Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

30 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED)versus63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS

2025 INSC 42131 March 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the corporate insolvency resolution of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL), where Piramal Capital submitted a resolution plan (RP) that allocated recoveries from Section 66 applications to itself. The plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law

RAKESH BHANOTversusM/S. GURDAS AGRO PVT. LTD

2025 INSC 44531 March 2025Dismissed

The appellants, who were directors and guarantors of a company, were charged under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. While the criminal proceedings were pending, they filed personal insolvency applications under section 94 of the Insolvenc

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 91130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., entered into a term loan agreement with the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., in 2015, which became a non‑performing asset on 1 March 2018. The appellant filed a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on 15 January 2024, relying on th

VISA COKE LIMITEDversusM/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

2025 INSC 59729 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Visa Coke Ltd., an operational creditor, claimed that it had validly served a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by sending Form 3 to the Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) of Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd. at its registered office. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and th

RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59329 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which base the pecuniary jurisdiction of district, state and national consumer commissions on the value of consideration paid rather than the compensation claimed. The challenge arose fr

INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.versusGIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12429 January 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the corporate insolvency resolution of Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd., where AGI Greenpac's resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) without prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as required by the proviso to Section 31(4) of the I

V.S. PALANIVELversusP. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.

2024 INSC 65928 August 2024Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a former managing director of Sri Lakshmi Hotel Private Ltd., challenged the e‑auction of the company's property, alleging that the reserve price was under‑valued, that the liquidator failed to form a Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee, and that the liquidator violated Regulation 33 by not cancelling t

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusINDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

2024 INSC 77427 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) appealed an order of the NCLT rejecting its IBC petition against India Power Corporation Limited. The appeal was filed three days after the statutory 30‑day period, and SBI sought condonation of delay, relying on a free certified copy of the NCLT order sent under Rule 50. A split decision aros

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITEDversusPRATISHTHA THAKUR HARITWAL & ORS.

2025 INSC 40127 March 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered a contempt petition filed by JSW Steel Ltd., which had become the successful resolution applicant for the insolvent Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. After the National Company Law Tribunal approved the resolution plan, the State of Chhattisgarh issued demand notices for sales tax, VAT and entry

SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD.versusPRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH & ORS.

2024 INSC 55124 July 2024Dismissed

Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. entered into agreements with Cane Agro Energy Ltd., which failed to supply sugar and issued two cheques that were later dishonoured for insufficient funds. The appellant filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and obtained an order of interim compensation under S

GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 81123 October 2024

The appellant, GLAS Trust Company LLC, a financial creditor of Think & Learn Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor), challenged the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) approval of a settlement between the corporate debtor and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the setting aside of the NCLT order

RAJAN CHADHA & ANR.versusSANJAY ARORA

2025 INSC 54623 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, shareholders of RBT Private Ltd., filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent, a fellow shareholder, willfully violated court and arbitral orders by removing assets and failing to pay loan EMIs. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 5 December 2023 held the respondent guilty of contempt a

VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.

2024 INSC 81022 October 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a suspended director of the corporate debtor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 application initiating a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by UCO Bank, arguing that the debtor's balance‑sheet entries did not constitute a clear, specific acknowledgment of debt required under Section 18

ELECTROSTEEL STEEL LIMITED (NOW M/S ESL STEEL LIMITED)versusISPAT CARRIER PRIVATE LIMITED

2025 INSC 52521 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Electrosteel Steel Ltd. (now ESL Steel Ltd.) filed a petition under Article 227 challenging an order that directed it to comply with an arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council in favour of Ispat Carrier Pvt. Ltd. The award was rendered after the corporate debtor’s insolvency

VAIBHAV GOEL & ANR.versusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

2025 INSC 37520 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a corporate debtor, Tehri Iron and Steel Casting Ltd., whose resolution plan was approved by the NCLT on 21 May 2019. The plan listed certain statutory and contingent liabilities, but omitted income‑tax demands for assessment years 2012‑13 and 2013‑14. After the plan’s approval, the Income Tax Depa

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIAversusSATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.

2024 INSC 31919 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) filed a criminal complaint under Sections 73(a) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the former directors of SBM Paper Mills for non‑compliance with a One‑Time Settlement ordered by the NCLT. The Sessions Judge issued process, but the res

BANK OF BARODAversusFAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 25319 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Karnataka High Court was justified in using its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to halt personal insolvency proceedings against Farooq Ali Khan under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The bank had filed an application for personal insolvency after the gua

AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SETH & ANR.

2024 INSC 10519 January 2024

The applicant‑appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking clarification of a Supreme Court judgment dated 12 September 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022, specifically the use of the term “unsecured creditor” in paragraph 20. The Court, after hearing counsel, held that the term should be read as “secured cre

VISHNOO MITTALversusM/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY

2025 INSC 34616 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former director of a corporate debtor, was served a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques drawn before the commencement of insolvency proceedings. While the insolvency process and a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC were imposed on 25 July 2018, the dem

ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.

2024 INSC 46014 June 2024Dismissed

The respondents filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 1,04,16,576 and later submitted a memo under Rule 3(6)(b) asking the trial court to decree the suit. The trial court rejected the memo, but the Karnataka High Court set aside that order and directed the trial court to accept the

NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 69414 May 2025

The Supreme Court examined whether secured creditors could claim priority over assets attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act (MPID Act) by invoking the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act. It also considered

MANSI BRAR FERNANDESversusSHUBHA SHARMA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 111012 September 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants, who entered into buy‑back memoranda of understanding for residential units, were "speculative investors" and thus barred from filing Section 7 insolvency petitions, and whether the 2019 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance and the subsequent 2020 Amendm

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusBCL SECURE PREMISES PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 14019 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) floated a tender for a tank‑truck locking system and awarded a purchase order to AGC Networks Ltd., which later engaged BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (BCL) as a sub‑vendor. HPCL alleged non‑performance by AGC and denied any contractual relationship or payment liability to BCL

AMIT NEHRA & ANR.versusPAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS.

2025 INSC 10869 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, homebuyers who paid Rs.57,56,684 for an apartment in the IREO Rise project, sought possession after the developer defaulted on delivery. Their claim was filed initially on 11‑01‑2019 and resubmitted on 07‑02‑2020, after which the Resolution Professional verified it and included it in the list of financi

GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED

2024 INSC 8537 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Goqii Technologies (appellant) entered a Master Services Agreement with Sokrati Technologies (respondent) containing an arbitration clause (Clause 18.12). After paying over Rs 5.5 crore, Goqii raised concerns based on an independent audit reporting alleged overcharges and fraudulent practices, and invoked arbitration u

TATA STEEL LTD.versusRAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS.

2025 INSC 6397 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tata Steel Ltd., had its resolution plan for Rohit Ferro‑Tech Ltd. approved by the NCLT on 7 April 2022. A minority shareholder, Respondent No. 1, filed an appeal to the NCLAT on 23‑24 May 2022, seeking condonation of delay beyond the 30‑day statutory period. The dispute centered on when the limitation p

A. RAJENDRAversusGONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO & ORS.

2025 INSC 4474 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a shareholder and suspended managing director of a corporate debtor, filed two appeals under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) without first applying for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the limitation perio

SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWALversusBHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

2025 INSC 3143 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a real‑estate developer, was penalised by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) with 27 penalties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for failing to deliver possession of residential units. While insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Section 9

DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPOREversusRUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2024 INSC 143 January 2024Matter referred to larger bench

DBS Bank Limited Singapore extended a USD 50 million loan to Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, secured by first charges over immovable assets. A resolution plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors with 96.95% support, but DBS dissented, receiving a pro‑rata distribution that was lower than the liquidation value of

MOHAMMED ENTERPRISES (TANZANIA) LTD.versusFAROOQ ALI KHAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 252 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined appeals against a Karnataka High Court order that had stayed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Associate Decor Ltd, where Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd's resolution plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 11 February 2020. The petitioners argue

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search