proceedings. The court held that after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, the corporate debtor is represented by the interim resolution professional and not by the suspended management.
NCLAT
NCLAT Reaffirms IBC Proceedings Against Personal Guarantor Not Barred By SARFAESI Action
Case Title : Vibu Venkatsubramanian Vs State Bank of India & ARCK Resolution Professional LLP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1228/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 84
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reiterated that the pendency of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act does not bar the initiation of personal insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), noting that the Code overrides other laws.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra observed, “As per provisions of Section 238 of IBC, 2016, the Code overrides other laws and there is no bar of filing application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 during the pendency of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.”
NCLAT Dismisses Rolta Employees' Appeal Challenging Resolution Plan Payout
Case Title : Mohammed Ismail Ansari& Ors Vs Dr Mamta Binani & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 241/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 83
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently dismissed an appeal filed by former employees of Rolta India Ltd challenging the approval of the company's resolution plan, holding that the payout made to them complied with the terms recorded by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding payment of their dues.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra noted that the NCLT had recorded that the resolution plan would provide payment to employees equal to the higher of (i) twelve months' salary entitlement or (ii) the percentage payable to unsecured financial creditors.
Case Title : Rakshit Dhirajlal Doshi & Mr Ashit Doshi Vs Mr Chirag Shah
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1855/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 82
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that remuneration paid to directors for their managerial services cannot be treated as fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (which deals with fraudulent or wrongful trading carried on with intent to defraud creditors) in the absence of proof of such intent.
Setting aside an order of the Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal in the CIRP of Doshion Water Umbrella (Cuddalore) Pvt. Ltd., the appellate tribunal said there was no cogent evidence to show fraudulent intent behind the payments.
Case Title : Mangalam Global Enterprise Limited Versus Catalyst Trusteeship Limited and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 114 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 81
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that a fixed deposit forming part of the corporate debtor's assets in the Information Memorandum cannot be withheld after approval of a resolution plan when no claim asserting lien or security was filed during the corporate insolvency resolution process.
A coram of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that claims not asserted during CIRP stand extinguished once the resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLAT Dismisses Sri Bajrang Wind Park Insolvency Plea Against Inox Wind Over Pre-Existing Dispute
Case Title : Bajrang Wind Park Developers Versus M/s Inox Wind Infrastructure Services Limited and Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 630 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 80
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Sri Bajrang Wind Park Developers challenging the rejection of its Section 9 insolvency petition against Inox Wind Infrastructure Services Limited. The tribunal held that email correspondence and reconciliation discussions between the parties showed the existence of a pre-existing dispute.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka held, “From the pleadings and particularly email exchange which is on record, one can safely come to a conclusion that these are not spurious or moonshine disputes and these were pre-existing disputes. Thus, the Company petition under Section 9 of the Code is not maintainable and cannot be allowed.”
Case Title : D.N.V Srinivasa Raju Vs IDBI Bank Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1189/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 79
Reiterating that acknowledgment of liability in balance sheets extends limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has upheld the admission of IDBI Bank's Section 7 insolvency application against Hindustan Insecticides Limited.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that the insolvency application was not barred by limitation, as the corporate debtor had acknowledged the subsisting liability in its audited financial statements within the limitation period.
Judicial Custody Of MD No Ground To Claim Natural Justice Violation If Counsel Appeared: NCLAT
Case Title : Durga Prasanna Mishra Vs. Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 320 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 78
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently observed that the principle of natural justice is not violated merely because the Managing Director of a corporate debtor was in judicial custody during insolvency proceedings, where the company was duly represented by counsel.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed: “The Appellant being in custody from 25.10.2025 till 26.11.2025 cannot be any ground for alleging violation of principle of natural justice when on 22.08.2025, Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has appeared and prayed for time to file reply.”
Winding Up Petitions Transferred From High Court To NCLT Cannot Be Admitted Mechanically: NCLAT
Case Title : Navin Ashokkumar Aswani Vs Falcon Industries and Rajendra Sanghi
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 109/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 76
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently held that a winding up petition transferred from a High Court to the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be admitted mechanically. Even if the High Court had already admitted the winding up petition, the NCLT must independently examine whether the requirements for admission under Section 9 of the Code are satisfied.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “After transfer of the Winding Up Petition by the High Court to the NCLT after admission of the Winding Up Petition, NCLT has not to mechanically admit the petition and has to examine the application in accordance with provisions of the I&B Code and to pass a judicial order after considering as to whether the application need to be admitted under Section 9 or not"
NCLAT Holds Section 198 Cannot Be Used To Extend IBC Appeal Deadline, Rejects IBBI's 103-Day Delay
Case Title : Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : I.A. No. 391 of 2026 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 110 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 75
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that a provision allowing delay to be excused when the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India fails to perform a statutory duty cannot be used to extend the strict deadline for filing appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed, “The said provision of Section 198 can have no relevance with regard to Section 61 of the IBC, which provides for limitation for filing an Appeal. The Appellant has not been able to refer to any provisions under the IBC, where the Board has been required to perform a function of filing an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within the specified time."
Case Title : Reliance Realty Limited Vs Alturist Customer Management India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2077/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 86
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently upheld the dismissal of an insolvency plea filed by Reliance Realty Limited against Altruist Customer Management India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the dispute between the parties over rental liability was genuine and could not be resolved through proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka observed that the disagreement raised by the corporate debtor was substantive in nature.
Case Title : Rajeev Khurana v. Sh. Arvind Kumar, RP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1332 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 87
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Tuesday observed that disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against the Resolution Professional (RP) in other Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRPs) cannot be relied upon to invalidate the claim verification exercise undertaken in the CIRP of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, "We are of the view that disciplinary action in other cases are not relevant for invalidation of the claim verification exercise undertaken by the RP in the present CIRP. The IBC envisages distinct remedial mechanisms for regulatory oversight of insolvency professionals, which cannot be conflated with adjudicatory proceedings under Section 60(5) of the IBC. Hence, the Adjudicating Authority was justified is not being swayed by the rationale of this argument either.”
Case Title : Tejinder Pal Setia v Sh. Arvind Kumar
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1348 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 88
On Tuesday 10 March, the Principle Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi held that a forensic audit report commissioned by suspended management is inadmissible due to bias, conflict of interest, and a breach of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) confidentiality.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra, was hearing an appeal by the suspended management of Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. challenging the inadmissibility of a forensic audit report they had independently commissioned during CIRP.
Case Title : Suman Chopra Vs Arvind Kumar
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1331/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 90
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Tuesday upheld the rejection of a homebuyer's claim filed four days before a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting to vote on resolution plan, noting that under the CIRP Regulations, belated claims can be admitted only if they are submitted up to seven days before such meetings.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, "When we look at the above CIRP Regulations, it is amply clear that the RP can accept claims only up to seven days before the date on which the CoC is to approve the resolution plan. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant had not submitted their claims seven days before the CoC meeting to approve the resolution plan. The Adjudicating Authority had therefore not committed any error in the given facts and circumstances in not acceding to the request of the Appellant for admission of their claims."
Liquidator Cannot Appeal His Own Replacement As He Is Not 'Person Aggrieved' Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Ramachandran Subramanian Vs Anil Kohli and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (EARCL).
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 267/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 91
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday held that a liquidator cannot maintain an appeal challenging his replacement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), ruling that removal from such a statutory assignment does not create a vested entitlement to continue in office.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed, “It is well settled that once the Adjudicating Authority, for reasons recorded, directs replacement of a Liquidator, he cannot claim continuation as a matter of right. Section 61 permits an appeal by a 'person aggrieved'. Removal from a statutory assignment, without affecting any independent civil or proprietary right, does not automatically create a vested entitlement to continue and such a person cannot be treated as 'person aggrieved' and would therefore have no locus to maintain an appeal before this tribunal merely on the ground of replacement,”
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency Against Al-Dua, Rejects Plea That Debt Was Transferred To Another Company
Case Title : Mohd. Zaheer Vs Ashu Agencies & Anr
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1526/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 93
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently upheld the admission of insolvency proceedings against Al-Dua Food Processing Pvt. Ltd., rejecting the plea of its ex-promoter Mohd. Zaheer that the company was not liable to pay the operational debt as the liability had been transferred to another entity under a Share Purchase Agreement.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra held that the defence of transfer of liability was not established, observing, “The corporate debtor is neither entitled to benefit of the Section 41 of the Contract Act, 1872 nor the contract under which the corporate debtor has liability to pay for outstanding dues of the operational creditor can be said to have been novated within meaning of Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. We, thus are of the view that there being debt and default committed by the corporate debtor, adjudicating authority has rightly admitted Section 9 application.”
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Ltd. v. Seikh Abdul Salam, RP of Jai Gokul Towers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 848 and 1009 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7183 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 92
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi has recently set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, which had declared the confirmation of an auction sale and the sale certificate in respect of the corporate debtor's share in a mortgaged property as null and void, holding that the same had been issued after commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and during the moratorium.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “The subject properties having already been sold and sale confirmation has been made in favour of the Auction Purchaser on 20.11.2023, i.e. much before commencement of the CIRP on 01.01.2024, moratorium had no effect on the sale having already become absolute. The order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Adjudicating Authority is unsustainable.”
IBC Applies To Multi-State Cooperative Societies Despite MSCS Act Excluding Companies Act: NCLAT
Case Title : Mehsana Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Swastik Ceracon Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1956/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 95
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently held that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can be maintained against a multi-state cooperative society. It said the jurisdiction of the insolvency tribunal cannot be excluded by relying on the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, which excludes the applicability of the Companies Act, 2013.
The ruling came while the tribunal upheld a direction requiring Mehsana Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd to refund 56 lakh to Swastik Ceracon Limited in a dispute arising out of insolvency resolution proceedings.
Case Title : Minita D Raja Vs The Cosmos Co-Op Bank Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1799/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 97
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that the Adjudicating Authority can fix the fees of the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional only in cases where the applicant initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) has not proposed the fee and that otherwise the power to determine such expenses lies exclusively with the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
The coram of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha observed, “We observe that only in case, the applicant seeking initiation of CIRP, if do not propose fee of the IRP then only, there is a jurisdiction vested to the Adjudicating Authority to fix the expenses under Regulation 33(2) of the CIRP Regulations. We find that the CoC enjoys exclusive powers of fixing the fees and expenses to be incurred by the resolution professional based on the commercial wisdom of the CoC. We further observe that there is no jurisdiction vested to the Adjudicating Authority on this aspect.”
Third Parties Entitled To Certified Copies Of NCLT Orders To File Appeals: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : SA Jhan Mohammed vs Ashish Vyas
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No. 70/ 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 96
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, on 27 February, observed that certified copies of NCLT orders must be issued even to third parties who were not part of the original proceedings if they seek to challenge the order in appeal.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain was hearing an appeal filed by SA Jhan Mohammed against an order concerning Maan Sarovar Properties Development Pvt Ltd.
Case Title : Era Infra Engineering Ltd Vs Alok Kumar Agarwal, IRP
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1693/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 98
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that approval of the resolution plan of Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (EIEL), the holding company of Haridwar Highways Project Ltd. (HHPL), does not prevent creditors from initiating insolvency proceedings against HHPL and corporate guarantor Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (EIIL), while dismissing appeals filed by EIEL challenging admission of Section 7 petitions.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed that, “The rights of the financial creditor under Section 7 to proceed against the principal borrower and the corporate guarantor are separate and independent rights, which rights can be exercised by the financial creditor without any kind of fetter from the approval of the resolution plan of the EIEL.”
Case Title : IDBI Bank Ltd Vs Ravindra Kumar Goyal
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 853/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 99
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 16 March, held that the “deeming” fiction created by law empowers the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to continue as the Resolution Professional (RP) even if not formally confirmed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the first meeting. A Bench of Judicial Member Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed:
“The objective of IBC is a time bound resolution of a Corporate Debtor and hence, Section 16(5) of the IBC read with Regulation 17(3) of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 seeks to prevent a situation where a time bound CIRP gets stalled merely because the CoC fails to confirm the Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the Ld. NCLT as the Resolution Professional, or fails to appoint someone else as the RP.”
Case Title : Vave India Energy Solutions Private Limited Vs Eastman Auto & Power Limited Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1612/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 100
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently refused to allow insolvency proceedings to be initiated in a dispute between Vave India Energy Solutions Private Limited and Eastman Auto & Power Limited. The tribunal found that the case arose from complaints about defective batteries supplied under warranty and that the liability had been disputed before the statutory demand notice was issued.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra observed, “It is sufficient that the pre-existing dispute is genuine and is raised prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016. Considering that the dispute was raised prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the IBC, 2016, the Ld. NCLT has rightly rejected the application of the Operational Creditor.”
Filing CIRP To Evade Tax Liabilities Amounts To Fraud: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Gopal Trading Company Vs Ravindra Kumar Goyal and Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 222/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 101
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on 17 March, held that initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a corporate debtor to evade tax liabilities amounts to fraud under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed: “Thus, what seems to underpin the reason for triggering CIRP proceedings was clearly to circumvent the tax liability. It is clearly evident from the timing of CIRP admission that the moratorium provision was being put to use by the Appellant to shield themselves from their tax liabilities and not as a genuine resolution tool.”
Case Title : Velocity Enterprises Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 538 & 539 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 102
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi on Friday directed that the bank guarantee furnished by Velocity Enterprises, a subcontractor engaged by Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) for erection and maintenance of substations, shall not be invoked for six months beyond its expiry on March 31, 2026. The order came in the first appeal filed after the National Company Law Tribunal approved Adani Group's Rs 15,000-crore resolution plan for the company.
The matter was heard by a bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra.
RBI Circular Cannot Override IBC; Written Agreement Not Mandatory To Prove Financial Debt: NCLAT
Case Title : Subham Capital Private Limited Vs Vedic Realty Private Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2068/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 103
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has held that RBI circulars requiring written loan agreements cannot override the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal observed that it is “a clear derivative” of its earlier judgments that the RBI circular does not prevail over IBC proceedings and that a written agreement is not mandatory to establish financial debt under the Code.
Case Title : Subham Capital Private Limited Vs Vedic Realty Private Limited
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2068/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 104
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that Subham Capital Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to file a fresh Section 7 petition against Vedic Realty Pvt. Ltd. after breach of a settlement agreement, ruling that the subsequent default gave rise to a new cause of action and was not barred by res judicata. A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed:
“The breach of settlement clearly gave rise to a new cause of action in favour of the Appellant to file a Section 7 application and the Adjudicating Authority had misdirected itself by applying the principles of res judicata in the present case.”
Case Title : SPS Steels Rolling Mills Limited Vs Central Bank of India
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 352/2024 and 353/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 106
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently held, in the insolvency of SPS Steels Rolling Mills Ltd, that the successful resolution applicant is not required to specify every asset of the corporate debtor in the resolution plan, and assets not mentioned in the information memorandum do not cease to belong to the corporate debtor after approval of the plan.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Technical Member Naresh Salecha, after examining the insolvency regulations governing the contents of the information memorandum and the resolution plan, observed, “We find that in above quoted regulations regarding Resolution Plan, no such stipulation has been made that SRA is bound to give such specific details of the assets being taken over. The Appellant gave its Resolution Plan based on the information memorandum prepared by the Resolution Professional. It is also observed that in information memorandum there was no clause that any assets not mentioned in the information memorandum will not be passed on the Appellant being the SRA, or in other words such assets will be given to Erstwhile CoC.”
Case Title : Sunrise Industries Vs Umesh Gupta
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2269/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 107
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has recently observed that fairness in insolvency asset sales cannot be viewed from the perspective of a single bidder alone, while dismissing Sunrise Industries' appeal seeking consideration of its higher bid submitted after the deadline in the liquidation process of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed that,
“Fairness is a constant that works differently in different factual context. And it needs to be understood in the context. The appellant who worries about denial of fairness to it has overlooked fairness to which the second respondent is entitled to. It is desperate to realise its dues....Fairness does not exist to the exclusion of all, but works in conjunction with all. It is not a one-way street.”
Case Title : Indu Jain Vs Birla Jewels Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1840/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 108
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Principal Bench at New Delhi has recently allowed an appeal filed by a sole proprietorship against rejection of its insolvency plea, holding that a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is maintainable at the instance of a proprietorship concern. The tribunal relied on earlier precedent to hold that proprietorship firms are competent to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process.
NCLAT Refuses To Stay Adani's Rs 15,000 Cr Resolution Plan For JAL on Vedanta's Challenge
Case Title : Vedanta Limited Vs. Bhuvan Madan Resolution Professional of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 552 and 553 /2026
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, on Tuesday refused to stay the implementation of Adani's ₹15,000-crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) while hearing a plea by the Vedanta Group challenging the approval of the plan by the Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said that “the implementation of the resolution plan shall go on, however, the action shall abide with the result of the case,” while declining to grant an interim stay on the March 17, 2026 order approving the plan submitted by Adani Enterprises Limited.
CIRP Must Remain Confined To Single Project, Cannot Affect Other Projects: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Navin M. Raheja v. Vipul Jain & Ors.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2168 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 109
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at New Delhi, on 20 March 2026 held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by the allottees of a single real estate project must stay confined to that project and cannot extend to other projects of the developer.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra disposed of an appeal filed by the suspended director of Raheja Developers Ltd., Navin M. Raheja, against the NCLT, New Delhi. The NCLT had admitted a Section 7 application filed by the allottees of project Raheja Shilas (Low Rise).
Case Title : Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs AS Met Corp Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 210/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 110
In a case that was transferred to the Principal Bench after a controversy over alleged attempts to influence a judicial member, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside the admission of insolvency proceedings against KLSR Infratech Ltd and dismissed a Rs 3.79-crore claim filed by A.S. Met Corp Pvt Ltd, holding that a genuine dispute existed between the parties and imposing costs of Rs 10 lakh on the operational creditor.
Limitation Act Cannot Extend Time To Appeal Against Liquidator's Rejection Of Claim Under IBC: NCLAT
Case Title : Sansar Investment & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (Liquidator)
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.466/2024 and (IA No.1271/2024) CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 111
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, has recently held that the 14-day limitation period for filing an appeal against a liquidator's decision under Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a self-contained time limit and cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act through Section 238A of the Code.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey held that Section 238A applies only where the Code does not itself prescribe a specific limitation period and that Section 42 contains a self-contained time limit for filing an appeal.
After Submitting EoI Under RFRP, Resolution Applicant Cannot Question Its Clauses: NCLAT
Case Title : Goldendreams Buildcon Private Limited v. Snehal Arvind Kamdar (RP of Somerset Construction Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 112
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that a resolution applicant cannot question clauses of the Request for Resolution Plan after submitting its Expression of Interest under the same RFRP, while challenging rejection of its resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra observed, “When the Appellant had submitted their EoI basis the RFRP, they cannot now turn around to question any of the clauses of the RFRP. Having submitted their EoI in terms of the RFRP tantamount to subscribing to the clauses of the RFRP and that having been done, applicability of Clause 12 cannot be questioned at this stage when the plan has been rejected.”
Successive Fraud Plea Not Maintainable Under IBC After Finality Of CIRP Admission: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : N.K Kurian v. K. Easwara Pillai
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 557/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 113
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Chennai on Tuesday held that a party cannot file successive applications under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to indirectly reopen insolvency proceedings that have already attained finality.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain dismissed the appeal filed by N.K. Kurian, the suspended Managing Director of Mango Meadows Agricultural Pleasure Land Pvt Ltd, noting deliberate concealment of material facts and abuse of process.
Case Title : BSE Limited Vs Avil Menzes & Ors and BSE Limited Vs Mrudula Brodie & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1786/2025 and Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1862/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 114
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Tuesday held that once dues against a corporate debtor stand crystallised and the dispute relates to recovery affecting the insolvency or liquidation process, the matter falls within the ambit of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. In such cases, the National Company Law Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass directions concerning the assets of the corporate debtor, even if the action originates under the securities law.
Case Title : Raja Sekhara Rao Narayanam and Ors. vs. Kalvakolanu Murali Krishna Prasad and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.98/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 115
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at Chennai has recently held it is not required to examine the reasons behind a bank's decision to reject a one-time settlement proposal while deciding whether insolvency proceedings should continue, so long as debt and default are established.
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the suspended directors of Anand Bharathi Fertilisers (India) Pvt Ltd against the admission of insolvency proceedings at the instance of Canara Bank.
Case Title : Atul Babulal Prajapati and Pinal Prajapati Vs Suhas Dinkar Bhattbhatt
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2273/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 117
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Wednesday held that extinguishment of receivables through accounting entries can amount to a transfer of property under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and where such adjustments benefit related parties and reduce the corporate debtor's asset pool, the transaction may be treated as preferential under Section 43 of the Code.
Limitation To File Appeal Under IBC Begins From Date Of Pronouncement In Open Court: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Mukesh Sumermal Sanghvi v. R. D. Engineer (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1194 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 116
The Principle Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), at New Delhi on 25 March, held that the limitation period to file an appeal under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, begins from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open court, not from the date of its uploading on the NCLT portal.
A Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Member Arun Baroka clarified that uploading constitutes only an administrative act.
NCLAT New Delhi Upholds NCLT Order Cancelling Anil Syal Property Auction Over Procedural Lapses
Case Title : Akshat Gupta Vs Union Bank of India &Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1577/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 119
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 25 March, held that the auction of Anil Syal's 50% undivided share in a Uday Park residential flat was procedurally flawed due to inadequate notice, undervaluation, and lack of stakeholder consultation, justifying fresh valuation and re‑auction.
A Bench of Judicial Member Justice N Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey dismissed an appeal filed by successful bidder Akshat Gupta.
Case Title : Nandani Singh v. Sandeep Kr. Bhatt and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.60 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 118
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on 25 March, held that in the case of a continuing guarantee enforceable on demand, the limitation under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, runs from the date of the enforceable-demand notice and not from the date of execution of the guarantee document. A Bench comprising Justice N. Seshasayee and Technical Members Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey observed:
“It is far too fundamental a point that where a deed of guarantee provides for its invocation through a demand, then the liability under the same becomes enforceable only on demand. It is admitted that the notice under Sec.13(2) SARFAESI Act was issued on 27.02.2019 and the default commenced 27.04.2019. Necessarily the petition filed under Sec.95 IBC on 30.12.2021 is within time.”
NCLAT Flags Petty Litigation By Income Tax Dept, Calls For CBDT Policy Action In IBC Case
Case Title : Income Tax Officer Vs M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP & Mr. Prashant Agarwal Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 286/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 120
Calling the appeal a “perfect example for wastage of valuable public resources," the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department in an insolvency matter and directed that the issue be brought to the notice of the Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for appropriate policy action against such litigation.
The appellate tribunal made the observation while upholding the approval of the resolution plan of Solar Voltaic Power LLP and rejecting the challenge raised by the Income Tax Department, which had sought a higher allocation towards its tax dues.
Acknowledgment Of Debt By Corporate Debtor Is Acknowledgment By Guarantor, Extends Limitation: NCLAT
Case Title : Phoenix Arc Private Limited Trustee of Phoenix Trust Versus Mr. Rajendra Himmatlal Salot
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2185 of 2024
CITATION : LLBiz NCLAT 121
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has recently held that acknowledgment of debt in a corporate debtor's financial statements extends the limitation period against personal guarantors, setting aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which had dismissed insolvency proceedings as time-barred. “We note that an acknowledgement made by a company in its balance sheet has the effect of extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
And that such a position has been settled in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v Bishal Jaiswal”, the tribunal said.
CIRP Cannot Be Revived After Resolution Plan Approval And Liquidation: NCLAT Chennai
Case Title : MR. G. MADHUSUDHAN RAO Vs SRA OF BHEEMA CEMENTS LIMITED
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 146/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 122
On 18 March 2026, the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be revived after approval of the resolution plan and initiation of liquidation.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey, dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. G. Madhusudhan Rao, Ex-Resolution Professional and Chairman of the Monitoring Committee of Bheema Cements Limited.
Case Title : Sushant Chhabra & Anr. v. Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 443 & 444 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 123
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi on Friday held that a fresh insolvency application against a personal guarantor filed during the subsistence of an interim moratorium triggered by an earlier application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is void from the outset and cannot be validated even if the earlier proceedings are later withdrawn.
A bench of Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra said, “The interim moratorium in Section 96 has statutory consequences, which interim moratorium although shall come to an end when application is either dismissed or admitted or withdrawn, but during the period when interim moratorium is operating, any initiation of proceeding shall be non-est in law."
Case Title : Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Vs Consortium of Crown Steels and Sunrise Industries & Ors
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 1683/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 123
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday held that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) cannot be directed to revive a concession agreement for the development of a multi-level parking and commercial project at the New Delhi Railway Station under the Airport Express Line.
The tribunal noted that the agreement had been terminated in 2017, well before the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Prime Infrapark Pvt Ltd, the special purpose vehicle to which the concession was assigned.
Non‑Issuance Of NOCs By Financial Creditor Not Fraud In Insolvency Proceedings: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title : Mr Hemant Yadav & Ors Vs IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 268/2026 & 269/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 124
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, on 27 March, held that the non-issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) by a financial creditor cannot be treated as fraudulent or malicious in the initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Section 7 petition remains valid where a corporate debtor defaults on its debt obligations, irrespective of later contractual disputes with homebuyers.
Case Title : S2 Tech.com India Pvt. Ltd Vs Mr. Birendra Kumar Agarwal, RP & CoC
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 456/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 126
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi recently set aside the approval of a resolution plan for Manjeera Constructions Limited after finding that the successful resolution applicant's earnest money deposit was credited three days after the stipulated deadline, rendering the bid non-responsive
A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Jatindranath Swain rejected the contention that the requirement stood satisfied since the amount had been debited on the last date and held that actual receipt within the deadline was mandatory.
Case Title : Surender Singh Vs IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 125
The New Delhi National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 27 March, held that insolvency proceedings in real estate cases must be confined to the specific project for which financing was raised.
A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra heard an appeal by Surender Singh, the suspended director of Vatika Limited in relation to the “Aspirations” project in Sector 88B, Gurgaon.
NCLAT Upholds NCLT Mumbai Order Directing Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupant In Infra Company CIRP
Case Title : Classic Marble Company Pvt. Ltd v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number : CA(AT)(Insolvency)/187/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 127
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has upheld an order directing eviction of an unauthorised occupant from a corporate debtor's property during insolvency proceedings.
The court upheld the NCLT Mumbai's view that a Resolution Professional can approach the NCLT to secure possession of assets and that requiring separate civil proceedings would “unduly prolong the insolvency process which is a time bound process.”
Case Title : SGN Universal Construction Company Limited Vs Shailendra Kumar Singh & Ors Case Number : Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 2207/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 129
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal by SGN Universal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. challenging observations made by the NCLT on its claimed rights over Tower 5 of the “Morpheus Bluebell” project in Greater Noida (West), developed by M/s Morpheus Prodevelopers Pvt. Ltd.
The appellate tribunal said the Adjudicating Authority had not returned any finding on those claims and that such issues fall for consideration within the insolvency process.
NCLT
Case Title : Metro Tyres Limited Vs M/S Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA 4/2026 in IB no 397/ND/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 183
The New Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has recently ordered the liquidation of electric scooter maker Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. after the company's insolvency resolution process ended without approval of any resolution plan.
A bench of Judicial Member Bachu Venkat Balaram Das and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri held that once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) expires without an approved plan, liquidation must follow under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title : N.K Kurian v. K Easwara Pillai
Case Number : IA(IBC)/115/KOB/2024 in CP(IB)/06/KOB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 182
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi on Friday held that a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be considered during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in the absence of a liquidation order.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed that the statutory framework places schemes under Section 230 at the post-liquidation stage and dismissed the application seeking its sanction as premature.
NCLT Delhi Refuses To Initiate CIRP On Shikhar Dhawan's Plea Against Legends League Cricket Operator
Case Title : Shikhar Dhawan Vs Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited
Case Number : C.P. IB/533/ND/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 180
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at New Delhi on Thursday refused to initiate insolvency proceedings against Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd on a plea filed by Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan alleging a default of over Rs. 1.24 crore in unpaid player fees. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. owns and operates the Legends League Cricket, a franchise-based T20 tournament featuring retired international cricketers.
A bench of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi held that Dhawan failed to establish that the claimed operational debt had become due and payable.
NCLT's Residuary Jurisdiction Under IBC Cannot Be Used To Reopen NCLAT Findings: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Bhupinder Singh Rajput Vs Civic Services Holding Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA/235 (AHM) 2024 In CP(IB) 497/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 177
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently dismissed an application filed by Bhupendra Singh Rajput, holding that its jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to reopen or circumvent findings of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed, “The jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is supervisory and residuary in nature and cannot be exercised to reopen or circumvent findings rendered by the Appellate Tribunal, directly or indirectly.”
NCLT Kolkata Admits CIRP Against Saket Infra, Rules FRR Framework Cannot Bar Insolvency Proceedings
Case Title : Aditya Birla Finance Ltd vs Saket Infra Developers Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA (IB) No. 613/KB/2025 In Company Petition (IB) No. 273/KB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 176
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kolkata on 17 February, held that the RBI's Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation (FRR) for MSMEs cannot override the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or prevent a financial creditor from initiating insolvency proceedings once default is established.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra observed that the plea of MSME protection was unsustainable in the absence of any contemporaneous MSME certificate produced before the lender during loan sanction or restructuring, while admitting an insolvency petition filed by Aditya Birla Finance against Saket Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Tribunal Not A 'Court' Under BNSS, Cannot Order Prosecution For False Evidence: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Delhi Liquors vs Badri Prasad
Case Number : IA/423(MP)/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 25 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 175
The National Company Law Tribunal at Indore ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to initiate criminal prosecution under Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that such powers are vested only in courts and not in statutory tribunals. Section 215 bars cognisance of certain offences relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings except on a complaint by the concerned court, while Section 379 lays down the procedure for such courts to conduct an inquiry and file a complaint before a magistrate.
The Tribunal comprising Judicial Member Mohan P. Tiwari and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed: “The Tribunal does not possess powers akin to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, nor does it exercise criminal jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Its powers are limited, confined and circumscribed strictly by the statute creating it. It cannot assume jurisdiction by implication, analogy or equity. Penal provisions must receive strict construction. In the absence of express legislative inclusion of tribunals within the meaning of “Court” under BNSS, this Tribunal cannot invoke Sections 215 or 379 of the said enactment.”
Case Title : Ujaas Energy Ltd v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 21/BB/2026
The National Company Law Tribunal at Bengaluru on Wednesday issued notice to Public Sector Undertaking Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in a petition filed by Ujaas Energy Limited, seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code over an alleged default of Rs 8.41 crore arising out of an arbitral award.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada passed the order.
Financial Hardship No Ground To Reject Insolvency Plea Once Default Is Established: NCLT Jaipur
Case Title : Epicrop Organics Limited v. Cropberry Foods Private Limited
Case Number : CP No.(IB)-68/9/JPR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 174
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur has observed that financial hardship and liquidity constraints are not legally recognised grounds to reject an insolvency petition once default is established under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
A coram of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar admitted an application filed by Epicrop Organics Limited and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Cropberry Foods Private Limited.
NCLT Ahmedabad Denies Secured Creditor Priority To State Tax Dept. In Diamond Power Liquidation
Case Title : State Tax Officer Vs Nitin Parikh
Case Number : IA/1060 (AHM) 2025 in CP (IB)28 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 173
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad, has recently reiterated that priority in liquidation is governed strictly by Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), while dismissing a plea by the State Tax Officer to be treated as a secured creditor in the liquidation of Diamond Power Transformer Ltd.
“The priority of claims during liquidation is governed strictly by Section 53 and no deviation is permissible based on general statutory charges created under other enactments,” a coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed.
Case Title : Dr. Ayyappan Nair Raghavan Pillai v. CoC of M/s Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited
Case Number : IA(IBC)/2/KOB/2026 in IA(IBC)/379/KOB/2025 in CP(IB)/22/KOB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 172
The National Company Law Tribunal at Kochi has recently observed that insolvency proceedings cannot be converted into a full-fledged evidentiary trial. It ruled that powers under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be used to reopen the commercial evaluation undertaken by the Committee of Creditors.
Dismissing an application filed by an unsuccessful resolution applicant in the insolvency process of Attukal Devi Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Judicial Member Vinay Goel held that the Tribunal's jurisdiction in matters concerning approval of a resolution plan is limited by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Revival Of Insolvency After Settlement Breach Not A Recovery Action: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : SN Global v. Aksa Paper Mills Private Limited.
Case Number : Res. App. 33 of 2025 in CP(I.B) NO. 165 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 184
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad, recently observed that when a settlement recognised by a judicial order is breached, the revival of insolvency proceedings does not amount to using the insolvency process as a recovery tool but merely restores the legal consequence that had already been adjudicated.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma made the observation while reviving insolvency proceedings against Aksa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : M/s Aidem Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. News24 Broadcast India Limited.
Case Number : TP (Co. Act.)- 38(PB)/2023 Old CP No. 451/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 185
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi, on 13 February, dismissed three petitions seeking the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) filed by Aidem Ventures against NEWS24 Broadcast India Limited, holding that the claims involved pre-existing contractual disputes and were primarily aimed at recovery of dues, not resolution of the corporate debtor.
A Bench comprising President Ramalingam Sudhakar and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi observed that under Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Adjudicating Authority cannot adjudicate contractual disputes at the CIRP initiation stage.
Case Title : State Tax Officer-3 vs. Mr Alok Kailash Saksena
Case Number : IA No. 497 of 2020 in CP (IB) 116/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 186
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently held that the liquidator of Gujarat Foils Ltd. was justified in rejecting a VAT and CST claim of about Rs 211.87 crore filed by the State Tax Department during the company's liquidation, finding that the liabilities were still disputed and pending before appellate authorities.
A bench of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. V.G. Venkata Chalapathy observed that the claim could not be admitted when the underlying tax demands had not been finally determined.
Case Title : Tata Power EV Charging Solutions Ltd vs Cab-Eez Infra Tech Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) 478 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 187
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has allowed the withdrawal of Rs. 1.9 crore insolvency proceedings initiated by Tata Power EV Charging Solutions Ltd. against Cab-Eez Infra Tech Ltd. after the parties reached a settlement.
On February 2, 2026, a bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati permitted withdrawal of Tata Power's insolvency plea under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after noting that the companies had entered into consent terms.
Bankruptcy Trustee Not Automatically Discharged Upon Filing Of Section 138 Application: NCLT Delhi
Case Title : Viram Vishal Minhas and anr v. Hulas Rahul Gupta and Ors .
Case Number : I.A. No. 5175/ND/2025 IN C.P.(IB) – 985/ND/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 189
The New Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 18 February, held that a Bankruptcy Trustee does not automatically stand discharged merely upon filing an application under Section 138 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Discharge occurs only upon the adjudicating authority passing an appropriate order.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri clarified that mere filing under Section 138(1) does not effectuate discharge, and the tribunal must actively consider the application before granting it.
NCLT Mumbai Allows Amendment In Oppression Petition After Expiry Of Limitation Period
Case Title : Tirupati Sankalp Realtors Private Limited v. Ruhi Realty Private Limited and Ors. Case Number : I.A. No. 178 of 2023 IN C.P. No. 1631/MB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 188
The Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 23 February allowed an amendment to a company petition under Rules 11 and 155 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, holding that a delay in filing amendments does not prevent changes needed to address the real issues, especially when the new facts could not have been discovered earlier.
A Bench, comprising Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan and Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar, was hearing an interlocutory application filed by Tirupati Sankalp Realtors Pvt. Ltd. seeking amendment of a petition instituted under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Case Title : Mahaveer Exim Vs CA, Tejas Shah
Case Number : IA/741(AHM)2025 In CP(IB) No.141/NCLT/AHM/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 191
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) recently observed that Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a residuary provision that helps the tribunal facilitate insolvency proceedings but cannot be used to grant blanket exemptions from other laws.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed,
“It is clarified that the jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code is residual and facilitative, and does not extend to granting blanket statutory exemptions or overriding substantive provisions of other enactments, except to the limited extent expressly recognized under Sections 31, 32A and 238 of the Code, and judicial precedents extending clean-slate principles to going concern sales under Regulation 32(e).”
Income Tax Refunds Determined During CIRP Form Part of Corporate Debtor's Assets: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Wind World (India} Limited Vs The Income Tax Department
Case Number : IA/996(AHM)2025 In C.P.(IB) 14(AHM) of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 190
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has recently observed that income tax refunds determined during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) form part of the assets of the corporate debtor and must remain available for the insolvency resolution process.
A coram of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed that, “Once the refund is determined under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the said amount constitutes a receivable of the Corporate Debtor and therefore forms part of the assets of the Corporate Debtor which must remain available for the insolvency resolution process.”
Case Title : SREI MULTIPLE ASSET INVESTMENT TRUST Vs. ODISHA SLURRY PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITE
Case Number : IA(IB) No.64 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CUT) 193
The National Company Law Tribunal's Cuttack bench on Tuesday dismissed a recall application filed by SREI Multiple Asset Investment Management Trust seeking recall of the orders admitting Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Ltd (OSPIL) into insolvency and approving its resolution plan. The tribunal held that the attempt amounted to an abuse of the legal process and reflected a lackadaisical attitude.
A bench comprising Acting President Deep Chandra Joshi and Technical Member Banwari Lal Meena observed that the applicant had attempted to undo a successful resolution nearly three years after the plan had attained finality, including affirmation by the Supreme Court. “This Adjudicating Authority sternly notes that the present Applicant's Application is indicative of the fact that the applicant has clearly abused the process of law and has tried to undo a successful resolution of a Respondent No. L after almost 3 years since the plan has been upheld by none other than the Apex court of the country. During the proceedings as weIl, the applicant has shown lackadaisical attitude.” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Suburban Diagnostics (India) Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/195/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 194
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has ordered the dissolution of Suburban Diagnostics (India) Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Dr Lal PathLabs, after the successful completion of its voluntary liquidation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar passed the order while noting that the process was conducted in “accordance with law”.
NCLT Bengaluru Issues Notice To Flipkart On Insolvency Plea Alleging Rs 4.37 Crore Default
Case Title : Netambit Value First Services Pvt Ltd Vs Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 329/BB/2025
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru on Wednesday issued notice to Walmart-owned e-commerce company Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. on an insolvency petition alleging a default of Rs 4.37 crore under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The petition has been filed by Netambit Value First Services Pvt. Ltd., an operational creditor, under Section 9 of the Code. A bench of Judicial Member Mahendra Khandelwal and Technical Member Ravindra Chaturvedi issued the notice after hearing counsel for the petitioner.
IBC Moratorium Operates Automatically, Not Dependent On Creditor's Knowledge Of CIRP: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Nishant Agrawal Vs Income Tax Department
Case Number : IA/366(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/48(MP)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 198
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has recently observed that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, operates automatically from the insolvency commencement date and is binding even if the creditor or statutory authority had no knowledge of the admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
A bench of Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta observed, “The statutory prohibition under Section 14(1) is absolute and automatic, and does not depend upon whether a creditor or statutory authority had actual knowledge or notice of the admission order. Any person, authority or institution whether a private creditor or a statutory instrumentality of the State is equally bound by the moratorium from the date of its commencement.”
Personal Guarantor Can Face Insolvency Even If Corporate Debtor Is In Liquidation: NCLT Indore
Case Title : State Bank of India Vs Sumit Rajpal
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/24(MP)2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 199
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has recently held that insolvency proceedings can be initiated against a personal guarantor even when liquidation proceedings against the corporate debtor are pending. The tribunal observed that the issue before it was, “whether an Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated against the Personal Guarantor of a Corporate Debtor when the Liquidation Proceedings against the Corporate Debtor are already pending?” and held that “the above issue is answered in the affirmative.”
The order was passed by Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta on an application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by State Bank of India.
Case Title : Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd Versus Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 2291/KB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 200
The National Company Law Tribunal's Kolkata bench has recently observed that once the competent Real Estate Regulatory Authority levies and realizes late fee in exercise of its statutory powers, such levy assumes the character of a statutory charge payable to the State authority and cannot be ordered to be refunded in insolvency proceedings unless it is challenged before the appropriate appellate forum under the RERA law.
A bench of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah dismissed an application filed by Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt Ltd, which is undergoing resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Bengaluru Admits CIRP Against VOI Jeans Retail India Over ₹1.11 Crore Operational Debt Default
Case Title : Raymond UCO Denim Pvt Ltd v. VOI Jeans Retain Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 204/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 201
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has admitted a petition filed by Raymond UCO Denim Pvt Ltd seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against VOI Jeans Retail India Pvt. Ltd. for an operational debt of Rs 1.1 crore.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada passed the order. Raymond UCO Denim, the operational creditor engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying denim fabrics, approached the Tribunal alleging that VOI Jeans Retail had defaulted in payment of Rs 1,11,75,455 towards invoices raised for supply of fabrics between December 31, 2023 and February 25, 2024.
NCLT Chandigarh Rejects Omkara ARC Plea Over 1267-Day Belated Claim In Vikas WSP CIRP
Case Title : Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd. Vs Mr Darshan Singh Anand
Case Number : IA(I.B.C.)/1339(CH)2025 In CP (IB) No.315/Chd/Hry/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 203
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh has dismissed a plea filed by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. seeking admission of its claim in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Vikas WSP Ltd., holding that a claim filed 1267 days after the prescribed deadline and after approval of the resolution plan cannot be entertained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Refusing to condone the delay, the bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh said the IBC is meant to ensure time-bound insolvency resolution and cannot be used to revive recovery claims at a late stage of the process.
Case Title : GKS Associates vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/949(MB)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 207
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai Bench has dismissed an insolvency petition filed by GKS Associates against Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd, a leading construction company headquartered in Mumbai, holding that an operational creditor cannot artificially inflate the claim amount through unilateral interest entries to meet the statutory threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A bench comprising Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar while dismissing the petition observed: “It is therefore safe to conclude that the present Section 9 Application has been filed by artificially inflating the alleged default through an interest claim which has no contractual or legal basis. Accordingly, the interest component claimed by the Applicant cannot be included while computing the amount of default. Upon exclusion of the said interest, the principal amount falls below the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the IBC.”
GKS Associates claimed a total default of Rs 1.38 crore, comprising Rs 77.24 lakh as principal and Rs 61.53 lakh as interest, alleging non-payment of dues arising from the supply of scaffolding and shuttering materials on hire basis for projects including Ozone Metrozone in Chennai, Christian Medical College in Vellore, and IIT Palakkad. The work orders were issued between July 2017 and January 2022 and invoices were raised periodically for equipment hire charges.
Case Title : Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vs Vijakumar V. Iyer
Case Number : MA No. 4013/MB/2019 In CP (IB) No. 302/MB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 210
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that security deposits of post-paid subscribers and unspent balances of prepaid subscribers in the insolvency proceedings of Dishnet Wireless Ltd must be treated as operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
"We have no hesitation in holding that the amount of security deposit balances refundable to post paid subscribers and the amount of un-spent balances in prepaid plans are the money collected in excess of the rates prescribed by TRAI.”, a coram of Judicial Member Ashish Kalia and Technical Member Sanjiv Dutt observed.
Part Payment By Third Party Does Not Discharge Corporate Debtor's Liability Under IBC: NCLT Cuttack
Case Title : Patnaik Steel International Ltd vs SSAB Energy & Mineral Ltd
Case Number : CP IB 23 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CUT) 211
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Cuttack recently observed that the acceptance of a part payment from a third party cannot be treated as a substitution of the corporate debtor for the entire outstanding liability, particularly when the corporate debtor itself continued to make substantial payments toward the same debt.
A coram of Acting President Deep Chandra Joshi and Technical Member Banwari Lal Meena made the observation while allowing an insolvency application filed by Patnaik Steel International Ltd against SSAB Energy and Minerals Ltd. (corporate debtor) for default in payment arising from the supply of iron ore fines.
NCLT Chandigarh Admits Paytm Insolvency Plea Against Eyemyeye Over ₹3 Crore Ads' Dues
Case Title : ONE97 Communications Limited Vs Eyemyeye Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No. 67/Chd/Hry/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 214
The Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted an insolvency petition filed by One97 Communications Ltd. (Paytm) against Eyemyeye Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, over unpaid dues of more than ₹3 crore arising from digital advertising and related services.
The bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Eyemyeye Private Limited for a total operational debt of Rs 3,03,53,925.94.
Ahmedabad NCLT Admits IDBI Trusteeship's Insolvency Petition Against Guarantor Over ₹100 Crore Debt
Case Title : IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Mr Kamlesh Gondalia
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/188(AHM)2025 With IA/140(AHM)2026 in C.P.(IB)/188(AHM)2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 217
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Monday 16 March, admitted a personal insolvency application filed by IDBI Trusteeship Services against Kamlesh Gondalia, personal guarantor of Takshashila Heights India Pvt. Ltd.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr VG Venkata Chalapathy, directed initiation of insolvency proceedings against the guarantor and imposed a moratorium of 180 days, staying legal proceedings and restricting transfer of assets. The Bench stated:
“It is immaterial whether the CD is or not under CIRP and the factual position is the CD has been admitted in to CIRP and various appeals before Honble Supreme Court havebeen turned down.”
Amaravati NCLT Holds Recovery Certificate Triggers Fresh Cause Of Action
Case Title : ASREC (India) Ltd. Vs. Visakha Prime Properties Constructions Ltd.
Case Number : CP (IB)/30/7/AMR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AMR) 218
The Amaravati Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 4 March admitted a Section 7 application filed by ASREC (India) Ltd. against Visakha Prime Properties Constructions Ltd., holding that a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal creates a fresh cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli and Technical Member Umesh Kumar Shukla noted that the petition filed in July 2025 was within limitation, being instituted within three years of the recovery certificate dated 19 October 2024.
Personal Guarantor Insolvency Pleas Governed By 3-Year Limitation Under Limitation Act: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Kiran Ratilal Sheth
Case Number : C.P. (IB)/410(MB)2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 219
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has reiterated that in the absence of a specific limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, applications filed under Section 94 by personal guarantors are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period, and dismissed a personal insolvency petition as time-barred and procedurally defective.
Case Title : The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II vs. Mr. Raju Palanilkunnathil Kesavan and Anr.
Case Number : Company Appeal (IBC)/11/KOB/2025 In IBA/51/KOB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 220
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has recently held that a statutory authority cannot raise fresh claims at the fag end of a liquidation process, observing that the insolvency framework does not permit reopening concluded claims after earlier dues have already been admitted and paid.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel dismissed an appeal filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, EPFO, which sought condonation of delay in filing an additional claim in the liquidation of Trivandrum International Health Services Limited.
Case Title : Employee Provident Fund Organisation v. NDA Metaoxides Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : I.A (IBC) No. 481/JPR/2025 in CP No. (IB)-64/9/JPR/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 221
The National Company Law Tribunal at Jaipur has held that Section 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which excludes provident fund dues from the liquidation estate, does not permit the creation or quantification of liabilities during the moratorium.
The tribunal further held that provident fund claims cannot be admitted when they are based on post-moratorium assessment proceedings or are unsupported by proof of employment and identifiable beneficiaries.
Validity Of Telangana VAT Attachment Pending In HC Cannot Be Decided In CIRP: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited AND KOBO Biotech Limited Case Number : CP(IB) No. 277/7/HDB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 219
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad recently held that issues relating to the validity of attachment under the Telangana Value Added Tax (TVAT) Act, particularly where such attachment is already under challenge before the High Court, cannot be adjudicated in insolvency proceedings.
The observations were made by a bench of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri while deciding an application filed by the resolution professional of Kobo Biotech Ltd seeking removal of attachment over the corporate debtor's property.
NCLT Allahabad Approves Adani's ₹15,000 Crore Resolution Plan For Jaiprakash Associates
Case Title : Bhuvan Madan, RP of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs Committee of Creditors Jaiprakash Associates Ltd
Case Number : IA (PLAN) No. 11/2025 in CP (IB) NO.330/ALD/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 223
The Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday approved the ₹15,000-crore resolution plan submitted by Adani Enterprises Limited for insolvent Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL). The order was pronounced orally on March 17, 2026, by a bench of Judicial Member Praveen Gupta and Technical Member Ashish Verma. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
Homebuyers' Advances Used For Project Development Are Financial Debt Under IBC: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : Ajay Sanadhyav Vs M/S Vatsalya Builders and Developers Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.230/MB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (ALL) 224
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently reiterated that amounts paid by homebuyers in a real estate project will qualify as financial debt if the money is used for financing and development of the project. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, a bench of Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma and Technical Member Sameer Kakar observed,
“Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the upfront amounts paid by the Applicants to the CD were utilized for financing and development of the Project and, therefore, possess the commercial effect of borrowing and qualify as 'financial debt' within the meaning of Section 5(8)(f) of the Code. Consequently, the applicants, being allottees in a real estate project, are entitled in law to be classified and treated as Financial Creditors under Section 5(7) of the Code.”
NCLT Indore Admits ₹95.31 Crore Insolvency Plea By Central Bank Of India Against Narmada Extrusions
Case Title : Central Bank of India Ltd vs. Narmada Extrusions Ltd
Case Number : CP(IB)/21(MP)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 225
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal on 13 March admitted an insolvency petition filed by Central Bank of India against Narmada Extrusions Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 over default in repayment of financial debt of more than Rs. 95.31 crore.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta held that the Financial Creditor had established the existence of financial debt and the occurrence of default by the Corporate Debtor.
Personal Guarantor's Non-Compliance With Repayment Plan Allows Bankruptcy Proceedings: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan (in the matter of M/s Tata Capital Limited v. Mrs Molly G) Case Number : IA(IBC)/74/KOB/2026 in CP(IBC)/14/KOB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 227
The Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 26 February, held that a personal guarantor's failure to submit a repayment plan despite sufficient opportunities has the same effect as rejection of a repayment plan, allowing creditors to initiate bankruptcy proceedings.
Judicial Member Vinay Goel allowed the application filed by the Resolution Professional of a personal guarantor to Tata Capital Limited
IBC Does Not Require Same Due Date On All Invoices For Insolvency Plea: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title : ABV Electronics vs Anmol Innovative Electronic Pvt Ltd
Case Number : C.P. (IB) No. 459/MB/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 230
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has recently observed that there is no requirement under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that the due dates of all invoices must be identical to trigger insolvency proceedings.
The ruling came in a petition filed in June 2024 by ABV Electronic, an operational creditor, seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Anmol Innovative Electrical Private Limited for default in payment of dues arising from supply of electrical goods
Ojas Tradelease CIRP: NCLT Mumbai Sets Aside 21-Year Acropolis Mall Lease As Fraudulent Under IBC
Case Title : Aegis Resolution Services Pvt Ltd vs Praxis Home Retail Ltd
Case Number : IA 5114 of 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION (IB) NO. 865 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 229
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has held that leasing a commercial asset like Acropolis Mall on long-term unfavourable terms without periodic escalation cannot be treated as a bona fide business decision and is detrimental to the interests of the corporate debtor and its creditors.
A bench of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar allowed an application filed by the Resolution Professional of Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Pvt. Ltd. under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which deals with fraudulent trading.
Case Title : Arrhum Tradelink Private Limited Vs Shri Manoj Khattar
Case Number : IA No. 685 of 2025 IN CP (IB) No. 135 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 226
The Ahmedabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an application filed by Arrhum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., the successful bidder for Vimal Oil & Foods Ltd. in liquidation, seeking reliefs including extinguishment of past liabilities, restoration of listing status, and exemptions from securities law compliance under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy held that corporate debtor had been sold on an “as is where is”, “as is what is”, “whatever there is” and “without recourse” basis
Case Title : Biomatiques Identification Solutions Private Limited v. Wipro Limited
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 210/BB/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 231
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru on Wednesday dismissed an insolvency petition filed against Wipro Ltd, holding that a pre-existing dispute regarding the supply and quality of biometric devices barred initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada held that insolvency proceedings cannot be invoked as a substitute for recovery of disputed contractual claims.
IBC Cannot Replace Statutory Process For Determination And Recovery Of GST Liability: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : The Central Goods and Service Tax Department vs K. Vatsa Kumar & Ors
Case Number : IA (IBC)/332/2026 in CP (IB) No.678/7/HDB/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 232
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad on Wednesday observed that liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be employed as a substitute for the statutory process governing determination and recovery of GST liability.
The bench of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri delivered the ruling in an application filed by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Department seeking directions against the liquidator of Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd and MCM Pacific Pte Ltd in relation to the sale of Phase-III assets.
Case Title : IFCI Limited vs NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd
Case Number : I.A. (IB) No. 940 of 2025 IN C.P. (IB) No. 1020/MB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 233
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai on Tuesday held that relinquishment of security in the liquidation of a principal borrower does not affect a mortgage created in favour of the lender by a third-party corporate debtor, and the lender can still claim secured creditor status in the debtor's separate insolvency proceedings. A bench of Judicial Member K.R. Saji Kumar and Technical Member Anil Raj Chellan, while deciding an application filed by IFCI Ltd seeking recognition of its claim of Rs. 520.04 crore as a secured creditor in the CIRP of Replenish Reality Pvt Ltd, observed:
“Merely because the Principal Borrower has undergone a liquidation process in separate proceedings, and for that matter, the security interest created by the Principal Borrower has been relinquished by the Applicant, has no impact on the third party securities.”
S.94 IBC | Parallel SARFAESI, DRT Proceedings No Bar To Personal Guarantor Insolvency: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Ramdhari Mittal v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited through Assistant Vice President and Ors
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 76 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 237
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore has held that insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be rejected merely because recovery proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or under the SARFAESI Act.
The tribunal also observed that the exact quantum of debt can be verified during the process and does not affect admission at this stage.
Case Title : Rumit Lifecare Vs Shari Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : C.P.(IB/21(AHM)2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 238
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad has reiterated that interest mentioned only in invoices without any contractual stipulation cannot be counted as operational debt for determining the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, while dismissing a plea filed by an operational creditor seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings. The bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed that,
“Where interest is claimed solely on the basis of unilateral terms printed in invoices, without evidence of acceptance by the corporate debtor, the same cannot be treated as undisputed operational debt for the purpose of admission of a petition under Section 9 of the Code.”
Case Title : Telangana Housing Board vs Koncept Nirman Pvt Ltd & Ors
Case Number : Intervention Petition (IBC)/8/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 239
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has held that third parties cannot ordinarily be impleaded in proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code at the pre-admission stage unless their presence is indispensable for determining the existence of financial debt and default.
The observations came in an order dated March 9, 2026, passed by a bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri while dismissing an intervention petition filed by the Telangana Housing Board seeking impleadment in the insolvency proceedings against Indu Eastern Province Projects Pvt Ltd.
Fraud Must Be Clearly 'Found,' Not Presumed To Invoke Fraudulent Trading Under IBC: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Kobo Biotech Limited v. Mr. Urja Vijaykumar Shah and Ors
Case Number : I.A (IBC) No. 26 of 2025 IN C.P (IB) No.277/7/HDB/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 240
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that proceedings under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which deals with fraudulent and wrongful trading by directors, cannot be sustained on mere suspicion and require a clear finding of intent to defraud supported by cogent evidence.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri passed the ruling while dismissing an application filed by the Resolution Professional of Kobo Biotech Limited seeking directions against the suspended directors to contribute amounts to the assets of the corporate debtor for alleged fraudulent and wrongful trading under Section 66 of the IBC.
Case Title : Canara Bank vs. BNH Infra Projects India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CP (IB) No.98/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 241
The Bengaluru Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on March 16 admitted insolvency proceedings against BNH Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd. over a loan default of about Rs 11.3 crore, after Canara Bank claimed total outstanding dues of over Rs 64 crore.
A coram comprising Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada noted that the respondent was proceeded ex parte due to failure to appear and comply with the tribunal's directions, observing that there was conscious abstention on the part of the respondent.
Case Title : Kampalapura Narasimaiah Jayalakshmi and Ors v. M/s Vistara Media Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA No. 768/ 2025 in CP(IB) No. 21/BB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 244
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has held that no third party has a right to intervene at the pre-admission stage of a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, reiterating that the Tribunal's scope at that stage is limited to examining the existence of financial debt and default.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada was dealing with an interlocutory application seeking permission to intervene in an insolvency petition filed by Mysore Mercantile Company Ltd against Vistara Media Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : ERICSSON INDIA PVT LTD V/s RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONAS LIMITED
Case Number : IA(I.B.C)/2200( MB)2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 245
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai has partly allowed an application by former Reliance Communications Ltd director Anil Dhirajlal Ambani seeking access to insolvency records of the company, including documents furnished to the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation, holding that a suspended director cannot be denied pre-CIRP records required to defend himself in proceedings based on those materials.
Case Title : Allahabad Bank vs Anoop Kumar Wadhera
Case Number : CP (IB) 798 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (MUM) 247
The National Company Law Tribunal's Mumbai bench has admitted an insolvency application filed by Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) against Anoop Kumar Wadhera, personal guarantor to Frost International Ltd, in a case involving a default of approximately Rs 285.77 crore. A coram of Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar, while admitting the petition and initiating an insolvency resolution process against Wadhera, observed:
“Considering the above facts and circumstances and upon perusal of the documents on record, the C.P. (IB) / 798 / MB /2024 filed under Section 95 of the Code, hereby Admitted and the Insolvency Resolution Process stands initiated against Anoop Kumar Wadhera viz. the Personal Guarantor herein.”
Case Title : Sanwar Mal Tiwari v. Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt Ltd
Case Number : IA(IBC) No.22/JPR/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (JAI) 248
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Jaipur has dismissed an application filed by the erstwhile Resolution Professional of Aesthetic Stone Arts India Pvt. Ltd. seeking ratification of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) costs, holding that determination of such costs lies exclusively within the domain of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
A coram of Judicial Member Reeta Kohli and Technical Member Kavita Bhatnagar also held that no interlocutory application is maintainable after the disposal of the main petition.
Mere Non-Reflection Of Funds In Books Not Proof Of Fraud Under IBC: NCLT Kochi
Case Title : Kizhakkekkara Kuriakose Jose v. A.D Krishnan
Case Number : IA(IBC)/272/KOB/2025 in CP(IBC)/29/KOB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOC) 249
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kochi has dismissed an application filed by the liquidator of Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd against its suspended Managing Director, holding that mere non-reflection of amounts in the books of accounts cannot by itself establish fraudulent diversion of funds under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Vinay Goel observed that allegations of fraud must be supported by cogent and credible evidence and cannot be sustained on assumptions or incomplete material.
Case Title : Canara Bank vs. Supreme Ahmednagar Karmala Tembhurni Tollways Private Limited
Case Number : CP (IB) No.66/Chd/Hry/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHA) 250
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chandigarh recently held that mere pendency of arbitration cannot be a ground to defer insolvency proceedings once debt and default are established.
A bench of Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Kaushalendra Kumar Singh while admitting a Tollways company to CIRP observed, “Mere pendency of arbitration does not constitute a realizable asset or extinguish an admitted financial liability. In contrast, the Financial Creditor has established a debt of ₹ 283.95 crores as on 31.10.2024, well above the statutory threshold, and default stands proved. Accordingly, the pending arbitration proceedings do not furnish a valid ground to defer or reject admission of the present application.”
Liquidation Can Be Recalled Using Inherent Powers Where Debt Is Settled: NCLT Hyderabad
Case Title : Maximus Arc Limited v. Ms. Mummaneni Vasra Laxmi
Case Number : IA (IBC)/1942/2025 in Company Petition IB/36/7/HDB/2022 U/s 7 of IBC CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 252
The Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 6 March, held that even though the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, does not expressly provide for withdrawal of liquidation proceedings, the Tribunal can exercise its inherent powers in appropriate cases to secure the ends of justice.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri recalled the liquidation process against Ravi Cranes & Movers Ltd., preventing the liquidation from proceeding further.
NCLT Indore Rejects Suspended Management Plea To Join GEI Power Resolution Plan Approval Proceedings
Case Title : Carnet Elias Fernandes Vs Jagdish Kumar Parulkar RP of GEI Power Ltd Case Number : Inv.P/1(MP)2026 in IA(Plan)/5(MP)2025 in CP(IB)/49(MP)2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 251
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected a plea by the suspended management of GEI Power Ltd. seeking to take part in the proceedings where the Tribunal is considering approval of the company's resolution plan, holding that former management cannot intervene at this stage after the lenders have already approved the plan.
Refusing the request, the tribunal said that allowing such participation would go against the limited role of the court at the plan approval stage, observing that, “Impleading the Applicant at this stage would have the practical effect of inviting commercial objections to a plan that has already been approved by the CoC with the requisite voting share, which would directly impinge upon the commercial wisdom of the CoC and would be contrary to the settled law on the subject."
Case Title : Bank of Maharashtra v. Smt. Nukala Savithri and ors.
Case Number : CP(IB) No. 181/95/HDB/2022u/s. 95 of IBC, 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (HYD) 254
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Hyderabad has recently reiterated that an objection based on insufficient stamp duty on a guarantee deed cannot defeat proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, admitting a personal insolvency petition filed by Bank of Maharashtra against Nukala Savithri, personal guarantor to SVSVS Projects Private Limited.
A coram of Judicial Member Rajeev Bhardwaj and Technical Member Sanjay Puri heard the petition filed for initiation of insolvency resolution against the personal guarantor, arising from default in repayment of credit facilities granted to the corporate debtor.
IBC Cannot Be Misused To Impede Recovery Process Under SARFAESI: NCLT Delhi
Case Title : Viveck Goel v. Federal Bank and Ors.
Case Number : C.P (IB) No. 4/ND/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (DEL) 256
The National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, has recently dismissed an application filed under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which allows a personal guarantor to initiate insolvency proceedings against himself, holding that the provision cannot be used to stall recovery proceedings already underway under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal said the plea was a tactical attempt to take advantage of the interim moratorium under the IBC.
NCLT Chandigarh Orders Promoters Responsible For Insolvency To Vacate Majestic Hotels' Property
Case Title : Mr. Navneeet Gupta Vs Mr. Jasbir Singh Khangura & Ors
Case Number : IA(IBC/2486(CH)/2024 In CP(IB) No.180/Chd/Pb/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHD) 257
On 17 March, the Chandigarh Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), in the insolvency proceedings of Majestic Hotels Ltd. (corporate debtor), directed the promoters and related parties to vacate portions of the company's flagship property, Hotel Majestic Park Plaza in Ludhiana.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member K. Biswal and Technical Member K.K. Singh observed: “The intent as per the provisions of the IBC is that if the Corporate Debtor has failed to meet its obligations in payment to the Creditors, then following the process as provided in the Code, management of the CD is to be handed over to a third person who could resolve the condition of insolvency of the said Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, R1 and R4 either individually or jointly cannot claim to be treated at par with third party creditors as they are the ones responsible for the failure of the CD and bringing it to the condition of insolvency.”
Parties Cannot Reopen Claims Invoking Tribunal's Review Powers After Plan Is Approved: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Employees Provident Fund Organisation Through- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Naveen Kumar Sood, Erstwhile RP of Ujaas Energy Limited and Anr. Case Number : Review Application/1(MP)2024 in (MP) CP(IB) 9 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 262
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 19 March 2026 held that once a resolution plan is approved, parties cannot reopen claim classification by invoking the Tribunal's inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta dismissed a review application filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), which sought to modify the order approving the resolution plan of Ujaas Energy Limited.
Penal Provisions Under IBC Require Proof Of Wilful Conduct: NCLT Indore
Case Title : Kuldeep Verma, RP of KS Oils Ltd v. Ramesh Chandra Garg and Ors
Case Number : IA 164 of 2018 in TP 60 of 2019 [CP(IB) 32 of 2017]
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (IND) 264
The Indore Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 20 March, held that Sections 70, 72, and 74 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be invoked without clear and cogent evidence of wilful intent or fraudulent conduct.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Brajendra Mani Tripathi and Technical Member Man Mohan Gupta rejected an application seeking penal action against the erstwhile management of K.S. Oils Ltd.
Non‑Compliance Of Form FA Cannot Defeat Insolvency Settlement Backed By CoC Approval: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. R Sugumaran v. Safire Machinery Company Private Limited and Anr
Case Number : IA(IBC)/1766(CHE)/2024 in TCP(IBC)/141/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 261
On 23 March, the Chennai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that non-filing of Form FA during insolvency proceedings would not defeat a settlement where all dues were satisfied and Committee of Creditors (CoC) approval was already in place. Form FA is the prescribed application to formally request withdrawal of insolvency proceedings once the parties have reached a settlement.
A Bench of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam closed the insolvency proceedings against Safire Machinery Company Private Limited
NCLT Ahmedabad Relies On DRT Judgment To Prove Execution Of Personal Guarantees Despite No Originals
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Rushi Pradeep Mehta
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/97(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 259
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad recently relied on a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) judgment, along with prior admissions and affidavits, to hold that the execution of personal guarantees stood proved even in the absence of original documents, observing: “It is further observed that even though the original documents are not produced, the existence and execution of the guarantee stand established from (i) the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, (ii) the admission of the Personal Guarantor in earlier proceedings, and (iii) the affidavit of the consortium leader bank. In proceedings under the Code, strict rules of evidence are not applicable and _ the Adjudicating Authority is empowered to rely upon secondary evidence where sufficient foundation is laid.”
No Asset Or Repayment Assessment Needed At Admission Stage For Personal Guarantor IRP: NCLT Chennai
Case Title : Mr. S Senthil Kumar v. Canara Bank
Case Number : CP(IB)/325 (CHE)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 263
The Chennai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 23 March held that at the stage of admission under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority need not assess the repayment capacity or sufficiency of assets of a personal guarantor.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramanian admitted the petition filed by Senthil Kumar, a personal guarantor to Biogen Fertilizers India Private Limited, seeking initiation of an Insolvency Resolution Process (IRP) against himself.
OTS Proposals By Corporate Debtor Extend Limitation Against Personal Guarantors: NCLT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Canara Bank Vs Rushi Pradeep Mehta
Case Number : C.P.(IB)/97(AHM)2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (AHM) 259
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad recently held that One Time Settlement proposals made by the borrower can amount to acknowledgment of liability and extend limitation in insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors.
A bench of Judicial Member Shammi Khan and Technical Member Sanjeev Sharma observed, “The OTS proposals placed on record demonstrate acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Even if such proposals were initiated by the Corporate Debtor, the liability of the Personal Guarantors being coextensive under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such acknowledgment ensures to the benefit of the Financial Creditor against the guarantors as well, in the absence of any contractual exclusion. Further, the judgment and Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal constitute a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, the application is held to be within limitation.”
Case Title : Santanu T. Ray vs Axis Bank
Case Number : I.A. (IBC) 1521(KB) of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (KOL) 265
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Kolkata has held that the procedural requirements under the IBBI Circular dated November 4, 2025, which provides for approaching the PMLA Special Court for restitution of attached assets, cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat or delay the relief sought in the present application during an ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Kaizen Power.
A coram of Judicial Member Labh Singh and Technical Member Rekha Kantilal Shah observed: “In that view of the matter, the procedural requirement as envisaged under the aforesaid Circular cannot be applied retrospectively so as to defeat or delay the relief sought in the present application, particularly when the issue pertains to custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor during subsistence of CIRP.”
NCLT Bengaluru Says Suspended Director Cannot Challenge Resolution Plan After Skipping CoC Meetings
Case Title : Ms. Disha Choudhary v. Ms. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari
Case Number : IA No. 925 of 2024 in CP(IB) No. 113/BB/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (BEN) 268
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru has held that a suspended director who had notice of meetings of Committee of Creditors but failed to effectively participate or seek documents cannot later challenge the resolution process on that ground.
A coram of Judicial Member Sunil Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Radhakrishna Sreepada has dismissed an application filed by a suspended director of an infra company seeking rejection of a resolution plan on the ground of non-supply of documents.
NCLT Ahmedabad Approves Niyogi Enterprise's ₹35.9 Crore Capital Reduction
Case Title : Niyogi Enterprises Private Limited (In the matter of reduction of share capital)
Case Number : CP/12(AHM) 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 270
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad has approved a Rs 35.9 crore capital reduction by Niyogi Enterprise, holding that the scheme does not prejudice any stakeholder and that objections raised by the Income Tax Department can be examined independently under applicable law.
A bench of Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. V.G. Venkata Chalapathy was dealing with a petition under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking confirmation of the reduction of the company's issued, subscribed, and paid-up 9% redeemable non-cumulative non-convertible preference share capital to nil.
Case Title : State Bank of India v. Shree Padmavati Metaliks Private Limited and Anr.
Case Number : IA (IB) No. 1460/ (KB) /2025 & IA (IB) No. 219/ (KB) /2026 In CP(IB) No. 165/( KB) /2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 271
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata, has refused to interfere with the bidding process in the insolvency of Shree Padmawati Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., holding that where an applicant, despite opportunity, chose not to participate in the bidding process, no case was made out to declare the process illegal or to direct a re-run of the CIRP.
The bench of Judicial Member Bidisha Banerjee and Technical Member Siddharth Mishra was dealing with applications filed by City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. against the resolution professional and State Bank of India.
Case Title : Malco Gems v. Prince Foundations Limited
Case Number : CP(IB)/29(CHE)/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz NCLT (CHE) 274
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai has recently held that withdrawal of an insolvency application at the pre-admission stage, even without liberty to file afresh, does not bar a subsequent petition. It ruled that such proceedings are governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as a self-contained framework and not by the Civil Procedure Code.
A coram of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam admitted a Section 7 application filed by Malco Gems against Prince Foundations Limited. The order initiates the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the company.
IBBI
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's (IBBI) Disciplinary Committee has recently suspended the registration of insolvency professional Anil Anchalia for two years for continuing to operate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) bank account of Gemus Engineering Limited after the commencement of liquidation. The CIRP of Gemus Engineering Limited commenced on April 30, 2024 pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, which appointed Arun Kumar Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Anchalia was subsequently appointed as the Resolution Professional (RP) on July 18, 2024.
IBBI Suspends Byju's Former Resolution Professional Pankaj Srivastava For Three Years
The Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has suspended the registration of insolvency professional Pankaj Srivastava for three years, holding that he improperly reconstituted the Committee of Creditors in the insolvency of Think and Learn Private Limited, the parent company of the ed-tech firm Byju's, and misled the Adjudicating Authority.
In its order dated February 24, 2026, the Committee, comprising Whole Time Members Bhushan Kumar Sinha and Jayanti Prasad, held that Srivastava filed two separate applications before the Tribunal, both stating that the Committee of Creditors was constituted on August 21, 2024, but showing entirely different compositions.
IBBI Introduces Electronic Forms To Monitor Insolvency Processes Of Personal Guarantors
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on March 6, 2026, introduced a set of electronic forms to monitor insolvency resolution processes involving personal guarantors to corporate debtors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. As per the circular, resolution professionals currently submit periodic updates regarding such processes through emails which, the Board noted is “time-consuming and inefficient”.
To address this, the IBBI has developed a set of electronic forms which, according to the Board, will facilitate systematic and transparent record-keeping and seamless reporting.
OTHER STORIES
Lok Sabha Passes IBC Amendment Bill 2025
The Lok Sabha on Monday passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, bringing in a creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process and tightening timelines for admission and disposal of cases under the Code.
According to Finance Minister Niramala Sitharaman, the bill seeks to replace the pre-packaged insolvency regime with a more efficient one. "The earlier framework was not fully utilised. It is now being replaced by a new creditor-initiated insolvency framework featuring out-of-court settlements, debtor-in-possession, and creditor-in-control models,", she said.