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 regulator held that an appeal in disciplinary proceedings cannot be withdrawn as a matter of right. Public interest and regulatory integrity require adjudication on merits.
An unregistered Agreement to Sell (A2S) did not prevent recognition of asset transfer in the context of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as once consideration was paid and possession transferred
The court held that cheque dishonour caused by a statutory account freeze during insolvency does not attract criminal liability. The key takeaway is that lawful incapacity, not default, defeats Section 138 prosecutions.
Explains why many insolvency resolutions fail due to lack of execution capital and how a Revival Fund can prevent value-destructive liquidations by supporting viable businesses.
The regulator held that handing over management and operations to the suspended board without CoC approval violates core CIRP duties. The key takeaway is that IRPs/RPs must retain control and seek approval or ratification for any delegation.
NCLT Mumbai held that the Corporate Debtor [Damara Gold Private Limited] has committed a default in repaying the financial debt to the Financial Creditor [M/s. Punjab National Bank]. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC for initiation of CIRP admitted.
The Court examined whether an order rejecting a resolution plan could be appealed under the IBC. It held that appeals lie against both approval and rejection orders, directing parties to approach NCLAT instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The issue was whether absence of a default date invalidates an invoice-based demand notice. NCLAT held that Form-4 notices do not require a specific default date and restored the insolvency application.
The issue was whether disputed receivables could be recovered through NCLT during liquidation. The tribunal held that uncrystallised contractual claims fall outside Section 60(5) of the IBC.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld dismissal of a CIRP application after finding that the creditor’s own pleadings fixed the default during the Section 10A exclusion period. The key takeaway is that insolvency proceedings are permanently barred for such defaults.
