The NCLT Amaravati Bench held that liability for fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the IBC cannot be determined in a mechanical or routine manner.

It emphasised that allegations of fraud require a high standard of proof, including clear evidence of dishonest intent.

The Tribunal noted that financial transactions must be carefully examined through detailed reconciliation of inflows and outflows, rather than selective or incomplete data.

It also observed that merely pointing to certain transactions is not enough to establish fraud unless supported by proper records and analysis, highlighting the need for a thorough factual assessment before fixing liability.

[Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. v. Saradambika Power Plant Pvt. Ltd.]

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 has received Presidential assent, introducing major reforms to speed up insolvency resolution.

A key change is the creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process (CIIRP), allowing financial creditors to start proceedings outside courts with majority approval. The amendment aims to reduce delays and ease the burden on tribunals.

It also introduces stricter timelines, including faster approval of resolution plans and defined limits for liquidation.

Overall, the reforms seek to make the insolvency process quicker, more efficient, and creditor-friendly while improving ease of doing business in India.

The NCLT Mumbai held that a liquidator is duty-bound to preserve and protect the assets of a corporate debtor even if they are attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), until they are confiscated.

The tribunal clarified that attachment does not amount to transfer of ownership, and such assets continue to remain part of the liquidation estate.

It further observed that expenses incurred for maintaining and preserving these assets, including statutory dues, would qualify as liquidation costs under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

[Kohinoor City Office Towers Industrial Estate & Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Mr. Santanu T. Ray, the Liquidator of Firestar Diamond International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Supreme Court refused to stay the implementation of Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates, declining to interfere with the NCLAT’s earlier decision.

The Court noted that Vedanta’s appeal challenging the plan is already listed before the NCLAT on April 10, and therefore found no reason to intervene at this stage.

It directed the appellate tribunal to hear the matter expeditiously, even on a day-to-day basis if required.

Additionally, the Court clarified that any major decisions by the monitoring committee would require prior approval of the NCLAT, ensuring oversight during the pendency of the appeal.

[Vedanta Ltd. v. Bhuvan Madan & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court held that disputes relating to premature repayment of loans fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the NCLT under Section 45QA of the RBI Act, read with Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The case arose from a dispute between two NBFCs, where a civil suit was filed to restrain the recovery of a loan before its tenure ended.

The Court upheld rejection of the plaint, observing that civil courts lack jurisdiction in matters assigned to the NCLT.

It also noted that such suits cannot be used to pre-empt statutory proceedings before competent forums.

[Shivam Traders & Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhusudan Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.]

NCLAT ruled that insolvency proceedings against real estate firms should be confined to specific projects rather than the entire company. 

Modifying an order against Vatika Limited, the Bench held that "project-wise" resolution is essential to protect unrelated stakeholders & homebuyers. 

The dispute arose after Vatika defaulted on interest payments for debentures linked specifically to "Project Aspirations" in Gurgaon. The NCLAT noted that the NCLT erred by ignoring binding precedents that allow for localized insolvency.

While the default was confirmed, the process will now be restricted to the single project funded by the specific debentures to avoid collateral damage to the company’s other solvent developments.

[Surender Singh v. IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd.]

Pilots of the defunct Kingfisher Airlines have approached the Karnataka High Court seeking a direction to the court-appointed official liquidator to disburse their long-pending salaries. 

The Court directed the petitioners, Captain Mukesh Singh Shaktawat & Captain Desmond D’mello, to serve notice to the liquidator, scheduling the next hearing for April 8, 2026. 

Shaktawat, who served the airline for nine years, claimed dues amounting to approximately ₹1.39 crore.

Despite the liquidator finalizing the payable amounts in 2022-23 and the SBI-led consortium recovering nearly ₹14,000 crore from asset sales, the petitioners alleged that only provident fund money has been released so far.

[Mukesh Singh Shaktawat & Anr. v. Official Liquidator]

The Supreme Court has flagged a "shocking" Enforcement Directorate (ED) report revealing that debts worth ₹2,983 crore belonging to certain Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies were settled for just ₹26 crore through insolvency proceedings.

The Bench noted that these acquisitions were allegedly facilitated by eight Non-Banking Finance Companies via a scheme titled "Project Help."

The Court observed that insolvency petitions were deliberately initiated through unrelated lenders to undervalue assets.

Consequently, the Bench directed the CBI and ED to coordinate a "fair and time-bound" investigation into the alleged ₹40,000 crore fraud, aiming to unearth any connivance by financial institutions.

[EAS Sarma v. UOI & Ors.]

The Supreme Court ruled that a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench can lawfully consist of a majority of technical members.

Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vinod Chandran clarified that Section 418A of the Companies Act, 2013, only mandates the presence of at least one judicial member, not a judicial majority.

The Court rejected the minority shareholders' reliance on the Madras Bar Association verdict, noting that the prior ruling applied to the now-repealed 1956 Act.

Consequently, the Court upheld Bharti Telecom’s capital reduction scheme, confirming that a unanimous decision by a bench of one judicial and two technical members is valid.

[Pannalal Bansal v. Bharti Telecom & Ors]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, has held that when a winding-up petition filed in a High Court is transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and treated as a Section 9 Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) application, the NCLT cannot admit it automatically.

The tribunal must independently examine whether the petition meets the legal requirements under Section 9 of the IBC, including the statutory threshold of Rs. 1 Crore.

Simply because the High Court admitted the winding-up petition earlier does not mean the Section 9 application will be admitted without satisfying current IBC criteria.

[Navin Ashokkumar Aswani v. Falcon Industries & Rajendra Sanghi]

The Supreme Court held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits initiating parallel corporate insolvency resolution processes (CIRP) against a corporate debtor and its guarantor for the same underlying debt.

The Court observed that separate legal entities can be subjected to independent CIRP proceedings initiated by a financial creditor, as the liability of a guarantor is distinct from that of the principal debtor.

It said that initiating simultaneous CIRPs does not amount to abuse of process where the claims are legally tenable.

The Bench clarified that this interpretation aligns with the statutory framework and legislative intent of the IBC, allowing creditors to pursue their remedies efficiently.

The Supreme Court held that NCLT & NCLAT lack jurisdiction to look into the legality of properties attached under the Prevention of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988, even if such properties are involved in Insolvency proceedings.

The court emphasised that the Benami Act is a special law that supersedes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The case involved two corporate debtors whose properties were attached. The NCLT and NCLAT dismissed the challenges to these attachments, stating that appropriate legal remedies exist under the Benami Act. The Supreme Court upheld their decisions & dismissed appeals with costs of Rs. 5 Lakhs.

[S Rajendran v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and ors.]

The Supreme Court of India has held that mere accounting treatment of telecom spectrum as an “intangible asset” does not bring it within the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that spectrum remains a natural resource held by the Union in public trust. Recognition in financial statements reflects only control over future economic benefits, not ownership.

The Court clarified that under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, ownership of spectrum vests exclusively with the Union.

Hence, spectrum rights cannot form part of the asset pool in insolvency or liquidation proceedings.

[State Bank of India v. UOI & Ors.]