The Corporate Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws Bar Association (CIBBA) has requested the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to make its second bench at Chennai functional.

Although the Chennai bench has existed since 2021, it currently operates with only one bench. With the recent appointments of Justices N Sesha Sayee and Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, the NCLAT now has its full sanctioned strength, eliminating prior constraints.

CIBBA highlighted that sufficient infrastructure, including an additional courtroom, is already available.

Given the bench’s jurisdiction over five southern states and Puducherry, CIBBA emphasized the urgent need to manage increasing caseloads efficiently.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has introduced Regulation 17B to address situations where personal guarantors fail to submit repayment plans under Section 105 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).  

Effective from May 19, 2025, this regulation mandates that if a personal guarantor does not prepare and submit a repayment plan, the Resolution Professional (RP) must obtain approval from creditors and then file an application with the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to inform them of the non-submission and seek appropriate directions.  

This amendment aims to prevent procedural delays, empower RPs to act decisively, and ensure the insolvency process proceeds efficiently.

Dunar Foods Ltd, an accused in the ₹120 crore National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) Scam, has been discharged from criminal proceedings under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The Mumbai court ruled that despite the company’s past involvement, it is entitled to immunity after its resolution plan was approved and management changed in 2019. 

Section 32A protects new management from liability for prior offenses committed by the corporate debtor.

The court dismissed the CBI's objections, emphasizing that the provision aims to ensure economic revival without penalizing incoming management for past misconduct.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has amended the regulations for the insolvency resolution of personal guarantors to corporate debtors, effective May 19, 2025.

The key update allows the same insolvency professional (IP) to be appointed for both the corporate debtor and the personal guarantor, aiming to enhance procedural efficiency.

The amendments also require holding creditors’ meetings and mandate the resolution professional to report to the Adjudicating Authority if no repayment plan is submitted under Section 105.

These changes aim to streamline the process, ensure better coordination, and uphold transparency in personal guarantor insolvency cases.

The Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) has filed an insolvency plea under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Gensol Engineering Ltd over a loan default exceeding ₹510 crore.

Following SEBI’s April 15 order, Gensol was accused of diverting funds, indulging in luxury spending, and submitting forged documents, leading to a ban on its promoters from accessing the securities market and holding managerial positions.

While the Securities Appellate Tribunal refused to stay SEBI's order, the Delhi High Court ordered the seizure of electric vehicles hypothecated to various lenders.

Multiple lessors also secured interim relief. Gensol's response to SEBI is pending and a final decision is expected in four weeks.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that winding-up petitions should be transferred to the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, unless the company's closure is inevitable or beyond revival.

The case involved Elecon Engineering's petition to wind up Inox Wind Ltd. over unpaid dues of Rs. 3,25,78,000. While the petition was pending, Inox requested that the case be transferred to the NCLT. The court allowed the transfer despite Elecon's objection that the company was beyond recovery.

However, the court pointed to changes in Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act and supporting rules, stating the IBC favors giving businesses a chance to recover before liquidation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot accept appeals filed beyond 45 days under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

Citing the statutory limit and referring to the precedent in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd, the Court emphasized that the limitation begins from the pronouncement date of the NCLT’s order.

The appeal in question was delayed beyond both the initial 30 days and the 15-day condonable period. Applying Sections 61(2) IBC and Section 4 of the Limitation Act, the Court set aside NCLAT’s order. 

The Supreme Court rejected the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel Ltd for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd (BSPL), calling it illegal and in violation of the IBC, and ordered the liquidation of BSPL under Section 33(1).  

The plan was previously approved by NCLT and NCLAT. The Court noted that JSW Steel had not complied with the terms of the approved resolution plan for about two years, undermining the objectives of the IBC. 

The bench criticized the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for failing to uphold their statutory duties and for approving a plan that contravened mandatory IBC provisions.

As a result, JSW is awaiting the detailed judgment to decide its next course of action. 

The NCLT, Bangalore, has once again deferred its order on the insolvency petition against Dunzo, citing time constraints, despite multiple listings

As per the IBC, the NCLT must admit or reject the insolvency petition within 14 days of filing, but in Surendra Trading Co. v. Juggilal Kamalpat, the Supreme Court held this timeline to be directory, not mandatory, allowing the NCLT some discretion in adhering to it. 

The Tribunal has criticised dunzo for failing to respond on time, even forfeiting its right to file a reply in some instances. 

Dunzo has faced a liquidity crisis with operational disruptions like delayed salaries and vendor payments. The matter is now listed for May 27. 

The Bombay HC ruled that provident fund dues, including the employer's contribution, do not form part of a corporate debtor's assets under the IBC and cannot be wiped out by a resolution plan.

The Court clarified that provident fund dues are statutory obligations held in trust for employees and do not qualify as operational debts under the IBC and are excluded from the definition of assets under Section 18 of the IBC.

Rejecting Dalmia Cement's argument that PF dues were extinguished based on a previous ruling, the Court directed payment of ₹25.23 crore in unpaid EPF dues and reaffirmed that such liabilities must be honored.

Balurghat Technologies has filed an insolvency petition against United Breweries (UB) in the NCLT, Bengaluru, over an alleged default of ₹2.64 crore, including ₹1.62 crore in unpaid principal.

The company claimed that UB had earlier acknowledged the dues and entered into settlement discussions, which ultimately failed. The NCLT bench directed Balurghat to furnish supporting documents, including invoices and proof of interest liability.

While some financial details were already available in the record, the Tribunal sought additional evidence. The matter will be heard next in June.

The Delhi HC appointed a receiver to take symbolic control of 95 Tata Xpres Electric Vehicles leased by Clime Finance to Gensol and BluSmart, with the condition that the vehicles should not be moved from their current locations.

Clime Finance requested the court to stop the respondents from selling, transferring, or using the EVs as collateral and sought control over the vehicles to ensure proper maintenance.

This action followed SEBI’s ban on Gensol’s promoters from the stock market due to allegations of fund misuse and mismanagement.

The court directed the preservation of the vehicles, not possession. The next hearing is scheduled for July 24, 2025.

The Calcutta High Court has held that once liquidation is initiated under Section 33(5) of the IBC, proceedings under the FEMA cannot continue.

The ruling came in a case involving Shree Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Pvt. Ltd., where the Court quashed FEMA notices issued under Section 37A, citing the overriding effect of IBC through Section 238.

The court emphasized that post-liquidation, no proceedings can be initiated or continued without prior approval from the Adjudicating Authority, reaffirming IBC’s primacy over conflicting laws, including FEMA.