Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Inso...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that a shortfall payment clause in a Deed of Hypothecation can qualify as a contract of guarantee under th...
Corporate Law : The article examines how conflicting Supreme Court judgments in Rainbow Papers and Raman Ispat created uncertainty regarding the s...
Corporate Law : The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 introduces CIIRP as a faster and proactive insolvency mechanism for early-stage financial stress. Th...
Corporate Law : Explains how the Court held that insolvency proceedings cannot be used as a pressure tactic for debt recovery. Even if default is ...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
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 : The proposal focuses on enabling creditors to initiate resolution while retaining debtor management under supervision. It sets out...
Corporate Law : The amendments arise from the inclusion of a unified “service provider” definition under the Code. The move expands regulatory...
Corporate Law : NCLT Indore held that dissolution under Section 54 of the IBC was justified after all assets of the corporate debtor were liquidat...
Corporate Law : NCLT Mumbai held that ongoing One-Time Settlement discussions cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when debt and default are admit...
Corporate Law : NCLAT held that foreign oil and gas assets owned through Videocon subsidiaries could not be included in the CIRP of Videocon Indus...
Corporate Law : Tribunal noted that the CIRP period, including all extensions, had reached 741 days and expired on 20 November 2025. Since no plan...
Corporate Law : The NCLT Mumbai held that liquidation became mandatory under Section 33(2) of the IBC after the Committee of Creditors rejected al...
Corporate Law : The amendment bars related parties, recent auditors, and connected persons from acting as registered valuers in pre-pack insolvenc...
Corporate Law : The IBBI amended the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 to allow appointment of one registered valuer for each asset class in M...
Corporate Law : The IBBI amended the CIRP Regulations, 2016 to permit appointment of one set of registered valuers for MSME corporate debtors. The...
Corporate Law : The IBBI Amendment Regulations, 2026 introduce nominee directors on IPA governing boards and strengthen oversight mechanisms. The ...
Corporate Law : The order highlights that delayed applications, late progress reports, and non-compliance with filing requirements amounted to ser...
The tribunal held that mere suspicion or possibility of fraud without supporting evidence cannot justify action under Section 66 of the IBC. The ruling underscores the need for concrete proof in alleging fraudulent conduct.
The tribunal ruled that a claim submitted four days before the CoC meeting was ineligible for consideration. It confirmed that the RP acted correctly in rejecting claims filed beyond the permissible window.
NCLT Indore held that pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a bar to initiation of proceedings under the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC admitted as existence of financial debt and occurrence of default thereon by corporate debtor duly established by financial creditor.
NCLT Mumbai held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against corporate debtor admitted as financial debt and default thereon duly established.
The IBBI held that forming a Committee of Creditors without verifying claims violates core insolvency principles. The ruling emphasizes that claim verification is mandatory before granting voting rights or conducting CoC meetings.
The Disciplinary Committee held that reconstituting the CoC without prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority violates established legal principles. Subsequent approval does not cure the initial procedural breach. The decision underscores limits on the powers of resolution professionals.
A key land asset was excluded from the CIRP, leading to rejection of the resolution plan. The regulator held that failure to include and regularize ownership violated duties and warranted suspension.
The case highlights failure to provide complete and verifiable information in the Information Memorandum. It also underscores that reliance on external systems like VDR does not replace statutory disclosure obligations.
A claim submitted without documents was later verified after the deadline but not processed as per law. The authority held that failure to place it before CoC and seek condonation violated CIRP regulations.
The IBBI flagged improper admission of a joint developer as a financial creditor without adequate verification. The ruling highlights the need to correctly classify claims under insolvency law.
