As October concludes, it’s time to reflect on the latest judgments, orders and development from the NCLAT Delhi in October 2025. This roundup provides an overview of the important cases on Continuing Liability, Operational Debt, Limitation, Homebuyer’s claim, Jurisdiction, Acknowledgment of Debt, Pre-existing Dispute, Fixed Deposits and Corporate Debtor Assets.
CONTINUING LIABILITY
NCLAT DELHI | Claim for ₹1 Crore Loan and Profit Share in “Madina Heights” Project Dismissed; Appellant Unable to Substantiate Continuing Liability
In the present Company Appeal, the appellant had advanced ₹1 crore to the corporate debtor in 2010 for the ‘Madina Heights’ project, under an alleged agreement promising 18% interest and a 15% profit share. When repayment was not made, the appellant issued legal and demand notices and subsequently filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’). To establish the debt, the Appellant relied on TDS certificates from 2010—11 and initial balance sheets reflecting interest payments.
However, the Appellate Tribunal observed that merely having early TDS entries and no subsequent financial records did not prove a continuing liability to pay interest. It also noted that the profit share claim was outside the scope of the Section 7 IBC proceedings. As the project remained incomplete and default could not be substantiated, the appeal was dismissed. [Meck Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Accurate Infrabuild (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1692] Read More HERE
OPERATIONAL DEBT
NCLAT DELHI | Advance Payment for Scrap Sale Qualifies as Operational Debt; Section 9 Petition Admitted
In the present Company Appeal, the appeal arose from an NCLT, Ahmedabad order that admitted a Section 9 petition filed by B.N. Enterprises (Operational Creditor) against Vasundhara Seamless Stainless Tubes (P) Ltd for non-refund of a ₹1 crore advance paid under a 2019 scrap sale agreement. The suspended director argued that no operational debt existed, claimed the scrap had already been lifted, and alleged that the correspondence relied upon was fabricated.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the advance payment made for goods qualified as an “operational debt” under Section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions (P) Ltd., (2022) 7 SCC 164. It further noted that the company’s balance sheets showed continuing acknowledgment of the liability, and the alleged dispute appeared were a mere afterthought since no objections were raised before the demand notice.
Having established both debt and default, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the admission of the Section 9 petition and dismissed the appeal. [Rakesh Bhailalbhai Patel v. Vasundhara Seamless Stainless Tubes (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1669] Read more HERE
LIMITATION
NCLAT DELHI | SBI’s Section 95 Application Against Personal Guarantor of GEI Industrial Systems Ltd. Allowed; NCLT Dismissal Set Aside
In the present Company Appeal, SBI filed an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the personal guarantor of GEI Industrial Systems Ltd. The NCLT Indore had dismissed the application as time-barred, holding that the balance sheets relied upon were invalid since they were not signed by the guarantor.
The Tribunal held that the acknowledgments in the corporate debtor’s balance sheets for the years 2016—2020 constituted valid acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and, in accordance with Clauses 12 and 19 of the Guarantee Deed, were binding on the guarantor as well. The Tribunal further observed that SBI’s recall notice dated 30.09.2016 effectively invoked the personal guarantee. Accordingly, the Section 95 application was held to be within limitation, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the NCLT order. [SBI v. Bernard John, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1670] Read more HERE
HOMEBUYERS’ CLAIM
NCLAT DELHI | Homebuyers’ Claims Must Be Considered Even After CoC Approval; Resolution Plan Remitted for Reconsideration
In the present Company Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that homebuyers’ claims, though filed after the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) approval of the Resolution Plan ON 4-3-2020, were required to be considered because the plan was remitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 05.03.2024 for reconsideration in light of Greater Noida v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, (2024) 6 SCC 767.
The Resolution Professional had verified these claims and filed an affidavit reflecting the amounts received and units allotted, which the NCLT had overlooked. Relying on Puneet Kaur v. K.V. Developers (P) Ltd., (2024) 242 Comp Cas 728 and Amit Nehra v. Pawan Kumar Garg, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1941, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that such genuine homebuyers could not be relegated to the “50% refund” clause.
The appeals were allowed, directing the Resolution Applicant to file a second addendum incorporating these homebuyers’ claims as Financial Creditors in a Class, with equal treatment to other allottees. [Reena v. Rabindra Kumar Mintri, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1649] Read more HERE
JURISDICTION
NCLAT DELHI | Alleged Abuse of Dominance in Relation to Patented Drug Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) Not Within CCI’s Purview
In the present Competition appeal, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CCI’s closure of proceedings concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct by Vifor International regarding the patented drug Ferric Carboxymaltose (‘FCM’). The appellant had alleged abuse of dominance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. CCI, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4078, subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in CCI v. Monsanto Holdings (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2329 the Appellate Tribunal held that issues concerning exercise of patent rights fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the CCI lacked jurisdiction to examine such allegations. [Swapan Dey v. CCI, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1698] Read more HERE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT
NCLAT DELHI | Acknowledgment of Debt in Prior CIRP Satisfies Limitation Requirements Under Section 18 of Limitation Act
In the present Company Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed appeals filed by the erstwhile director of Sanwariyaji Business Ventures (P) Ltd. and Shrinathji Business Ventures (P) Ltd. challenging the NCLT Jaipur’s orders admitting petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant contended that the debts, originally disbursed by DHFL and later assigned to Omkara ARC, were time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the admission of the creditor’s claim by the Resolution Professional in an earlier CIRP against the same corporate debtor constituted a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1641]
PRE-EXISTING DISPUTE
NCLAT DELHI | Insolvency Petition Under Section 9 IBC Dismissed Due to Bona Fide Dispute
In the present Company Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT’s order admitting Clothwari Printing (P) Ltd. into insolvency under Section 9 of the IBC. The appeal, filed by suspended director Mr. Nimish Sanghavi, challenged the claim of Insight Print Communications (P) Ltd. regarding non-payment for a digital textile printer.
The Appellate Tribunal found that emails and correspondence revealed performance issues with the supplied printer, establishing a bona fide pre-existing dispute. It held that the NCLT erred in admitting the petition despite such dispute and quashed the CIRP granting the Operational Creditor liberty to seek other remedies in law. [Nimish Sanghavi v. Insight Print Communications (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1647] Read more HERE
PRE-EXISTING DISPUTE
NCLAT DELHI | Insolvency Petition Under Section 9 Dismissed Due to Service Dispute
In present Company Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT’s order admitting Nysa Communications (P) Ltd. into insolvency under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016. The appeal, filed by the suspended director, challenged the admission of the application by the Operational Creditor.
The dispute arose from a facility agreement for conducting ICAR’s online examinations, where the Operational Creditor allegedly failed to provide necessary CCTV footage, resulting in termination of Nysa’s contract by ICAR. The Appellate Tribunal observed that detailed correspondence, including emails and reports, established a genuine pre-existing dispute regarding service deficiencies. Further held that the NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the merits instead of determining the existence of dispute, and therefore quashed the CIRP order and dismissed the Section 9 application. [Puneet Kumar v. Computer Junction (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1654] Read more HERE
RESOLUTION PLAN
NCLAT DELHI | Delayed Entry Into CIRP Does Not Invalidate Resolution Plan
In the present company appeal., the Appellate Tribunal, set aside the NCLT Kolkata’s order that had invalidated Dorni Vinimoy (P) Ltd.’s resolution plan for Imperial Tubes (P) Ltd. The Tribunal held that Dorni’s delayed entry into the CIRP, permitted by an earlier NCLT order, did not amount to material irregularity or collusion between the Resolution Professional (‘RP’), Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’), and Dorni Vinimoy (P) Ltd.
The Appellate Tribunal found no breach affecting the fairness or integrity of the process, noting that all actions complied with law and promoted value maximization. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal restored Dorni Vinimoy (P) Ltd. approved plan and directed the NCLT to reconsider it under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [Dorni Vinimoy (P) Ltd. v. Imperial Tubes (P) Ltd. (Resolution Professional) , 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1678] Read more HERE
FINANCIAL DEBT
NCLAT DELHI | Absence of Written Agreement Does Not Negate Financial Debt Under IBC
In the present Company Appeal, the Tribunal set ide the NCLT Kolkata’s order rejecting Sinki Commodities (P) Ltd.’s Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(‘IBC’) application against ABC Floors (P) Ltd. The Tribunal held that the ₹1.6 crore advanced by the NBFC constituted a financial debt under Section 5(8) IBC, as it was a commercial loan carrying 8% interest, which the debtor had admitted.
The absence of a written agreement did not alter the nature of the transaction, which was sufficiently supported by bank records and correspondence. The Tribunal directed ABC Floors (P) Ltd. to repay ₹1.6 crore with 8% interest within three months, failing which the NCLT was instructed to admit the insolvency case. [Sinki Commodities (P) Ltd. v. ABC Floors (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1657] Read more HERE
CORPORATE DEBTOR’S ASSETS
NCLAT DELHI | Mortgaged Property Cannot Be Excluded from Asset Pool; CoC’s Commercial Wisdom Upheld
In the present company appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT Mumbai’s order that had excluded 5% margin money secured by Bank of India from Frost International Ltd.’s asset pool. The Tribunal held that the property mortgaged as collateral could not be treated as “margin money” or “trust property,” since the bank guarantees and letters of credit were invoked before commencement of CIRP, and the mortgage remained unenforced, thereby forming part of the Corporate Debtor’s assets.
The Appellate Tribunal further clarified that enforcement of such security interests is permissible only during liquidation under Section 52 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and not during CIRP. It upheld the Committee of Creditors’ decision to distribute proceeds on a pro-rata basis according to admitted claims, recognizing it as an exercise of commercial wisdom that cannot be interfered with judicially. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the NCLT’s order was set aside. [Indian Overseas Bank v. Bank of India, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1689] Read more HERE
FIXED DEPOSITS
NCLAT DELHI | RP Cannot Seek Release of Charged FDs Without Extinguishing Secured Creditor’s Rights
In the present Company Appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, set aside the NCLT Kolkata’s order directing the release of fixed deposits held by ICICI Bank to the Resolution Professional (‘RP’). The Tribunal held that the overdraft and bank guarantee facilities extended by ICICI Bank were secured by fixed deposits created and charged in the Bank’s favour, thereby making ICICI Bank a secured financial creditor.
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the fixed deposits constituted cash collateral, and the RP could not demand their release without first extinguishing the Bank’s security interest. It further clarified that ICICI Bank’s correspondence never indicated consent or waiver for release of the deposits, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in ordering otherwise. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. [ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Darjeeling Organic Tea (P) Ltd. (Resolution Professional), 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1699]
*This roundup has been contributed by Advocate Akshat Malpani. Author can be reached at: akshatmalpani19@gmail.com