The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that neither the Registry nor the NCLT can dismiss a Section 7 IBC petition (initiation of corporate insolvency) without giving the petitioner an opportunity to rectify defects in the supporting affidavit.

The court emphasized procedural fairness and ensures that technicalities do not obstruct legitimate claims.

The NCLAT directed the NCLT to allow amendments to cure defects, reinforcing the principle of justice over hyper-technical objections.

The Supreme Court has ruled that homebuyers cannot be denied possession of their flats if their claims were verified and admitted by the resolution professional (RP) during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the IBC.

The court ensures that homebuyers’ rights are protected even after the resolution plan is approved, preventing arbitrary exclusion despite prior validation. 

The court emphasised that admitted claims must be honoured to uphold fairness and trust in insolvency proceedings.

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacks jurisdiction to modify the terms of a one-time settlement (OTS) between a bank and a borrower.

The court emphasised that an OTS is a contractual agreement, and any dispute regarding its terms must be resolved through civil courts, not the DRT.

The court ensures that settlements remain binding and prevents tribunals from overriding mutually agreed terms, thereby promoting certainty in debt resolution processes. 

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order passed by the DRT was set aside.

[Bank of Baroda v U.N Automobiles Pvt Ltd.]

The Karnataka High Court listed in September pleas by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya and Director of United Breweries Holdings Limited Daljit Mahal, seeking a direction to the concerned Banks to provide a statement of accounts on the amounts owed by him.

The plea seeks that information be provided by taking into account the interest accrued periodically and giving due credit to all recoveries made from time to time.

They also sought an interim stay on further recovery actions by banks.

Additionally, the plea requests disclosure of amounts realised in favour of the banks and identification of original owners of assets used for recoveries.

[Vijay Mallya AND Recovery Officer-II & Others]

The Supreme Court has directed an independent investigation into serious allegations by an NCLAT member who claimed a judge from the higher judiciary attempted to influence his judicial decisions.

The matter, flagged by the NCLAT member in a letter, involves potential misconduct and threats to judicial independence.

The Supreme Court emphasised zero tolerance for any interference in judicial proceedings and assured a transparent probe to uphold institutional integrity.

The Chief Justice of India has taken suo motu cognisance, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to accountability and ethical standards.

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]