IBC Moratorium Doesn’t Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Corporate Debtor’s Leased Property To Lessor: Supreme Court

Cause Title: Sincere Securities Private Limited & Ors. Versus Chandrakant Khemka & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5) held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not bar the voluntary handover of property leased by the corporate debtor to the lessors if retaining the asset is deemed unviable and the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) endorses the decision.

High Court

Insolvency Resolution Professional Is Public Servant, Sanction Needed To Prosecute Him Under Prevention of Corruption Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: Anil Kumar Ojha v. The State and Others
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.16812 of 2025

The Madras High Court has recently directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to consider granting sanction for prosecuting a Resolution Professional for allegedly mismanaging funds of a company during a resolution process. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the resolution professional performed duties in connection with the administration of justice, was a person from whom a report was called for by the court of justice, and was performing a public duty. Thus, the court noted that the Resolution Professional would come within the definition of public servant as provided under Section 2(c)(v), 2(c)(vi), and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

NCLAT

NCLT Declares Former DHFL Chairman Kapil Wadhwa Bankrupt Over ₹4546 Crore Debt

Case Name: Union Bank of India v. Mr. Kapil Wadhawan

Case No.: C.P. No. (IB) 755/MB/C-III/2025

The petition was filed by the Union Bank of India before the NCLT, Mumbai Bench-Court III, seeking initiation of bankruptcy proceedings under section 123 of the IBC, 2016. The respondent, Mr. Kapil Wadhawan, acted as the personal guarantor of the DHFL, a corporate debtor that had undergone the corporate insolvency.

NCLAT Judge Recuses From Case Saying He Was Approached By ‘Higher Judiciary Member’ To Favour A Party

Case Name: Mr. Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy Suspended Director of M/s. KLSR Infratech Ltd. v. M/s. AS Met Corp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Case No.: IA No. 487/2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 210/2023

The judicial member of NCLAT, Chennai Bench, Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, recused himself from hearing an insolvency appeal citing that he was approached by “one of the most revered members of the higher judiciary” seeking a favourable order for one of the parties. The appeal challenges a July 14, 2023, order admitting KLSR Infratech Ltd. to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 201.6

Employees Can’t Be Paid Gratuity Dues In Addition To Payouts Allocated To Them In Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Name: Jadeja Ravirajsinh Juvansinh Versus Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. & Ors

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.733 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the employees of the corporate debtor cannot be paid gratuity dues in addition to the proposed payouts allocated to them in the Resolution Plan when it is clearly provided in the Resolution Plan.

Once Assignment Of Debt Is Declared Illegal, Assignee Loses Its Rights To File Application U/S 7 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Name: Rajesh Vilasrao Patil Versus Savannah Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1201 of 2023 & I.A. No. 5907 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when the assignment of debt from the bank to the applicant is found to be illegal and unauthorized, the very basis of filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC is knocked out, and such an applicant cannot be allowed to file the application on the basis of financial creditor’s status.

Mere Rescheduling Of Payment Through New Agreement Does Not Change Repayment Obligations Under Original Agreement: NCLAT

Case Name: Vikram Bhavanishankar Sharma, Member of the Suspended Board of Directors of Supreme Panvel Indapur Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Bank of India & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1811 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6979 & 8862 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), has held that mere rescheduling of the payment date through an agreement does not alter the repayment obligations under the original Common Loan Agreement, nor does it result in novation. Therefore, an application under Section 7 of the IBC can be filed based on the original agreement.

Resolution Professional’s Failure To Individually Inform Homebuyers About Insolvency Proceedings Goes Against Principles Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Name: Bharti Goyal and Anr. Versus Hector Realty Venture Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1545 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5594 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that the failure of the Resolution Professional to individually inform the homebuyers about the insolvency proceedings as mandated under Regulation 6A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, so they could file their claims on time, goes against the spirit of the IBC and vitiates the entire proceedings especially during Covid Pandemic.

Once Claims Are Received By Investors Under Settlement Agreement, They Are Prohibited From Claiming Same Amount Under Resolution Plan: NCLAT

Case Name: Shobhana Thakkar Versus Monitoring Committee of Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2156 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), has held that once an investor of the Corporate Debtor has received an amount under the Settlement Agreement and has given an unconditional undertaking to forgo all claims under the Resolution Plan, they are barred from claiming the same amount under the Resolution Plan, as such dual recovery is impermissible.

Once CoC Agrees To Release Personal Guarantees Upon Payment, Invocation Cannot Be Directed By Adjudicating Authority: NCLAT New Delhi

Case Name: Mukesh Goel v. Santanu Brahman & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1192 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4654, 4658 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member – Technical), has held that if CoC has itself agreed to release the personal guarantees upon completion of payment under the Resolution Plan, no directions can be issued to invoke such guarantees.

Approved Resolution Plan Can’t Be Set Aside Merely Due To Dissenting Financial Creditor’s Dissatisfaction With Asset Valuation: NCLAT

Case Title: Central Bank of India Versus Bijendra Kumar Jha & Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 713 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that approval of a resolution plan cannot be interfered with merely on the grievance of a single financial creditor regarding improper asset valuation of the corporate debtor, when the valuer has, in fact, duly considered all assets and submitted its report.

Litigants Can’t Be Forced To Argue On Merits When They Did Not File Reply To RP’s Report U/S 99 Of IBC: NCLAT

Case Title: Nandini Choudhary Versus Canara Bank and Ors.
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 814 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a litigant has not filed a reply to the Resolution Professional’s report submitted under Section 99 of the IBC, due to sufficiently explained causes, requiring them to argue on merits would be premature and unjustified.

[Byju’s Insolvency] No Adjudicatory Power Under IBC To Reconstitute CoC Or “Provisional Constitution” Of CoC: NCLAT, Chennai

Case Title: Byju Raveendran, Suspended Director and Promoter of M/s. Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. & 3 Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.120/2025 (IA Nos.329, 330, 381, 406 & 405/2025)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai bench has held that a Resolution Professional (RP) has no adjudicatory power under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Once the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is constituted, the RP cannot reconstitute the CoC on their own. The scope of updating claims is limited to determining the quantum and does not extend to reviewing the status of a creditor.

Power Of Attorney Can Be Executed By Officers Nominated By Designation, Not Necessarily By Name: NCLAT New Delhi
Case Title: Indian Bank v. M/s. Aman Hospitality Private Limited
Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 569 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice N. Seshasayee (Member – Judicial) and Arun Baroka (Member – Technical), has held that a power of attorney (POA) executed by bank officers nominated by their designation, rather than by name, is legally valid for instituting proceedings under the IBC, 2016.

CoC Has Discretion To Allow Resolution Applicant To Submit Revised Plan If Its Name Appears In Final Resolution Applicant List: NCLAT

Case Title: Orissa Metaliks Pvt. Ltd. Versus Avil Jerome Menezes, RP of Future Enterprises Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1022 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the committee of creditors (CoC) has discretion to allow the Resolution Applicant to submit a revised plan to maximise the value of the corporate debtor’s assets if the Resolution Applicant’s name appears in the final RA list.

Approval Of Resolution Plan Can’t Be Interfered With Over ‘NIL’ Payment To Operational Creditors If Claims Have Been Properly Dealt With: NCLAT

Case Title: Masyc Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Pulkit Gupta, RP of Vadraj Cement Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 831 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that since current legislative scheme does not mandate payment to Operational Creditors in event of the corporate debtor’s liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the Resolution Plan approved by Committee of Creditors with 100% voting shares and in which the claims of the Operational Creditors have been properly dealt with.

In Absence Of Crystallised Debt Due To Dispute Over Quality Of Product Supplied, Petition U/S 9 Can’t Be Admitted: NCLAT

Case Title: Ruchira Green Earth Private Limited Versus KLB Komaki Private Limited

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1102 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when debt is not crystallized due to repeated communication on Whatsapp between the parties over the quality of the product supplied by the Operational Creditor and the defects acknowledged by the Supplier, an application under section 9 of the IBC cannot be accepted.

Required Percentage For Passing Resolution Must Be Calculated Based On Voting Shares Of All Creditors, Not Just Those Present & Voting: NCLAT

Case Title: Saariga Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar, RP, Richa Industries Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 887 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the required percentage of 66% as mandated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for passing a resolution by the Committee of Creditors cannot be counted merely based on voting shares of the creditors who are present and voting but voting shares of the all the creditors including absentees must be counted.

Limitation For Filing Application Under IBC Is Three Years If No Extension Is Sought, Even If Such Application Is Filed Based On Court’s Decree: NCLAT

Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd. Versus Hemangi Patel

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 991 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that the time period for filing an application under the IBC remains three years, even if it is based on a court decree. It is not extended merely because the limitation period for executing the decree is 12 years.

Order Passed By NCLT President On Transfer Application Listed In Court Is Judicial Order, Appealable U/S 421 Of Companies Act: NCLAT

Case Title: Sayam Shares & Securities (P) Ltd. Versus KSS Petron (P) Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1001 of 2025

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that although the President of the NCLT exercises administrative functions such as listing and transferring cases, once a transfer application is listed before the Court, any order passed, even if by the President, becomes a judicial order, appealable under Section 421 of the Companies Act.

‘Hard To Believe Corporate Debtor Who Invested ₹5.5 Crore Was Unaware Of CIRP‘: NCLAT Refuses To Expunge Adverse Remarks Against Suspended Directors

Case Title:Bimal Kumar Jejani and Ors. Versus M/s Star Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 224 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) has held that strong observations made against the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor, while passing an order of dissolution due to their non-cooperation in providing requisite statutory records to the Resolution Professional or the Liquidator and their continuous non-appearance before the Tribunal despite being served on the e-mails and at the postal address in the MCA date base cannot be expunged.

NCLT/NCLAT Under IBC Lacks Jurisdiction To Set Aside Auction Sale Conducted Prior To Initiation Of CIRP: NCLAT

Case Title: Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd. Versus Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1480 of 2023

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member) has held that an auction sale conducted before the commencement of the CIRP cannot be set aside by the NCLT while exercising its jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Such an auction is not hit by section 14 of the IBC.

90-Day Timeline Under Regulation 2B Of IBBI Regulations For Schemes Of Compromise/Arrangement Is Directory, Not Mandatory: NCLAT, Chennai

Case Title: M/S. Prakash Oil Depot vs. G. Madhusudhan Rao & Anr.

Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.304/2025 (IA No.892/2025) with Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.306/2025 (IA No.901/2025)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Chennai bench comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member) have held that the 90-day timeline prescribed under Regulation 2B(1) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 for completing a scheme of compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal held that the statute does not create an absolute bar on granting extensions, and therefore, the Adjudicating Authority may extend the period if it serves the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by promoting revival of the Corporate Debtor, reducing litigation, and respecting the commercial wisdom of the stakeholders.

Ex-Parte Order Is Invalid Where Company Petition Is Renumbered After Restoration Without Informing Corporate Debtor: NCLAT

Case Title: Abhishek Singh, Suspended Director of Manpasand Beverages Ltd. Versus Yoginkumar Ashokbhai Patel & Anr.

Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1863 of 2024

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) has held that when a Company Petition is restored and assigned a different number, due to which the Corporate Debtor could not access the case and present its defence effectively, an ex-parte order cannot be passed in such circumstances. The Corporate Debtor should have been informed of the renumbering so it could present its defence.

NCLT

Information Utility Record Is Not Mandatory To Prove Debt And Default Under IBC: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Name: Vardhaman Bank Vs. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd

Case No.: Company Petition IB/62/7/HDB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench of Justice Shri. Rajeev Bhardwaj (Hon’ble Member) and Shri. Sanjay Puri – Hon’ble Member Technical has held that proving debt and default through records of default with the information utility is not mandatory. If debt and default are established through other evidence, a petition under Section 7 of the IBC can still be admitted.

 

[S. 252(3) Of Companies Act] Company Cannot Be Revived In Absence Of Substantial Investment Reflected In Balance Sheet: NCLT Chandigarh

Case Name: Gurmeet Singh VERSUS The Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh

Case No.: CP No.29/Chd/Pb/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Mr. Shishir Agarwal (Technical Member) has held that in the absence of substantial investment reflected in a company’s balance sheet, it cannot be revived under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act.

NCLT Is Not Competent Forum To Adjudicate Disputes Relating Copyrights Violations Or Contract Termination: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Dream Warrior Pictures Vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.P. (IB)/156(MB)2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench held that it is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputes related to copyright violations and contract termination. Such matters must be pursued before a competent forum with jurisdiction.

Mere Denial That Invoices Were Not Received Cannot Override Signed Acknowledgements From Operational Creditor: NCLT Chandigarh
Case Title: Altitude Finvest Limited v/s CAUSIS E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: COMPANY PETITION (IB) 811 (ND) 2024

The National Company Tribunal Chandigarh, bench of Justice Harnam Singh Thakur and Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, have held that a mere bald denial that invoices forming the basis of the claim were not received cannot prevail over specific, dated communications and signed acknowledgements originating from within the operational creditors’ finance department.

Conversion Of Corporate Debtor To Private Company Can’t Be Denied On Grounds Of Pending SFIO Probe After Approval Of Resolution Plan: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: ANDHRA BANK v. STERLING BIOTECH LIMITED
Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/2216(MB)2025 IN C.P. (IB)/490(MB)2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) has held that an application for conversion of a company from a public limited company to a private limited company under an approved resolution plan cannot be rejected on the ground that prosecutions or SFIO investigations are pending against the corporate debtor, as all such investigations abate once the plan is approved.

Pooling Of Debt By Multiple Operational Creditors Is Prohibited U/S 9 Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi
Case Title: Invoice Discounters of Adaptio Facility Management Pvt Ltd Through Mr. Arunava Ghosh v. M/s CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CP No.: IB 74(ND)/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Judicial Member) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member) has held that a petition under Section 9 of the IBC cannot be admitted based on the pooling of debt by multiple operational creditors, as such pooling is prohibited under the IBC. While a composite application under Section 7 of the IBC is permitted, no provision concerning the pooling of debt exists under Section 9 of the IBC.

Electricity Connection Can’t Be Denied To Purchaser Of Corporate Debtor’s Properties Due To Past Dues When Claims Are Filed Before Liquidator: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: IDBI Bank Ltd. vs S Kumars Nationwide Ltd.
Case Number: I.A. 857/2024, I.A. 860/2024, I.A. 3446/2024, I.A. 446/2021 in C.P. (IB)294(MB)/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Justice Ms. Lakshmi Gurung and Sh. Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer, Technical Member has held that electricity connection cannot be denied to the successful auction purchaser of the corporate debtor’s properties on account of past dues, when such claims have already been filed before the Liquidator and will be addressed as per Section 53 of the IBC.

Set-Off Of Pre-CIRP Tax Dues Is Not Permitted Against Post-CIRP Tax Refund In Absence Of Pre-Existing Contractual Provision: NCLT Mumbai
Case Title: Punjab National Bank v. Unijules Life Sciences Limited
Case Number: IA(I.B.C)/1811(MB)2025 in C.P. (IB)/3080(MB)2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) and Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Judicial Member) has held that pre-CIRP tax dues cannot be adjusted against post-CIRP tax refunds determined during the CIRP, in the absence of any pre-existing contractual set-off provision.

NCLT Under IBC Is Not Empowered To Direct De-Attachment Of Property Attached Under PMLA By ED: NCLT Bengaluru
Case Title: Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari, RP of M/s Dreamz Infra India Private Limited Versus Enforcement Directorate
Case Number: IA No. 28 of 2024
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Justice Shri. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri. Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) has held that the NCLT under the IBC is not empowered to direct the de-attachment of property attached under the PMLA by the Enforcement Directorate, as such power falls within the realm of public law over which the NCLT has no jurisdiction.

Director Communications Can’t Replace Documentary Proof For Establishment Of Loan: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Altitude Finvest Limited v/s CAUSIS E-MOBILITY PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: COMPANY PETITION (IB) 811 (ND) 2024

The National Company law Tribunal Delhi bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram And Shri Atul Chaturvedi Dismissed a section 7 petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution process, holding that communications from the directors of the Corporate Debtor cannot override the lack of substantive documentary proof such as audited financials, books of accounts, or banking records for establishment of loan.

Corporate Debtor’s Shareholdings Are An Integral Part Of Financial Assets, Can’t Be Excluded From Valuation Report: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: HDFC Bank Limited Versus Opto Circuits (India) Ltd.

Case Number: I.A. No. 433 of 2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 199/BB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) the has held that the shareholdings of the corporate debtor in its subsidiaries form an integral part of its financial assets therefore cannot be excluded from the valuation reports. Such exclusion of the financial assets compromise the fairness and integrity of the CIRP.

No Direction Pertaining To Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional Can Be Passed Prior To Adjudication Of S.99 Report: NCLT Delhi

Case Title: Central Bank of India v/s Mrs. Ritu Garg, Anurag Garg, Mrs. Manju Lata Garg, Akresh Garg, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

Case Number: I.A. No. 4923/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 96/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4919/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 89/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4918/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 98/ND/2024, I.A. No. 4920/ND/2024 IN C.P. (IB) No. 94/ND/2024
The National Company Law Tribunal Delhi allowed applications filed by the Central Bank of India seeking replacement of Resolution Professional for failure of submission of report as per section 99 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and demanding fees before adjudication of the report.

The bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Shri Atul Chaturvedi held that “any directions pertaining to the fees and expenses of the resolution professional, prior to adjudication of the section 99 report, would be premature and contrary to the scheme envisaged under the code”.

Sale Of Corporate Debtor’s Assets Can’t Be Allowed At Reserve Price Reduced Beyond 25% As It Violates Liquidation Regulations: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: Supreme Overseas Exports India Private Limited Represented by its Liquidator

Case Number:I.A. No. 318 of 2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 89/BB/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Shri. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri. Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) has held that the sale of the Corporate Debtor’s assets cannot be allowed at a reserve price reduced beyond the 25% threshold, as it would violate Schedule I of the Liquidation Regulations. This cannot be done by the Adjudicating Authority even by exercising its powers under section 60(5) of the IBC as it would amount to creating a procedural and substantive remedy which was not contemplated in the statute.

Changing Incorrect Date Of Default Is Permitted Before Final Adjudication If No New Cause Of Action Is Raised By Such Amendment: NCLT Amravati

Case Title: M/s. Canara Bank Versus M/s. Vasavi Power Services Pvt Ltd

Case Number: IA (IBC)/418/2024, IA (IBC)/98/2025 in CP (IB)/3/7/AMR/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Amravati Bench of Shri Umesh Kumar Shukla (Technical Member) and Shri Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial Member) held that a change in the incorrect date of default mentioned in the original petition can be allowed before final adjudication, provided it does not introduce a new cause of action and no prejudice is caused to the corporate debtor by such an amendment.

After Initiation Of CIRP, There Can Be No Encumbrances On Corporate Debtor’s Assets: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Navneet Kumar Ranka Vs. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan

Case Number: INV.P/(IBC)/5/CHE/2025 In I.A.(IBC)(PLAN) 11(CHE)/2024 IN CP(IB)/124/CHE/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench of Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) Shri. Ravichandran Ramasamy (Technical Member) has held that after the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), there can be no encumbrances on the assets of the corporate debtor, and all claims must be dealt with in accordance with Section 53 of the IBC.

Sale Of Corporate Debtor’s Property Can’t Be Declared Fraudulent Merely On Claim Of Security Interest Without Supporting Evidence: NCLT Kochi

Case Title: M/s. Greenlace Builders and Developers Private Limited -Versus- Mr. Kakkanatil Siraj Mather Abdul Rahiman

Case Number: IA(IBC)/219/KOB/2024 IN CP(IB)/28/KOB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench of Shri. Vinay Goel (Judicial Member) and Smt. Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) has held that when the property of the Corporate Debtor is purchased in good faith by a bona fide purchaser, the mere fact that the sale price was slightly lower than the actual price does not bring the transaction within the ambit of a fraudulent transaction, especially when the sale is sought to be reversed on the ground that the property was charged in favor of the Respondent, without any documentary evidence to establish such a secured interest.

In Absence Of Claims From Financial Or Operational Creditors, Liquidation Order Must Be Passed U/S 33 Of IBC: NCLT Bengaluru

Case Title: Kalpana Kamlesh Gandhi Interim Resolution Professional of M/s Konverge Healthcare Private Limited

Case Number:IA No. (Liq) 01/2025 In C.P. (IB) No. 133/BB/2023

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru Bench of Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal (Judicial Member) and Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada (Technical Member) has held that in the absence of any claims from either financial or operational creditors, due to lack of supporting documents to prove such claims and the inability to constitute the Committee of Creditors (CoC), liquidation of the corporate debtor can be ordered under Section 33 of the IBC.

Claims Of Multiple Operational Creditors Arising From Different Work Orders Can’t Be Clubbed Into Single Debt To Cross Threshold Limit: NCLT Chennai

Case Title: Surasha Group of Companies Vs. ETA Engineering Pvt Ltd

Case Number: CP(IB)/77/CHE/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai bench of Justice Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Technical Member) has held that claims arising from different work orders cannot be clubbed to cross the threshold limit for filing an insolvency petition under section 9 of the IBC. Furthermore, claims of multiple Operational Creditors cannot be clubbed into a single debt for the purpose of a petition under section 9 of the IBC.

No Bar On Compounding Offence U/S 441 Of Companies Act If Punishable With Fine Only: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: NVENT THERMAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED V/s REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MUMBAI

Case Number: Company Petition No. 7/MB/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Hon’ble Shri Ashish Kalia, (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt (Technical Member) has held that since the punishment under Section 99 of the Companies Act, 2013 is only a fine, and as per Section 441 of the Act there is no bar on the Tribunal to compound an offence punishable only with a fine, the offence of not holding Annual General Meetings on time can be compounded.

Financial Creditor Can File Plea U/S 7 Of IBC If Actionable Rights Under Guarantee Are Preserved In Approved Resolution Plan: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title:M/s IFCI Limited VERSUS M/s ACCIL Hospitality Private Limited

Case Number:CP No.: IB 492(PB)/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon’ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that Financial Creditors can proceed against Personal Guarantors even after the approval of the Resolution Plan, if actionable rights under the guarantee are preserved.

The present petition has been filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.

Electricity Can’t Be Disconnected At Corporate Debtor’s Plant When Assets Are Put On Auction To Maximise Value: NCLT Kolkata

Case Title: Mr. Pratim Bayal -Versus- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Case Number: I.A (IBC) No 617/KB/2025 In C.P (IBC) No 522/KB/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench of Rekha Kantilal Shah (Technical Member) and Labh Singh (Judicial Member) has held that electricity cannot be disconnected at the Corporate Debtor’s plant while machinery and other assets are being auctioned. Electricity is essential to maximise asset value and ensure safety of the assets.

Impleadment Of GST Authorities Not Permissible In Proceedings U/S 9 Of IBC Merely Due To Allegations Of Bogus Invoices: NCLT Allahabad

Case Title: M/S SUNDER ENGINEERING WORKS V/S MACHINERY LIMITED

Case Number:IA No.17/2024, IA No.150/2024 & IA No.345/2024 IN CP (IB) No.101/ALD/2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench of Shri Praveen Gupta, (Hon’ble Member Judicial) and Shri Ashish Verma (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that impleadment of the GST Authorities in proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), is not permissible merely on the ground that the invoices on which the petition is based have been disputed by the Corporate Debtor. The GST Authorities are independent bodies conducting investigations in accordance with law and, therefore, have no connection with proceedings under the IBC.

Power Of NCLT To Restore Name Of Struck Off Company U/S 252 Of Companies Act Can’t Be Exercised Suo Motu: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Dhirendra Pratap Singh & Anr. Versus Dook Consulting Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number:CA/442/ND/2021 IN C.P. No. 54/ND/2014

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon’ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that the power to restore a name of the struck company under section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be exercised suo moto. A company’s name can be restored only on an application filed by the Companies, its members or creditors or workmen aggrieved by the order of striking off under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act.

Set-Off Of Transactions Executed Prior To Commencement Of CIRP Based On Arbitral Award Is Permissible During CIRP: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Mr. Rajesh Ramani

Case Number:IA-118/2024 In (IB)-113(ND)/2021

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Hon’ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that a set off of transactions based on arbitral award entered into prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is permissible even during the currency of the CIRP, and such set-offs are not barred by Section 14 of the IBC.

Fixed Deposit Receipts Form Part Of Corporate Debtor’s Financial Assets, RP Can Seek Their Defreezing & Take Custody: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: ANSHUJ DIDNGRA Vs. COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS (COC) THROUGH ITS SOLE MEMBER HVR INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.

Case Number: IA NO. 3127/2025 IN CP (IB) NO. 199/2018

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon’ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) form part of the Corporate Debtor’s financial assets; therefore, the Resolution Professional can approach the concerned bank to seek their defreezing and realise them.

Resolution Professional Can’t Cherry-Pick Entries From Financial Records Of Corporate Debtor While Verifying Claims Of Creditors: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title: Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Private Limited Sinnar Thermal Power Limited.

Case Number:I.A. NO. 782 OF 2025 IN C.P. IB NO 2561 (ND) OF 2019

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench of Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Hon’ble Member Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that the Resolution Professional is obligated to verify the claims of creditors after considering all entries in the financial records of the corporate debtor. The RP cannot cherry-pick entries and reject others that favour the creditors, as such an approach violates the principles of fairness and objectivity expected of the RP.

Corporate Debtor May Be Permitted To Complete Project Under IRP’s Supervision If A Structured Plan Is Proposed: NCLT Indore

Case Title: S.K. Dutta (Swapan Kumar Dutta) Vs. Global Mega Ventures Private Limited

Case Number: CP (IB) No.71/7/MP/2020 With IA No. 199/MP/2022, IA No. 45/MP/2024, and IA No. 271/MP/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Indore Bench of Sh. Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma (Technical Member) has held that while admitting a petition under Section 7 of the IBC filed by homebuyers based on the default committed by the corporate debtor, the corporate debtor can be directed to complete the project under the reverse Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) model, under the supervision of the Interim Resolution Professional, if a structured and viable plan to complete the project is proposed by the corporate debtor.

Interest Claims Under MSMED Act Can’t Be Added To Principal Amount: NCLT Mumbai

Case Title: Shree Jajoo Instrument Manufacturing Corporation Versus Tapasya Engineering Works Private Limited

Case Number:CP (IB) / 1055 (MB) 2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench of Justice V. G. Bisht (Retd.) (Judicial Member) and Sh. Prabhat Kumar (Technical Member) has held that since the NCLT under the IBC is not competent to adjudicate interest claims under the MSMED Act, such interest claims cannot be added to the principal amount to meet the threshold limit for filing an insolvency petition.

Property Alloted In Lieu Of Consultancy Fees Constitutes Financial Debt: NCLT Mumbai

Case Name: Positive Rays Events Private Limited vs Sheltrex Karjat Private Limited

Case Number: IA/942/2024 in C.P. (IB)/3126(MB)2019

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V, comprising Sh. Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey (Member- Judicial) and Sh. Charanjeet Singh Gulati (Member- Technical), has held that a property allotted in lieu of consultancy fees can be considered as a financial debt.

The application was filed requesting to issue a direction to the Resolution Professional to admit the claim filed by the applicant in the class of financial creditor.

Debt Arising From Structured Supply Chain Finance Facility Does Not Constitute ‘Financial Debt’ U/S 5(8) Of IBC: NCLT New Delhi

Case Name: Prudent ARC Limited v. Karan Automibiles

Case No.: Restored Company Petition (IBC) /22/ND/2024 (Old Case CP (IB)/60/ND/2023)

The National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, Court-IV, comprising Shri Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram (Member-Judicial) and Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Member-Technical), has held that the debt arising out of a structured supply chain finance facility doesn’t come under the ambit of financial debt u/s 5(8) of the IBC, 2016.

Petition U/S 9 Of IBC Is Inadmissible Without Payment Received By Corporate Debtor In Subcontracted Work Done By Operational Creditor: NCLT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. S.K. CONSTRUCTION Vs. SRI AVANTIKA CONTRACTORS (I) LIMITED

Case Number: CP (IB) No.128/09/HDB/2024

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Hyderabad bench of Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj (Hon’ble Judicial Member) and Sri Sanjay Puri (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that in absence of any payment received by the Corporate Debtor in a subcontracted work executed by the Operational Creditor, application under section 9 of the IBC cannot be entertained. Filing such an application would be an attempt to use the IBC as a forum to recover the debt which is against the objectives of the IBC.

Adjudicating Authority Can Pass Order U/S 114 Of IBC Based On Resolution Professional’s Report If No Repayment Plan Is Submitted: NCLT New Delhi

Case Title:Karur Vyasa Bank Versus Vishnoo Mittal

Case Number:IB-313/ND/2022 IA-1261/2025, IA-1210/2025

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) New Delhi bench of Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (Hon’ble Member (Judicial) and Sh. Man Mohan Gupta (Hon’ble Member Technical) has held that a meeting of the Committee of Creditors is not required to be summoned under Regulation 17A of the Personal Guarantors Regulations when no repayment is submitted by the Personal Guarantor. The Adjudicating Authority can pass an order based on the report submitted by the Resolution Professional under section 112 or section 106 even in the absence of creditors’ meeting.