Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Shri Karshni Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramakrishnan Sadasivan; 2025 INSC 1411 - IBC -NCLT Rules- Forfeiture Condition

Read Judgment In LawLens Note You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register

Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries v. Mohammad Moinuddin Khan 2025 INSC 1410 - S.7 IBC - Moonshine Defence

Read Judgment In LawLens Note You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

A A Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd., 2025 INSC 1366 - S.14 IBC - Moratorium

Read Judgment In LawLens Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 14 - The object of Section 14 is to maintain the corporate debtor’s estate as a going concern and to preserve its assets so as to facilitate resolution. The term “property” under Section 3(27) of the IBC

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 1349 - IBC - Defective Affidavit

Read Judgment On LawLens Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 7 -Mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit in support of an application would not render the very application non est and liable to be rejected on that ground as it is neither an incurable nor a fundamental defect. (Para

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

EPC Constructions India Ltd v. Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd 2025 INSC 1259 - IBC - Preferential Shareholders - Creditors

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Preference shareholders do not enjoy the status of the creditors of the company and do not fulfil the definition of a financial creditor for the purpose of Section 7 of the IBC. (Para 36) Preference shares are part of the company’

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Kalyani Transco vs Bhushan Power and Steel Limited 2025 INSC 1165 -S.62 IBC- Resolution Plan

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) - Section 61 – An appeal against an order approving a Resolution Plan would be available before the NCLAT only when it is found that the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force or

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma 2025 INSC 1110 - IBC - RERA - Fundamental Right to Shelter

Constitution of India - Article 21 - Housing is neither a luxury nor a commodity for speculation – it is a fundamental human need. The right to secure, peaceful, and timely possession of one’s home is therefore a facet of the fundamental right to shelter enshrined under Article 21- Right

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Amit Nehra vs Pawan Kumar Garg 2025 INSC 1086 - IBC - Home Buyers - Financial Creditors

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The publication of the list of financial creditors is an act in discharge of a statutory duty by the Resolution Professional. It cannot be reduced to a meaningless formality. (Para 33) Relegating bona fide allottees, who have paid substantial consideration years in advance, to

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs DSK Global Education a 2025 INSC 959 - NCLAT Rules - IBC - Certified Copy Of Impugned Order

"An appeal before NCLAT must be accompanied by a certified copy of the order impugned."

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Sincere Securities Private Limited & Ors. v. Chandrakant Khemka 2025 INSC 931 - IBC - CoC - Commercial Wisdom

note We make notes on all Supreme Court judgments for our subscribers’ community consisting of judges, lawyers and students of law and share it in this website. If you want to access them, you can register below. If you are our subscriber, please sign in to read our notes. Register

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. vs Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 911 - IBC- S.18 Limitation Act - Balance Sheet

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 238A - Limitation Act 1961- Section 18- Entries in Balance Sheets could constitute a valid acknowledgement - Referred to Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal and Another, (2021) 6 SCC 366. (Para 22) As to whether a certain document in a

Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act

National Spot Exchange Limited vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 694 - MPID Act vs SARFAESI Act & RDB Act

Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999 ; SARFAESI Act, 2002 ; RDB Act, 1993 -IBC 2016 - SARFAESI Act and RDB Act having been enacted by the Parliament for the subject matter falling in List-I and the MPID Act having been enacted by the State Legislature for the subject matter

Corporate Law

Tata Steel Ltd. vs Raj Kumar Banerjee 2025 INSC 639 - NCLAT - S. 61 IBC - S.4 Limitation Act

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016- Section 61(2) -NCLAT has no power to condone delay beyond the period stipulated under the statute - Once the prescribed and condonable periods (i.e., 30 + 15 days) expire, the NCLAT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals, regardless of the reason for the delay.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Kalyani Transco vs. Bhushan Power And Steel Ltd. 2025 INSC 621 - IBC - Resolution Plan - PMLA [Judgment Recalled]

💡Update: This judgment has been recalled and a new judgment has been passed !Punjab National Bank vs Kalyani Transco Punjab National Bank vs Kalyani Transco .pdf57 KBdownload-circleKalyani Transco vs Bhushan Power and Steel Limited 2025 INSC 1164 -S.62 IBC- Resolution PlanInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) - Section 62

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Visa Coke Limited vs Mesco Kalinga Steel Limited 2025 INSC 597-S.8,9 IBC - Demand Notice

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 8,9- Whether the notice served by the Operational Creditor upon the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of the Corporate Debtor at their registered office constitutes valid service of the statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the IBC, so as to maintain a

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Electrosteel Steel Limited vs ISPAT Carrier Private Limited 2025 INSC 525 - S.34 Arbitration Act - Execution Of Arbitration Award - S. 47 CPC Objections - IBC Moratorium

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 ; Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 47 - Objection to execution of an award under Section 47 CPC is not dependent or contingent upon filing a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act (Para 49)- a plea of nullity

Corporate Law

A Rajendra vs Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao 2025 INSC 447 - S. 61 IBC - Limitation

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 61 -Litigant has to file its appeal under Section 61(2) within 30 days which can be extended up to a period of 15 days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause. (Para 18).- The extension of period so provided for has

Corporate Law

Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Limited Vs 63 Moons Technologies Limited 2025 INSC 421 - Ss. 31,61 IBC - Resolution Plan

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016- Section 31 - Once the RP is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied that the RP as approved by the CoC meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the CD and its

Corporate Law

JSW Steel Limited vs Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal 2025 INSC 401 - IBC - Resolution Plan - Contempt

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 31 - All such claims which are not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the Resolution Plan- 2019

Corporate Law

Vaibhav Goel vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 INSC 375 - S. 31 IBC

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Section 31(1) - all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date

Criminal

Vishnoo Mittal vs Shakti Trading Company 2025 INSC 346 - IBC - Moratorium - S. 138 NI Act

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - The cause of action arises only when the amount remains unpaid even after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the demand notice- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Section 14 ; Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 -In this case,

Corporate Law

Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal vs Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth 2025 INSC 314 - S 96 IBC - Moratorium - Consumer Case

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act 2016 - Section 96 ; Consumer Protection Act - Section 27 - The penalties imposed by the NCDRC are regulatory in nature and do not constitute "debt" under the IBC- practices. The penalties under Section 27 of the CP Act are aimed at compelling compliance

Corporate Law

Bank Of Baroda vs Farooq Ali Khan 2025 INSC 253 -Ss. 94-100 IBC - Judicial Review

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 94-100 -The appointment of a resolution professional, at the very threshold, is statutorily mandated under Section 97 of the IBC - Adjudicating Authority does not adjudicate any point at this stage and need not decide jurisdictional questions regarding existence of the debt before

Corporate Law

State Bank Of India Assistant Manager Vs India Power Corporation Limited - S 7 IBC - Filing Of Additional Documents

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - In the absence of any express provision which prohibits or sets a time-line for filing of additional documents, there is no bar to the filing of documents over and above those documents initially filed with Section 7 petition - It is

Corporate Law

Mukund Choudhary vs Union Of India - S 101 IBC - Outer Limit Moratorium - Constitutional Validity

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 101 -Writ petition challenging constitutional vires of Section 101 which fixes an outer limit of 180 days for operation of the moratorium - Dismissing WP, SC observed: This is a case of individual insolvency and not corporate insolvency. The object and purpose of