Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court examined the statutory time-limit for appeals, exclusion of time spent obtaining a certified copy, and the effect of delay in applying for the copy.
The High Court held that the delay in completion of the arbitral proceedings could not be attributed to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default on the part of the petitioner or the tribunal and that sufficient cause had been made out for extension of the mandate under Section 29-A (5), Arbitration Act.
“…Section 10A contains a non-obstante bar against filing an application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 in respect of a default arising on or after 25.03.2020, during the prescribed period extended up to 24.03.2021. The proviso makes the bar permanent by providing that “no application shall ever be filed” for initiation of CIRP in respect of such default. The Explanation clarifies that Section 10A does not apply to a default committed before 25.03.2020. Accordingly, determination of the precise date of default assumes decisive significance, as a default falling within the protected period attracts a permanent statutory bar.”
NCLT observed that it is not endowed with the powers of jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC.
The Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 IBC protects only the corporate debtor and does not bar consumer proceedings against promoters, directors, landowners or other non-corporate debtor respondents.
From recent IBC amendments to evolving merger control and competition law enforcement, the roundtable examined the legal and regulatory developments shaping India’s commercial landscape and their implications for businesses and investors.
Section 18(1)(f)(vi) IBC empowers the resolution professional to take control and custody of any asset over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights as reflected in its balance sheet, information utility, depository of securities, or any other registry recording ownership of assets, including assets subject to the determination of ownership by a court or authority.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 amends the IBC to ensure faster resolution, greater creditor oversight, improved accountability, and modernised insolvency and liquidation processes.
“Commercial wisdom of the CoC enjoys primacy and cannot be supplanted by judicial review. Neither the NCLT, nor the NCLAT nor even this Court is empowered to substitute its assessment in place of the commercial decision arrived at by a requisite majority of the CoC”.
Invocation of insolvency proceedings or the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot become a legal device to indefinitely stall redevelopment. The IBC was never intended to be used as a shield for non-performance at the cost of human rehabilitation.
Explore the key legal developments of November 2025, featuring CCI’s power to examine patented product disputes, dead worm found in Veg Biryani, deletion of disallowance against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, grieving father bribing ambulance, woman’s death at Jammu-based Super Specialty Hospital and Rajasthan bus fire tragedy.
2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 3: Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases on Forest Act, Motor Vehicles Act, NI Act, Commercial Courts Act, and IBC.
Commercial wisdom of the CoC in choosing the mode and counter-party of sale of assets, whether core or non-core, encumbered or unencumbered, is non-justiciable, barring jurisdictional or regulatory violations.
The CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated September 30, 2024, passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.
Reiterating that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is to be given paramount importance for approval/rejection of the Resolution Plan, the NCLT held that the Resolution Plans in the present case met the requirements of the IBC and the IBBI Regulations, and thus, had to be approved.
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advised the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Vadraj Cement Limited (VCL)
The RP sought exclusion of the time it took for NCLT to decide the applications filed under Section 19 of the IBC regarding the non-cooperation by the Company.
The Resolution Plan has been approved by 83.46% voting share of the CoC, therefore, at the instance of Appellant, approval of Resolution Plan cannot be allowed to be questioned.”
The order dated 16-4-2021 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai indicated that the prohibition during CIRP is with respect to institution and continuation of suits only against Prince SWR System (P) Ltd and not against the Company’s director, i.e., the applicant.
“Once a Secured Creditor relinquishes its security interest to the liquidation estate, it cannot seek priority among other Secured Creditors on the basis of the charge and is only entitled to receive proceeds from the sale of assets in the manner specified under Section 53 of the IBC.”