Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The NCLT has initiated a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor citing financial distress, confirming that such distress does not exempt the company from insolvency proceedings. An Interim Resolution Professional has been appointed.
In a significant ruling, the NCLT has directed Kotak Mahindra Bank to return title deeds owed to a corporate debtor following full payment of the approved resolution plan. This decision reinforces creditors' obligations post-resolution settlement.
The NCLT has admitted an insolvency plea against a kraft paper manufacturer, appointing Rishabh Sethi as the Interim Resolution Professional. This marks a significant step in the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the IBC.
SBI's application under Section 7 for insolvency was admitted, asserting that pendency of winding-up proceedings cannot override corporate revival objectives under IBC.
The Supreme Court ruled that a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) cannot back out of a CoC-approved resolution plan merely by claiming that the Letter of Intent (LoI) is conditional.
The NCLAT has upheld the eviction of occupants, ruling that unregistered profit-sharing agreements do not create tenancy rights over the assets of a corporate debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The NCLAT has ruled that undisclosed related-party agreements cannot justify the continued occupation of a corporate debtor’s property during CIRP.
The NCLAT has clarified that Resolution Professionals can secure possession of corporate assets without needing to file separate eviction suits during the CIRP.
The NCLT has accepted an insolvency application for ₹1.96 crore, stating that SARFAESI actions by secured creditors do not hinder CIRP where operational debts are present.
The NCLT Kolkata has admitted SBI's insolvency plea against Martina Bio Genics, ruling that ongoing winding-up proceedings cannot obstruct the revival process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
In a significant ruling, the NCLT has stated that a corporate guarantor cannot avoid Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) obligations even if there are parallel proceedings against the principal borrower. This decision reinforces the co-extensive liability of guarantors under the IBC.
The NCLT has clarified that the limitation period for invoking Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate guarantor begins with the invocation of the guarantee, not from the classification as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). This ruling is pivotal for creditors in managing timelines for claims against guarantors.