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...
Whether the ‘Operational Creditor’ can change the ‘date of default’ by confining the invoices to a later period, when the Demand Notice under section 8 includes all the invoices from the date of default and the ‘debt amount’ is crystallized based on the invoices.
Adjudicating Authority is empowered to consider any application filed by the Liquidator or Successful Auction Purchaser, which may arise with regard to terms and conditions of auction sale or sale as going concern as per the Liquidation Regulation
DC notes that there cannot be an exceptional or special treatment to any corporate entity in any CIRP. While reinforcing the rule of law, every company is to be given the same level playing field, irrespective of its size or the influence of people behind them. Under the existing laws, once CIRP is initiated against […]
NCLT Mumbai held that obligations under the Undertaking do not attract the definition of financial debt. A fortiori, an indemnity of the obligations under the Agreement will equally not constitute a financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code.
The Corporate Debtor used the services/ items extended and supplied by the Operational Creditor but failed to clear the dues. Accordingly, the Operational Creditor/Petitioner issued Demand Notice u/s 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 dated 24.05.2021 in Form 3 thereby demanding for repayment of outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.1,44,07,834/-. Despite receipt of said Demand Notice, the Corporate Debtor neither replied to the same nor repaid the outstanding dues.
NCLAT Delhi held that once One Time Settlement is failed and CIRP is initiated, the amount lying in the no lien account belongs to the Corporate Debtor.
NCLAT held that in event the submission of Appellant is accepted that due to financial difficulty he is unable to implement Resolution plan and he be permitting to go back from the commitments made in the Resolution Plan, it shall have disastrous effect on the entire process undertaken.
NCLT Hyderabad held that dismissed the application of corporate debtors as provisions of rule 43 of the NCLT Rules empowers the Adjudicating Authority, and not to the corporate debtors, to seek production of documents.
The DC notes that inspection notice was served on him on the 09.08.2021. However, Mr. Varun preferred not to respond to it despite more than one year has elapsed in-between. Furthermore, Mr. Varun has neither responded nor he preferred to be avail personal hearing to put his submissions in response to the SCN issued dated […]
DC observes that the CIRP Regulations covers the complete expenses and fees of the IRP/ RP, and this fee is payable after ratification by the CoC. The approval by the CoC of the expenses incurred in the CIRP is a mechanism for keeping a check on the expenditures made by the IRP/ RP. In the […]
