NCLT Indore held that dissolution under Section 54 of the IBC was justified after all assets of the corporate debtor were liquidated and proceeds distributed according to Section 53 priorities. The Tribunal found no remaining assets or pending proceedings.
NCLT Mumbai held that ongoing One-Time Settlement discussions cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when debt and default are admitted. The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor repeatedly failed to deposit the required upfront OTS amount.
Tribunal noted that the CIRP period, including all extensions, had reached 741 days and expired on 20 November 2025. Since no plan was approved by the CoC, liquidation under Section 33 of the IBC was ordered.
The NCLT Mumbai held that liquidation became mandatory under Section 33(2) of the IBC after the Committee of Creditors rejected all resolution plans with a 95.63% voting share. The Tribunal ruled that, in the absence of an approved plan, liquidation proceedings had to be initiated.
NCLT Chandigarh ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor after the Committee of Creditors rejected the only resolution plan received during CIRP. The Tribunal held that requirements under Section 33 of the IBC had been fully satisfied.
The NCLT allowed dissolution of the corporate debtor after finding that all remaining disputed assets and avoidance transaction claims had been assigned under Regulation 37A. The Tribunal held that no further realizable assets remained for liquidation.
The NCLT Mumbai held that a director diverted rental income from corporate debtor properties through forged leave and license agreements. The Tribunal ordered refund of the diverted amounts with 12% interest and referred the matter to the IBBI for further action.
NCLT Mumbai held that existence of an arbitration clause in the MoU did not bar initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC. The Tribunal admitted the insolvency plea after finding sufficient evidence of financial debt and default.
NCLT Mumbai held that protections available under the MSMED Act and RBI revival framework do not bar initiation of CIRP once financial debt and default are established. The Tribunal admitted the Section 7 application after finding default exceeding Rs. 24 crore.
The Tribunal examined a case where a resolution plan initially failed to secure required votes but was later approved after re-voting, ultimately achieving 100% CoC approval.
