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 Ministry of Corporate Affairs highlighted that the IBC resolution process facilitated creditor recoveries exceeding ₹4 lakh ...
Corporate Law : The IBBI has announced contractual vacancies for Research Associates and Consultants in law and business management disciplines. T...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
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 dismissed an RTI appeal seeking insolvency details of personal guarantors, citing privacy and resource constraints under RTI Act’s exemptions.
IBBI mandates centralized listing of liquidation assets on eBKray platform for transparency and improved recovery. Effective November 1, 2024.
NCLAT Chennai held that failure to make payment as per repayment plan grants liberty to the creditor to initiate action under section 121 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Thus, action of creditors cannot be faulted.
During the moratorium, tax assessment proceedings were initiated by CIT (appellant) against the corporate debtor. An order for the assessment year 2018-19 was passed on March 31, 2022.
IBBI rejects RTI appeal seeking youngest and oldest insolvency professionals’ details, citing privacy concerns under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
A Company Petition u/s. 95 of the IBC was filed by Operational Creditor-White Line Enterprises against Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chugh-Appellant who stood as a Personal Guarantor for repayment of the operational debt owed by M/s Sahil Home Loomtex Pvt. Ltd.
NCLAT Delhi held that dismissal of application u/s. 65 of the Code on the ground that application has been filed before the admission of the application under Section 7 of the Code is not sustainable.
NCLAT Delhi held that there is no provision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which allows set of/adjustment/ counter claim against financial debt for calculating threshold limit prescribed under section 4 of the Code.
NCLAT Delhi held that interest cannot be termed as operational debt as defined under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence interest cannot be included in the claims filed under section 9 of the Code.
Explore the issues surrounding green channel approvals in India’s Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and alternative solutions for efficiency.
