Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for appeals under Section 61(2) IBC: Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. (2025) INSC 639 (May 7, 2025)

/ Appeals, Definitions, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 61, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 4, R. Mahadevan

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 639 Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J. Can the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) condone delays exceeding the statutorily prescribed limit for filing appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Tata […]

Supreme Court clarifies limitation period for appeals under Section 61(2) IBC: Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee & Ors. (2025) INSC 639 (May 7, 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects JSW’s Resolution Plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, Orders Liquidation: Kalyani Transco vs. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (2025)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 29A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30(2), Judges, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 5, Satish Chandra Sharma

Introduction Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2025 Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J. Can a resolution plan be approved if it violates the mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Kalyani Transco vs. M/s. Bhushan Power

Supreme Court Rejects JSW’s Resolution Plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, Orders Liquidation: Kalyani Transco vs. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside Contempt Order: Rajan Chadha & Anr. vs. Sanjay Arora (2025)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Augustine George Masih, B.R. Gavai, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges

“`html Date of the Judgment: April 23, 2025 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Augustine George Masih, J. The Supreme Court addressed the correctness of procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. This case revolves around a contempt petition filed by

Supreme Court sets aside Contempt Order: Rajan Chadha & Anr. vs. Sanjay Arora (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the enforceability of arbitral awards post-resolution plan approval under IBC: Electrosteel Steel Limited vs. Ispat Carrier Private Limited (2025) INSC 525 (21 April 2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Ujjal Bhuyan

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 525 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J. The Supreme Court addressed a critical question regarding the enforceability of arbitral awards when a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been approved. This case, Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S

Supreme Court settles the enforceability of arbitral awards post-resolution plan approval under IBC: Electrosteel Steel Limited vs. Ispat Carrier Private Limited (2025) INSC 525 (21 April 2025) Read Post »

IBC Section 96 Moratorium Does Not Bar NI Act Section 138 Proceedings: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope in Cheque Dishonor Cases (2025)

/ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 96, Insolvency Resolution Process, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, R. Mahadevan

Date of the Judgment: April 01, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 445 Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J. Can a personal guarantor facing cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) avoid prosecution by claiming protection under the interim moratorium granted by Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

IBC Section 96 Moratorium Does Not Bar NI Act Section 138 Proceedings: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope in Cheque Dishonor Cases (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Interim Moratorium under IBC on Consumer Protection Act Penalties: Saranga Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth (2025)

/ Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 27, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 95, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 96, Insolvency Resolution Process, Judges, Prasanna B. Varale, Vikram Nath

Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 314 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prasanna B. Varale, J. Does the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) apply to penalties imposed under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act)? This question was recently addressed by the Supreme Court in a

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Interim Moratorium under IBC on Consumer Protection Act Penalties: Saranga Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates CCI Approval Before CoC Nod for Combination Resolution Plans: Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. (2025) INSC 124 (29 January 2025)

/ Combination, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 5, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31(4), Judges, S.V.N. Bhatti, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 124 Judges: Hrishikesh Roy, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J. (Majority opinion by Hrishikesh Roy, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., with a dissenting opinion by S.V.N. Bhatti, J.) Can a resolution plan involving a combination under the Competition Act, 2002, be approved by the

Supreme Court Mandates CCI Approval Before CoC Nod for Combination Resolution Plans: Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. (2025) INSC 124 (29 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Limits High Court Interference in Insolvency Cases (2025)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 12(A), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5)(c)

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Limits High Court Interference in Insolvency Cases (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can interfere with Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Article 226 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. vs. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors. Judgment Date: January 03, 2025 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Resolution Plan, Limits High Court Interference in Insolvency Cases (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Creditor Status in Insolvency Cases: China Development Bank vs. Doha Bank (2024)

/ Contract of Guarantee, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 126, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 127, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(8)

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Creditor Status in Insolvency Cases: China Development Bank vs. Doha Bank (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether entities providing loans to a company, with another entity acting as a guarantor through a Deed of Hypothecation, qualify as ‘Financial Creditors’ under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Creditor Status in Insolvency Cases: China Development Bank vs. Doha Bank (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Rejects PBG Adjustment in Insolvency Case (7 November 2024)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30(2)(a), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 33(3)

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Rejects PBG Adjustment LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) can be adjusted against the first tranche payment in a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. CASE TYPE: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Case Name: State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Rejects PBG Adjustment in Insolvency Case (7 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024)

/ Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Scope of Judicial Interference

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of interference by a referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited Judgment Date: 7th November

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of interference by a referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited Judgment Date:

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) Read Post »

Scroll to Top