Topic

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016

5 articlesLatest July 2026
Section 33(1)(a) IBC | Liquidation Mandatory When Promoter Fails Settlement Commitments & CoC Cooperation : NCLAT Chennai
Case Law Analysis
|National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Section 33(1)(a) IBC | Liquidation Mandatory When Promoter Fails Settlement Commitments & CoC Cooperation : NCLAT Chennai

NCLAT Chennai upholds liquidation under Section 33(1)(a) of the IBC, ruling that repeated failure to honor settlement proposals and non-cooperation with the Committee of Creditors (CoC) justifies bypassing resolution efforts. The judgment reinforces that liquidation is a last resort but becomes binding when promoters undermine the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Section 31(4) IBC | One-Year Deadline for Regulatory Approvals Mandatory; Failure Triggers Liquidation : NCLAT
Case Law Analysis
|National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Section 31(4) IBC | One-Year Deadline for Regulatory Approvals Mandatory; Failure Triggers Liquidation : NCLAT

NCLAT upholds liquidation of a corporate debtor after the resolution applicant failed to secure RBI approvals within the one-year deadline under Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with regulatory timelines, impacting insolvency practitioners and creditors in CIRP proceedings.

Fraudulent Transactions Do Not Constitute Financial Debt Under Section 5(8) IBC : NCLAT Rejects CIRP Admission for Unauthorized Disbursements
Case Law Analysis
|National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Fraudulent Transactions Do Not Constitute Financial Debt Under Section 5(8) IBC : NCLAT Rejects CIRP Admission for Unauthorized Disbursements

NCLAT holds that disbursements made into unauthorized accounts through fraudulent means cannot be classified as financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The ruling bars initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where loan agreements lack valid authorization, reinforcing the doctrine of indoor management in financial transactions.

IBC Moratorium | Writ Petition Maintainable Against Recovery Officer's Order Despite Statutory Bar : Bombay HC
Case Law Analysis
|Bombay High Court

IBC Moratorium | Writ Petition Maintainable Against Recovery Officer's Order Despite Statutory Bar : Bombay HC

Bombay High Court holds that a writ petition challenging a Recovery Officer's order remains maintainable during an IBC moratorium, balancing the need for urgent relief against statutory remedies. The ruling clarifies that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not automatically oust High Court's writ jurisdiction, impacting creditors and corporate debtors seeking interim protection.