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...
NCLAT Delhi held that post approval of Resolution Plan, the Committee of Creditors [CoC] itself is also bound by its finality and cannot be allowed to tinker with or modify the resolution plan including mechanism of distribution. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
NCLAT held that invoices with default dates beyond the Section 10A period cannot be barred under the COVID suspension provision. The ₹2.36 crore claim was restored for fresh consideration.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a valid notice of invocation of personal guarantee for the Insolvency proceeding. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Article Examines corporate separateness in Indian insolvency, group insolvency challenges under the IBC, and the need for a substance-based legal framework.
The Tribunal initiated CIRP under Section 7 after finding undisputed debt exceeding ₹10.91 crore and admission of insolvency by the Corporate Debtor.
Supreme Court held that simultaneous proceedings for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the principal debtor as well as corporate guarantor is maintainable.
The Supreme Court held that a delayed and inoperative scheme under the Companies Act cannot stall CIRP, restoring insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.
The Tribunal ruled that invoices from 2016–2017 were barred by limitation and unilateral ledger transfers could not revive the claim under the IBC.
NCLAT held that debt acknowledgment in principal borrower’s balance sheet extends limitation against corporate guarantor under Section 18. Dismissal on limitation was set aside.
NCLAT held that provident fund dues assessed during moratorium under Section 14 IBC cannot be admitted in CIRP. The resolution plan providing ₹5,000/- was upheld.
