Corporate Law : NCLAT held that the CoC may decide to liquidate a corporate debtor under Section 33(2) before inviting resolution plans, with limi...
Corporate Law : This article explains why the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code places commercial decision-making in the hands of the Committee of Cr...
Corporate Law : The article explains how the NCLAT interpreted Section 66(1) to extend liability beyond company insiders to third parties who know...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that individuals investing for financial returns rather than home ownership cannot invoke Section 7 of the ...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that a company cannot shift its registered office after approval of a resolution plan when appeals against the...
Corporate Law : IBBI has proposed amendments to CIRP, Liquidation, and Personal Guarantor Regulations to improve valuation, clarify RP duties, sim...
Corporate Law : The proposed amendments require comprehensive project-wise disclosures, technical assessments, and mandatory information in resolu...
Corporate Law : The IBBI has announced contractual vacancies for Research Associates and Consultants in law and business management disciplines. T...
Corporate Law : 2026 Guidelines streamline selection of Insolvency Professionals for IRP, RP, Liquidator, and Bankruptcy Trustee roles, ensuring t...
Corporate Law : The amendments replace the consultation committee with CoC oversight, giving creditors greater control over liquidation decisions....
Corporate Law : Bombay HC held that Section 14 IBC moratorium does not prevent deemed conveyance under Section 11 MOFA and restored the society's ...
Company Law : Kerala HC held Rule 55 empowers NCLT to accept additional pleadings, setting aside refusal to entertain further objections in a Se...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that invoice discounting through the TReDS platform does not convert operational debt into financial debt. The appeal w...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that a Section 7 IBC application can proceed despite pending winding-up proceedings where no irreversible stage...
Corporate Law : NCLT admitted the Section 9 petition after holding that campaign-related emails did not constitute a genuine pre-existing dispute....
Corporate Law : IBBI cancelled an IP’s registration over systemic CIRP misuse, flawed valuations, non-disclosures, compliance failures and lack ...
Corporate Law : IBBI has released the Phase 10 syllabus for the Limited Insolvency Examination, effective from October 1, 2026, to reflect evolvin...
Corporate Law : The First Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to dispose of the RTI application after finding it was not decided within the 30-d...
Corporate Law : The Disciplinary Committee found that the Resolution Professional delayed admission of a financial creditor's claim and failed to ...
Corporate Law : The Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year suspension after finding failures in claim verification, unauthorized financial deci...
IBBI has extended the last date for stakeholder comments on key insolvency discussion papers. The move allows more time for feedback while keeping submission conditions unchanged.
The issue was whether delayed charges without supporting records could qualify as operational debt. The Tribunal ruled that absence of invoices and ledger entries made the claim unascertained and disputed.
Supreme Court affirmed that insolvency proceedings under IBC do not bar prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act. It held that criminal liability of directors continues independently. Ruling clarifies that both laws operate in separate spheres.
The case concerned an appeal against rejection of an insolvency petition involving alleged unpaid operational dues. The tribunal found that most invoices belonged to a separate proprietorship and not the corporate debtor. It held that the statutory threshold under Section 4 of the IBC was not met, leading to dismissal.
Observations regarding inconsistencies and possible backdating of documents led the Court to closely examine the claim. The case reflects interplay between arbitration findings and insolvency proceedings.
The issue was whether an insolvency professional fulfilled due diligence obligations under Section 29A. The Committee held that failure to verify and disclose disqualification of a wilful defaulter invalidated the process. It emphasized that eligibility must be continuously assessed and cannot be ignored at later stages.
The Authority held that information accessible on official websites need not be reproduced under RTI. The appeal was disposed of as the response had already been provided, though delayed.
The authority held that confusion arising from interim orders did not absolve the professional from taking proactive steps. The case reinforces the expectation of due diligence in insolvency proceedings.
Bank of India Vs Neurostar Hospital Private Limited (NCLT Mumbai) The application was filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by a financial creditor seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor. The total amount claimed to be in default was approximately ₹28.51 crore, with the date […]
The Tribunal held that appeals filed beyond the statutory 45-day limit cannot be entertained. It ruled that delay exceeding the condonable period is not permissible under Section 61.
