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...
IBBI find that the educational qualifications and experience possessed by the applicant does not adhere to Rule 4 read with Annexure IV of the Rules. With respect to the contention of the applicant that he has enrolled himself for a two year post graduate Master’s in Science (real estate valuation) degree and possess required experience […]
Univalue Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) a) The NCLT has acted without jurisdiction and exceeded its jurisdiction that is limited within the four corners of Section 424 of the CA, 2013 by passing the impugned order in violation of Section 7(3)(a) of the IBC, 2016. Furthermore, the impugned […]
Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs. Ashok Tripathi (Delhi NCLAT) (i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can no more claim to be allottees of a Real Estate Project after issuance of Recovery Certificate dated 10th August, 2019 by ‘UP RERA’ directing recovery of Rs.73,35,686.43/- due thereunder as arrears of land revenue by the Competent Authority. On their […]
Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. & anr. (Supreme Court) While setting aside the Order dated 14th May, 2019 of the NCLAT in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 549 of 2018 and Order dated 9th August, 2018 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in CP(IB)-488/I&BP/MB/2018, on the ground that […]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 inter alia empowers an Operational Creditor to initiate an application for a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor if the default is in excess of Rs. 1 Cr. Sections 8 & 9 of the Code are the governing provisions through which this process gets initiated.
The Resolution Professional, appointed by the order of the National Company Law Tribunal routinely writes to the Assessing Officer of the Corporate Debtor attaching a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal admitting the application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process in respect of the Corporate Debtor.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) mandates the Resolution Professional (RP) and the liquidator to determine if the Corporate Debtor (CD) has been subject to Avoidance transactions such as preferential transactions, fraudulent transactions, undervalued transactions, and extortionate transactions in the past, and if so, casts an obligation on the Insolvency Professional (IP) to file an application to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) for appropriate directions.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020 today.
This Initiative aims to promote research – legal, economic and interdisciplinary – and discourse in areas relevant for the evolving insolvency and bankruptcy regime in general, and that in India. For the purpose of this Initiative, ‘researcher’ means an individual, a team of individuals or an academic Institute, who or which undertakes research under this Initiative.
The Adjudicating Authority (AA), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and High Courts, through their orders and judgements, have guided liquidators in the conduct of liquidation process. This communication presents a few significant directions and observations from these orders and judgements, which an IP may find useful. These are presented under the following six broad categories:
