Category: I B C

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Jurisdiction — Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be questioned before authorities under IBC — NCLT lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to provisional attachment orders under Benami Act — Remedy lies exclusively before competent forum under Benami Act — IBC cannot be converted into a parallel appellate forum to review validity of attachment orders under specialised enactment — Doing so would render appellate machinery of Benami Act otiose.

2026 INSC 187 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. RAJENDRAN Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION) AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 — Sections 7 and 60(2) — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Initiation against principal debtor and guarantor — Co-extensive liability — Creditor can initiate CIRP against both the principal debtor and guarantor simultaneously, and also file claims in the CIRP of both.

2026 INSC 201 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ICICI BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. ERA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 14, Section 238 — Telecom laws — Spectrum — Nature of — Can spectrum, even if treated as an asset in corporate debtor’s books, be subjected to proceedings under IBC? — Held, No. Spectrum is a natural resource, the right to use which is granted by the Government under a licence, not ownership. The IBC cannot override the specific statutory regime governing telecommunications law.

2026 INSC 153 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Admission of application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Rejection of settlement proposal — Court must ascertain existence of default in financial debt when a financial creditor triggers insolvency under Section 7 — No scope for inquiry into disputes regarding existence of debt or inability to pay at admission stage — Rejects arguments based on financial viability and settlement proposals.

2026 INSC 166 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POWER TRUST (PROMOTER OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LTD.) Vs. BHUVAN MADAN (INTERIM RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF HIRANMAYE ENERGY LTD.) AND OTHERS ( Before…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 60(5)(c) — Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority — Declaration of title to trademark — NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring title to trademark “Gloster” in favour of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) while adjudicating an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, as the issue of trademark title was a highly contentious dispute beyond the scope of insolvency proceedings and not directly related to the CIRP.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLOSTER LIMITED Vs. GLOSTER CABLES LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2996 of…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Admission of CIRP — Adjudicating Authority’s power and duty — Legal position is well-settled that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that a financial debt exists and a default has occurred, it must admit the application — Inquiry under Section 7(5)(a) is confined strictly to determination of debt and default, leaving no scope for equitable or discretionary considerations — Reliance on Vidarbha Industries is misconceived; it is a narrow exception confined to its peculiar facts — Admission under Section 7 remains mandatory once debt and default are established — Any alleged non-cooperation by the financial creditor occurred subsequent to the default and cannot absolve the corporate debtor of its admitted failure to comply with its payment obligations. (Paras 12.3, 12.6, 12.9, 12.10)

2026 INSC 58 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELEGNA CO-OP. HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL SOCIETY LTD. Vs. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) — Application by Operational Creditor — Pre-existing Dispute — Adjudicating authority must determine if operational debt exists, if non-payment has occurred, and if a dispute existed prior to the demand notice (Section 8) — Dispute must be genuine, substantial, and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory (mere ‘moonshine’ or ‘bluster’) — Court is not required to examine the merits of the dispute or satisfy itself that the defence is likely to succeed. (Paras 15, 16, 19)

2025 INSC 1410 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SARASWATI WIRE AND CABLE INDUSTRIES Vs. MOHAMMAD MOINUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ.…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 62 — Liquidation Process — Sale of Assets — Appeals against NCLAT majority decision confirming forfeiture of amount paid by bidder — Private sale requiring Adjudicating Authority’s prior approval — Regulation 33(2)(d) of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 — Where liquidator seeks NCLT approval for private sale after failed auctions and decision to sell at scrap value, the sale falls under Regulation 33(2)(d) and not Regulation 33(2)(c) (sale at price higher than reserve price of failed auction) — Contention that sale was purely a contract governed by Indian Contract Act, 1872, rejected. (Paras 12, 16, 19)

2025 INSC 1411 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SHRI KARSHNI ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN SADASIVAN ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application by Financial Creditor — Rejection for technical defects — Affidavit Verification — Whether an application under Section 7 of the IBC, verified later than the date of the supporting affidavit, is liable to be rejected at the threshold — Mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit (e.g., dated before application verification) does not render the Section 7 application non est and liable to be rejected; such a defect is curable and not fundamental. (Paras 1, 17)

2025 INSC 1349 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIVEIN AQUA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 14 — Moratorium — Applicability to terminated Development Agreements — Development Agreement constitutes ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of Corporate Debtor only if it creates subsisting proprietary, possessory or legally enforceable right — Termination of Development Agreement based on Corporate Debtor’s persistent and prolonged non-performance, occurring prior to initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), is valid and lawful — Moratorium under Section 14 does not revive contracts validly terminated before insolvency or protect mere inchoate or forfeited contractual rights — Where developer never obtained possession and failed to perform core obligations, its development rights do not constitute ‘assets’ or ‘property’ of the Corporate Debtor, and the moratorium does not apply. (Paras 15.5, 15.6, 16.4, 16.7, 16.12, 20, 21(i), 21(ii))

2025 INSC 1366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL HARSHAD SHAMKANT DESHPANDE AND ANOTHER Vs. KHER NAGAR SUKHSADAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY…

You missed