#IBC

The Supreme Court ruled that contractual rights over nominee directors, budget approvals, and project revenues constitute 'participation in policy-making' under IBC Section 5(24)(m)(i), a lower threshold than Section 29A control, rendering debenture holders and trustees related parties ineligible for the CoC. A post-CIRP assignment to bypass this bar was held mala fide.

The NCLAT upheld jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to direct buyer's directors to pay Rs. 3 crore in unpaid BPA consideration, piercing the corporate veil to impose personal liability on them as controlling minds. This empowers liquidators to pursue directors personally for unpaid acquisition dues, affirming corporate structure cannot shield controlling persons from contractual obligations in insolvency.

The court held that a terminated development agreement is not an 'asset' under Section 14(1)(d), and the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is confined to disputes arising directly from insolvency. This permits arbitration proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor to continue during CIRP.

The Supreme Court held that CoC approval of a resolution plan under IBC creates a binding obligation that cannot be withdrawn, even if the corporate debtor's financial position improves. The Court directed the NCLT to expeditiously decide on plan confirmation and competing OTS applications, reinforcing finality of CoC approval and protecting successful resolution applicants.

The Supreme Court held that an Information Utility’s record creates a presumption of default under IBC Section 7, making quantum disputes and profitability irrelevant for admission. This eases CIRP initiation for creditors while raising burden on debtors.

The Supreme Court ruled that limitation for appeals under Section 62 IBC starts from the NCLAT order date, not receipt of the certified copy. A delay in obtaining the copy cannot be excused if the appeal is filed after limitation has commenced, impacting parties challenging NCLAT rulings.

The NCLAT held that a PIN code mismatch in invoices does not rebut the supply presumption under IBC Section 9 when TDS deductions and GST input tax credit establish debt and default, clarifying that minor clerical errors cannot defeat insolvency claims.

The SC ruled that an operational creditor whose claim is extinguished under IBC resolution plan may assert a set-off defence in arbitration initiated by resolution applicant, with no affirmative recovery. This limits clean-slate for OCs after CIRP.

Section 32A IBC grants statutory immunity to a successor corporate debtor after an approved resolution plan, as held by the Orissa HC. This bars prosecution, requires trial court to vacate cognizance, and shields acquirers from legacy liability.

This bars parties from using limitation to defeat restoration where counsel’s misconduct caused delay, affecting stakeholders in IBC.

NCLAT Chennai held that the Committee of Creditors may replace a Resolution Professional under Section 22 of the IBC provided the replacement is not contrary to the Code, expunging adverse findings against the former RP and remitting his fee claim to the NCLT for adjudication.

The NCLAT held that Section 238 of the IBC overrides rent control laws, letting a liquidator evict occupants under Section 60(5)(c) without rent control proceedings. This speeds asset recovery in insolvency, affecting liquidators, creditors and occupants.

The NCLAT held that a fraud-initiation claim under Section 65 IBC must be raised before the Adjudicating Authority and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, forcing parties to raise such allegations at the CIRP stage to avoid belated challenges.

The Bombay High Court held IBC Section 96(4) applies retrospectively, lifting the interim moratorium on secured asset recovery from May 26, 2026. This lets banks and financial institutions enforce security interests in insolvency cases without the stay.

NCLAT held that circumstantial evidence of removed hypothecated machinery suffices to prove fraudulent trading under Sec 66 IBC, upholding ₹17.23 crore liability against suspended directors, noting a single asset swap can trigger Sec 66 liability in context.