TOP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS THIS WEEK [19-25 Oct, 2026] | Detecting child abuse material; rape charge against woman; RTI on PM’s foreign visits; and more
A quick roundup to cover all the important legal developments and cases this week.
CIRP
IBC appeal limitation: Supreme Court says time runs from NCLAT pronouncement, not collection of certified copy
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.
CIRP and subsequent jurisdictional proceedings constitute sufficient cause: Bombay HC extends SAP India’s Arbitral Tribunal mandate by one year
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.
NCLAT sets aside CIRP against Superfine Metals (P) Ltd.; Cash Credit and Ad Hoc facility defaults under S. 10-A IBC fell within protected period
“…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.”
₹10.46 Crore in Claims, ₹1.55 Crore Recovered: NCLT Kolkata approves SIS Mohan Real Estate Resolution Plan
NCLT observed that it is not endowed with the powers of jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC.
Section 14 IBC Moratorium Applies Only to Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court
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.
India’s Evolving IBC and Competition Law Landscape: Key Takeaways from Khaitan & Co.’s Media Roundtable
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.
NCLT Kolkata Holds Title Disputes Over Property Cannot be Decided Under Section 60(5) IBC
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.
From Withdrawal to Creditor Control: Key Shifts under the IBC Amendment Act, 2026
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.
IBC vests decisive authority on CoC’s commercial wisdom; Confines judicial review strictly under Ss. 30(2) & 61(3) IBC: Supreme Court
“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”.
Failure to take meaningful steps towards obligations under Development Agreement can’t be protected by S. 14 IBC: Supreme Court
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.
Tribunals and Commissions November 2025 | Dead worm found in Veg Biryani; Disallowance deleted in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan case; Rajasthan bus fire tragedy; & more
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
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.
Sale of encumbered assets with secured creditors’ consent permitted under CIRP Regulation 29: NCLAT
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.
CAM advises and represents CoC of Vidarbha Industries Power during CIRP under IBC
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.
‘Resolution plans comply with IBC and CIRP Regulations’; NCLT approves Adani Properties acquisition of two HDIL assets
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. advises Committee of Creditors of Vadraj Cement on its Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advised the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Vadraj Cement Limited (VCL)
NCLT grants exclusion of 854 days to Resolution Professional; directs completion of CIRP
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.
‘Single Homebuyer can’t challenge CoC approved Resolution Plan’; NCLAT upholds CoC’s commercial wisdom
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.”
‘Attempt to thwart decrees passed by the Court following due process is an abuse of process of law’; Bombay HC imposes Rs 1 lakh cost
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.