The Delhi High Court ruled that it cannot directly attach immovable properties outside its territorial jurisdiction for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in the Daiichi Sankyo case against former Ranbaxy promoters.

Justice Anup Bhambhani emphasised that Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) restrictions apply, requiring property attachment orders to be executed by courts with proper territorial jurisdiction.

The Court rejected One Qube Realtors’ claim as an innocent third-party purchaser and issued a precept to the Gurugram District Court for property attachment worth ₹126 crores. Ownership disputes must be resolved by competent courts, not the executing court.

The ruling reinforces jurisdictional limits in cross-state enforcement of foreign awards.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has declared Kapil Wadhawan, the former promoter of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation (DHFL), bankrupt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

This move follows a petition by creditors seeking to recover debts from Wadhawan personally, separate from the corporate resolution process already completed for DHFL.

The bankruptcy declaration allows creditors to liquidate Wadhawan’s personal assets to settle outstanding dues. Wadhawan, facing multiple investigations, including allegations of fraud and money laundering, had opposed the petition. 

[Union Bank of India v Kapil Wadhawan]

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a probe into allegations in US short-seller Viceroy Research’s July 9 report, “Vedanta – Limited Resources,” which accuses Vedanta Ltd, Hindustan Zinc Ltd, and related entities of fraud, financial manipulation, and regulatory breaches.

Petitioner-advocate Shakti Bhatia has named the Union, SEBI, RBI, and MCA, citing undisclosed related-party transactions, siphoning of funds, misuse of dividends, and failure to disclose material events. 

The petition urges investigation under the Companies Act and SEBI regulations, warning of potential harm to minority shareholders if authorities fail to act. 

[Shakti Bhatia v UOI]

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Tuesday introduced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposing key reforms such as group insolvency, cross-border insolvency, and a creditor-oriented insolvency resolution process.

The Bill seeks to amend Section 7 to ensure insolvency applications are admitted solely on proof of default, aiming to cut admission delays from the current 434-day average to the mandated 14 days.

It clarifies the priority of government dues, expands “resolution plans” to include asset sales, and introduces provisions to restore resolution processes in exceptional cases.

The reforms aim to reduce delays, maximise value, and align with global best practices. The Bill has been referred to a select committee for further deliberations

The Supreme Court has concluded hearings and reserved its judgment on review petitions challenging its earlier decision in the JSW-Bhushan Power insolvency dispute.

A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vinod Chandran reserved the judgment.

The case involves financial creditors’ claims and issues around the approved resolution plan for Bhushan Power & Steel.

Key points included the Committee of Creditors’ role after plan approval, EBITDA allocation, and alleged breaches of working capital obligations. 

[Kalyani Transco v Bhushan Power & Steel Limited]

The State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana issued a warning to lawyers against advertising legal services on social media, through promotional videos, or influencer endorsements.

The council noted advocates using religious, cultural, or public events for self-promotion via banners, stalls, and digital ads, violating professional ethics, calling it a violation of Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits soliciting work through advertisements or client photographs.

Violations may lead to misconduct proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, potentially resulting in licence suspension or cancellation. The directive was sent to all regional bar associations.

In a significant move, the Supreme Court on July 31 recalled its May 2 judgment that had directed the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) by rejecting JSW Steel’s ₹20,000 crore resolution plan.

The bench led by CJI Gavai observed that Article 142 had been wrongly invoked “to do injustice” and that the ruling ignored legal precedents and relied on incorrect facts.

The Court allowed a review, keeping all issues open for rehearing and stressed that the commercial wisdom of creditors and the livelihood of 25,000 workers couldn’t be dismissed over minor procedural lapses.

[Punjab National Bank and Anr. v Kalyani Transco and Ors.]

The Supreme Court agreed to hear review petitions challenging its May 2 judgment that quashed JSW Steel’s resolution plan for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd (BSPL), declaring it illegal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the request for an open-court hearing and oral submissions. 

The matter is now scheduled for a detailed hearing on July 31 at 3 PM. 

The decision marks a crucial development in the high-stakes corporate insolvency battle.

[Punjab National Bank & Anr v Kalyani Transco & Ors]

The NCLT Ahmedabad bench has admitted an insolvency petition against BluSmart Mobility Limited, filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Limited over a ₹1.28 crore default on 15 non-convertible debentures issued in April 2023.

Rejecting BluSmart’s defence of financial hardship and alleged procedural lapses, the Tribunal found clear evidence of default, including bank records and a debt acknowledgement by its co-founder. It held that the debt qualified as a financial debt under Section 5(8) and 3(12) of the IBC.

The IRP is required to issue a public announcement within three days and invite claims from creditors.

The Registrar of Companies has been directed to update BluSmart’s status as “under CIRP” on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the withdrawal of insolvency proceedings filed by BCCI against Byju’s over unpaid sponsorship dues. 

The original insolvency plea before NCLT Bengaluru was withdrawn after a mutual settlement. The petitioner, a third party, opposed the withdrawal, citing public interest.

However, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, stating the petitioner had no locus standi in a matter that was already settled mutually.

The bench made it clear that third parties cannot interfere in settled IBC disputes unless directly affected, and refused to entertain the petition.

The Kerala High Court has held that it can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside an ad interim injunction granted by a civil court in a suit barred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 

Justice K. Natarajan emphasised that Sections 63 and 231 of the IBC prohibit civil courts from entertaining suits where the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction. 

The Court ruled that any civil court order in such matters is illegal and without jurisdiction. The court directed trial courts to verify suit maintainability suo moto and permitted petitioners to approach the NCLT for relief.

JSW Steel has filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s May 2, 2025, judgment that deemed its ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL) “illegal” and ordered liquidation. 

The court had found violations of Sections 30(2) and 31(2) of the IBC, citing mala fide conduct. JSW argues the judgment violates Article 142 and natural justice, ignores the commercial wisdom of creditors under CoC, and misapplies precedent, threatening thousands of jobs and national economic interests.

The review petition is now before a SC bench.

The Ahmedabad bench of the NCLT admitted the insolvency petition against Gensol Engineering Limited, filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) under Section 7 of the IBC, over a ₹510 crore loan default.

A two-member bench noted that Gensol did not dispute the existence of the debt and appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) from the IBBI panel instead of IREDA’s nominee.

Previous SEBI findings revealed alleged fund diversion and governance lapses; the tribunal had earlier ordered freezing of bank and demat accounts and asset attachment.

If no resolution plan is approved within 180–330 days, Gensol may face liquidation.