Shivinder Mohan Singh, former promoter of Fortis Healthcare and Religare Enterprises, has filed for personal insolvency before NCLT Delhi, under Section 94 of the IBC, which permits individuals unable to repay debts to seek a structured resolution.

In his plea, Singh stated that his liabilities now far exceed his assets, many of which have been attached or devalued due to ongoing litigation, including the ₹3,500 crore arbitral award granted by a Singapore Tribunal in favor of Daiichi Sankyo, which found the SM Singh brothers liable for fraudulent misrepresentation in the 2008 Ranbaxy Deal.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 20. 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that recovery under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, can proceed against sole proprietorships despite insolvency proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 

In the case concerning M/s Rainbow Sales and M/s Kothari Enterprises—both sole proprietorships whose loans were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) by Axis Bank - the Court held that such entities do not qualify as "debtors" under Section 94 of the IBC.

Consequently, the moratorium provisions of the IBC do not apply, allowing SARFAESI recovery proceedings to continue uninterrupted.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld the NCLT January 20, 2025, decision to liquidate Go First Airways, dismissing appeals from Busy Bee Airways and others.

Busy Bee Airways, backed by EaseMyTrip co-founder Nishant Pitti, had proposed acquiring Go First as a going concern, citing the airline's valuable assets and operational license.

However, the NCLAT found no merit in the appeal, noting the lack of a viable revival plan for the debt-ridden airline.

This decision allows creditors to proceed with asset liquidation to recover dues totaling approximately ₹6,521 crore.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an insolvency plea filed by Nona Lifestyle against Zomato on the grounds of non-maintainability.

Nona had claimed delayed payments and return deliveries by Zomato, in relation to their partnership to supply ICC World Cup 2023-themed uniforms for Zomato’s staff and delivery partners. Zomato countered that Nona failed to meet delivery deadlines.

The NCLT ruled that Nona did not serve a valid notice under Section 8 of the IBC, which is a mandatory procedural requirement, rendering the petition invalid.

It emphasized that an operational creditor has a bound obligation to serve notice in the prescribed manner.

Ola Electric has settled financial disputes with Rosmerta Safety Systems Ltd and Rosmerta Digital Services Ltd, leading to the withdrawal of insolvency petitions filed against it at the NCLT in Bengaluru under Section 9 of IBC.

The petitions were over unpaid dues of approx ₹24.5 crore, with Rosmerta Digital Services seeking ₹22 crore and Rosmerta Safety Systems ₹2.5 crore. 

Ola Electric stated that the issue arose due to contract renegotiations with vehicle registration vendors, causing delays and errors in sales data on the Vahan portal.

The company has cleared 40% of the backlog and expects full resolution by March 2025.

The NCLAT quashed insolvency proceedings against Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd. (CDEL), overturning the NCLT’s order filed by IDBI Trusteeship Limited (ITSL). Following this, Coffee Day shares hit a 20% upper circuit.

In further development, CDSL has signed a settlement agreement to clear Rs. 205 Cr. of outstanding debt.

As per regulatory filing, repayments will be made in three tranches - ₹55 Cr. from share sales, ₹75 Cr. within 12 months, and the final installment based on financial targets.

CDEL’s revenue rose 7% year-on-year, with third quarter revenues 9% higher, representing consecutive revenue growth.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has issued a circular requiring insolvency professionals to include a dedicated section in the Information Memorandum (IM) detailing the carry forward of losses under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

This section must specify the quantum of losses, breakdown under specific heads, applicable time limits, and explicit mention if no losses exist. 

The directive aims to ensure transparency, enabling resolution applicants to make informed decisions.

Issued under Section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the circular strengthens the financial disclosures of distressed companies, ensuring clarity for stakeholders involved in the corporate insolvency resolution process.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, cannot be initiated if the corporate debtor has settled the debt after receiving a demand notice under Section 8 of the Code.

The NCLAT New Delhi bench observed that the corporate debtor had already discharged its liability, barring a minor disagreement over the final payment.

The tribunal found no grounds for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The appeal was allowed, and the order admitting the Section 9 application was set aside.

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the validity of the Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan Ordinance, 2025, ruling that motor vehicle and asset financing businesses are exempt from its purview. 

Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that the Ordinance protects vulnerable borrowers from exploitative lenders and coercive recovery methods, calling it a social justice measure. He deemed it reasonable and essential for borrower protection.

The Court ruled in favor of the Karnataka Hire Purchase Association (KHPA), stating it does not fall under the Ordinance's scope, granting the relief sought in the petition.

The court clarified that the ordinance only applies to unsecured microfinance loans and does not affect legitimate asset financing operations.

The Supreme Court ruled that the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act arises only when the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving the demand notice, not upon dishonor of the cheque.

A bench quashed the cheque dishonor case, noting that the cause of action arose after the moratorium under IBC, making the proceedings unsustainable.

The court emphasized that all six conditions under S.138 NI Act must be met for an offense to be constituted, citing Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi (2009).

Nona Lifestyle, a B2B apparel manufacturer, has moved the NCLT against Zomato, alleging non-payment of ₹1,64,83,194 for delivery of uniforms and World Cup merchandise. 

Nona claims Zomato delayed payments, refused deliveries, and forced discounts.

Zomato denied the claims, citing Nona’s failure to meet delivery timelines, leading to reputational damage. An earlier insolvency plea was dismissed for non-prosecution. 

Nona filed a restoration petition, arguing absence due to a mix-up. The NCLT adjourned the matter to April 3, directing Nona to clarify its course of action due to the existence of a pre-existing dispute.

Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Ola Electric Mobility Ltd, is facing an insolvency petition filed by Rosmerta Digital Services Ltd before the NCLT Bengaluru Bench under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The petition alleges non-payment for services rendered related to vehicle registration.

Ola Electric has disputed the claims and stated that it has sought legal advice.

The company is also renegotiating agreements with registration service providers, including Rosmerta Digital Services Pvt Ltd and Shimnit India Pvt Ltd.

The proceedings coincide with ongoing workforce reductions, which are expected to affect around 1,000 employees as part of operational changes.

The Supreme Court ruled that real estate developers cannot evade consumer protection laws by citing insolvency proceedings.

The Court upheld penalties imposed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on appellant for failing to deliver homes on time.

The appellant, Saranga Aggarwal, proprietor of East & West Builders (RNA Corp. Group Co.), argued that insolvency triggered a moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, stopping legal actions

However, the Court rejected this, stating that protecting irresponsible developers would harm consumer rights.

The court clarified that the Insolvency Code does not protect statutory violation or misconduct, upholding realtor accountability and safeguarding homebuyers' rights.