Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

198 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWALversusSTATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.

2023 INSC 96331 October 2023Dismissed

A batch of five review petitions was filed challenging the Supreme Court's common judgment and order dated 06‑09‑2022 in Civil Appeals No. 1661 of 2020 and No. 2568 of 2020, which interpreted the interplay between Section 48 of the Gujarat Value‑Added Tax Act, 2003 and Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRLES LTD.versusICICI BANK & ANR.

2017 INSC 83731 August 2017Dismissed

Innoventive Industries Ltd., a corporate debtor, defaulted on its financial obligations and a financial creditor (ICICI Bank) filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The debtor argued that a notification under the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) 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

VIJAY KUMAR JAINversusSTANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ORS.

2019 INSC 12231 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former director of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., challenged the refusal of the resolution professional to furnish resolution plans and related documents to members of the suspended Board of Directors during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme under

RAJENDRA NAROTTAMDAS SHETH & ANR.versusCHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN & ANR.

2021 INSC 57930 September 2021Dismissed

The Union Bank of India (financial creditor) granted loans to R.K. Infratel Ltd. (corporate debtor), which defaulted on 30‑09‑2014, leading to the account being classified as an NPA. The bank filed a recovery suit under the 1993 Recovery of Debts Act and, later, an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bank

SAGAR SHARMA & ANR.versusPHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 109830 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged a petition filed by the respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) alleging a default of at least Rs.1,00,000. The lower tribunal had held that the IBC’s commencement on 1 December 2016 triggered the limitation period and applied Article 62 of the Limitation Act, tr

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusMR. VIJAY SITARAM DANDNAIK & ANR.

2022 INSC 88730 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Jailaxmi Sugar Products Pvt Ltd, alleging default and seeking initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) issued a certificate of recovery on 1 November 20

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusA. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2022 INSC 63030 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank (the appellant) sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Prasad Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (the corporate debtor) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The corporate debtor had stood as guarantor for loans to three borrower

HARI BABU THOTAversus*

2023 INSC 105629 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Shree Aashraya Infra‑Con Ltd was placed under corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and the appointed resolution professional, Hari Babu Thota, submitted a resolution plan drafted by the promoters and approved by the Committee of Creditors. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed the plan, holding t

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

SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.versusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2019 INSC 10829 January 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether a secured creditor, Kotak Mahindra Bank, could file a winding‑up petition under the Companies Act, 1956 after obtaining a decree and recovery certificate from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners argued that Sections 17, 18 and 34 of the Recovery of Debts Act barred the wind

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

M/S. RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITEDversusK.P. JAYARAM & ANR.

2020 INSC 51828 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, K.P. Jayaram and another, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) claiming they were financial creditors of M/s. Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. for a loan of Rs.2.10 crore advanced between 2002 and 2005, alleging that part of the loan was converted into share

ABHISHEK SINGHversusHUHTAMAKI PPL LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 30828 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Operational Creditor (OC) filed a petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Manpasand Beverages Ltd., which was admitted by the NCLT and a CIRP was initiated. Within two days, the OC and the corporate debtor (CD) settled the dispute and the OC received full payment before a Commit

HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.DIA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

2019 INSC 128927 November 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed by Hindustan Construction Company Ltd seeking to strike down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the deletion of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, arguing that they revived an automatic‑stay of arbitral awards and removed th

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

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCILversusMINOSHA INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 48627 April 2022Dismissed

NDMC entered into a purchase order with Minosha India Ltd, terminated it for alleged non‑performance and the latter invoked the arbitration clause on 7 June 2016. Before the arbitration could commence, the corporate debtor was admitted to corporate insolvency resolution on 14 May 2018, a moratorium was imposed under Se

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

ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITEDversusUV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 79426 November 2021Dismissed

Electrosteel Castings Ltd., a guarantor, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that an assignment deed executed by the financial creditor in favour of UV Asset Reconstruction Co. was fraudulent and that the assignee was not a secured creditor. The suit was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that Section 34 of

M/S. R.K. INDUSTRIES (UNIT-II) LLPversusM/S. H.R. COMMERCIALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHER

2022 INSC 87226 August 2022Disposed off

The corporate debtor, ABG Shipyard Ltd., was placed under liquidation after a failed resolution process. The liquidator conducted five e-auctions without success and then adopted a Swiss Challenge Process, naming R.K. Industries as the anchor bidder. Before the process could conclude, the liquidator, with the approval

M/S ORATOR MARKETING PVT. LTD.versusM/S SAMTEX DESINZ PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 35926 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the assignee of a Rs 1.60 crore interest‑free term loan given to M/s Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. for working‑capital, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The National Company Law Trib

LAXMI PAT SURANAversusUNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

2021 INSC 22026 March 2021Disposed off

Union Bank of India extended a term loan to Mahaveer Construction, a proprietorship firm, and obtained a guarantee from Surana Metals Ltd, a corporate entity. After the loan was declared a non‑performing asset on 30‑01‑2010, the bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in Fe

JIGNESH SHAH & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 108025 September 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, shareholders of La‑Fin Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged a winding‑up petition filed by IL&FS under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, which had been transferred to the NCLT as a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute arose from a 2009 share pur

GLOBAL CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED & ANR.versusSACH MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ANR

2024 INSC 34025 April 2024Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the security deposit amounts payable by a sales promoter under service agreements with Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. constitute a financial debt or an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that a "debt" exists only when there is a claim

AJAY GUPTAversusPRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA

2022 INSC 23625 February 2022Dismissed

Ajay Gupta, leading a consortium, was a resolution applicant in the CIRP of B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd. He sought to amend his resolution plan to uncap CIRP costs and reduce the plan term from 180 to 90 days, but the resolution professional rejected the amendment. The adjudicating authority (NCLT) allowed the amendment and, t

SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 9525 January 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including the classification of financial versus operational creditors, the powers of the resolution professional, the evidentiary status of private information utilities, and the requirements of Se

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

BRS VENTURES INVESTMENTS LTD.versusSREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 54823 July 2024Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered a dispute where a financial creditor had obtained a loan of Rs 100 crore from a corporate debtor (Gujarat Hydrocarbon and Power SEZ Ltd.) secured by a corporate guarantee furnished by its holding company, ACIL. After the corporate debtor defaulted, the creditor initiated insolvency proceedi

BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 79923 July 2019Dismissed not complying condition order

Home buyers booked flats in various projects of the Amrapali Group of companies in Noida and Greater Noida, paying substantial amounts between 2010-2014. The builders failed to deliver possession within the promised 36 months and did not pay dues to the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities or repay loans taken from bank

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

SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION (REGD.)versusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 20323 March 2021Case Partly allowed

The Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association and several other industry groups filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India, the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to grant a total waiver of interest, extend the loan moratorium, provide sector‑wise re

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

V NAGARAJANversusSKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD.& ORS.

2021 INSC 66322 October 2021Dismissed

The appellant, V. Nagarajan, challenged an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 31 December 2019 that dismissed his application for interim relief in a liquidation proceeding. He filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 8 June 2020, relying on a free certified cop

MAITREYA DOSHIversusANAND RATHI GLOBAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANR.

2022 INSC 100422 September 2022Dismissed

The Financial Creditor advanced a Rs 6 crore loan to Premier Ltd and secured it by a pledge of shares held by Doshi Holdings. When Premier defaulted, the creditor filed separate petitions under Section 7 of the IBC against both Premier and Doshi Holdings, contending that Doshi Holdings was also a borrower under the loa

ASHOK G. RAJANIversusBEACON TRUSTEESHIP LTD. & ORS

2022 INSC 100322 September 2022Dismissed

The corporate debtor, Seya Industries Ltd., and its investors, including Beacon Trusteeship Ltd., entered into a debenture arrangement which later gave rise to arbitration and a claim for payment. While arbitration was pending, the investors filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) i

SESH NATH SINGH & ANR.versusBAIDYABATI SHEORAPHULI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR.

2021 INSC 19922 March 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, Sesh Nath Singh and others, challenged the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) order admitting a Section 7 application by Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co‑operative Bank to initiate corporate insolvency resolution against the corporate debtor. The issue was whether the three‑year limitation period for fili

MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LIMITEDversusPADMANABHAN VENKATESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 7622 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) involving United Seamless Tubular Private Ltd., where the successful resolution applicant, Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. (MSL), had offered an upfront payment of Rs. 477 crore, which was below the average liquidation value of Rs. 597.54 crore deter

MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusKIRUSA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED

2017 INSC 97521 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd, an operational creditor, filed an application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking initiation of corporate insolvency against Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd for an unpaid operational debt of Rs.20,08,202.55. The corporate debtor raised a dispute, alleging breach of a non‑di

LALIT KUMAR JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 29721 May 2021Dismissed

The petitioners, who were personal guarantors to corporate debtors, challenged a Central Government notification dated 15‑Nov‑2019 that brought certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) into force only for personal guarantors. They argued that the notification exceeded the power conferred by

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

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON LONDON BRANCHversusZENITH INFOTECH LIMITED

2017 INSC 16521 February 2017Disposed off

Zenith Infotech Ltd filed a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The Registrar of the Board refused to register the reference on the ground that the company was not an "industrial company" within the meaning of

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

LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD.versusSLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.

2019 INSC 24120 February 2019Dismissed

LMJ International Ltd. and Sleepwell Industries Ltd. entered into two separate contracts for the sale of Thai rice, governed by GAFTA 48 with disputes to be arbitrated under GAFTA 125 in London. Two foreign arbitral awards were rendered in favour of the respondent, who then filed execution petitions under Section 48 of

RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ORS.versusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 24220 February 2019

The Supreme Court heard three contempt petitions filed by Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. against Reliance Communications Ltd., Reliance Telecom Ltd. and Reliance Infratel Ltd. (collectively the Reliance Companies) for failing to honour a settlement of INR 550 crore that was ordered to be paid by 30 September 2018, with a lat

CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANKversusDOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.

2024 INSC 102919 December 2024

The Supreme Court examined whether several foreign banks that had extended loans to Reliance entities could be treated as "financial creditors" of Reliance Infratel Ltd (the corporate debtor) under Section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The dispute arose because the corporate debtor, Reliance Communi

M/S KALEDONIA JUTE AND FIBRES PVT. LTD.versusM/S AXIS NIRMAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.

2020 INSC 64819 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Kaledonia Jute and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) sought to recover a debt from M/s Axis Nirman and Industries Ltd. (first respondent) and filed a petition under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT. Simultaneously, a winding‑up petition against the first respondent was pending before the Allahabad High Court, which

M/S TECH SHARP ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.versusSANGHVI MOVERS LIMITED

2022 INSC 98619 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Tech Sharp Engineers, sought initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC against the respondent, Sanghvi Movers, for unpaid crane‑hire invoices dated 2012‑13. The respondent had earlier filed a winding‑up petition in the Madras High Court, which was pending w

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

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERSversusSUNDARESH BHATT AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 43819 April 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellants, workmen and employees of ABG Shipyard Ltd., claimed wages, salaries and statutory dues for the period of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). They argued that these amounts should be treated as insolvency resolution process costs under s.5(13) of the IBC and thus enjoy priority under s.53

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

RAMA NARANGversusRAMESH NARANG AND OTHERS CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2008

2021 INSC 2519 January 2021

The case arose from a family dispute between Rama Narang (petitioner) and his sons Ramesh and Rajesh Narang (respondents) who were directors of a company. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered a settlement (Consent Order) requiring joint management of the company, but the petitioner alleged that the respondents violate

MANISH KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 2819 January 2021Dismissed

The petitioners challenged Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020, which introduced threshold requirements for allottees and certain financial creditors to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), clarified that a corporate debtor can initiate CIRP against anot

MR. ANAND RAO KORADA RESOLUTION PROFESSIONALversusM/S. VARSHA FABRICS (P) LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 125918 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose when the Odisha High Court ordered the auction of a large parcel of land belonging to Hirakud Industrial Works Ltd. (the corporate debtor) while a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had already decl

TOTTEMPUDI SALALITHversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 92318 October 2023Dismissed

The appellant, managing director of Totem Infrastructure Ltd., challenged the admission of a Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) before the NCLT, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation and the doctrine of election. The banks had earlier obtained three r

GAURAV HARGOVINDBHAI DAVEversusASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 105118 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought to initiate a corporate insolvency proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to recover a debt that had become due on 21 July 2011. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the application, applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which pertains to suit

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)versusSUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 74618 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), as a secured creditor, sought to enforce its charge over imported machinery that had been stored in a private bonded warehouse and remained unpaid of customs duty. The company was wound up on 1 December 2003, and the Official Liquidator applied for possession of the good

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANKversusM/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 58418 May 2022Dismissed

Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) had taken possession of two secured assets of M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. and conducted an e‑auction under the SARFAESI Act, selling the assets to bidders who paid 25% of the price and were later allowed to pay the balance by 8 March 2019. The corporate debtor filed a petition under Section 1

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusKRISHIDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 42818 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) filed an application before the NCLT on 19 September 2018 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeking initiation of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited, alleging default on a financial debt dated 10 June 2014 w

BANK OF BARODA & ANRversusMBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 5318 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which bars persons who have executed an enforceable guarantee that has been invoked by a creditor from being a resolution applicant. The Court held that the disqualification arises when the guarantee is invoked, applies

NGAITLANG DHARversusPANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 92317 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Meghalaya Infratech Ltd., where four resolution applicants submitted bids and Ngaitlang Dhar emerged as the highest bidder (H‑1). The losing bidder, Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (PPIPL), sought additional t

PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.versusRAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2023 INSC 62517 July 2023Dismissed

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (PVVNL) supplied electricity to Raman Ispat Pvt Ltd, which defaulted on payments. PVVNL attached the debtor's assets and, after the corporate insolvency resolution failed, the matter proceeded to liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). PVVNL contended that secti

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANAND SONBHADRA

2022 INSC 57817 May 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), as the lessor in a 90‑year lease of land for a residential project, could be treated as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court held that the lease does not qualify as a financial lease unde

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD.versusANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 4917 January 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the winding‑up petition filed by Antrix Corporation against Devas Multimedia Private Ltd under section 271(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging fraud in the formation and conduct of the company. The petition was never advertised, and the petitioners challenged the order on grounds of lack

NTPC LTD. (SIMHADRI PROJECT)versusRAJIV CHAKRABORTY

2020 INSC 64216 November 2020Disposed off

The appeal arose from a corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC where the appellant’s claim was listed in the Information Memorandum (IM) under “List of Other Creditors” rather than under “Claims of Operational Creditors”. The appellant contended that the classification was incorrect and that the claim sh

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

ACTION ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD.versusSHYAM METALICS AND ENERGY LTD.

2020 INSC 69915 December 2020Dismissed

Action Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. filed a winding‑up petition against Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd. for unpaid dues. The Company Judge admitted the petition, appointed an Official Liquidator and seized the appellant's premises. State Bank of India, a secured creditor, filed an IBC application and sought transfer of the

MACQUARIE BANK LIMITEDversusSHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

2017 INSC 124115 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two pivotal questions arising under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: (i) whether the requirement in Section 9(3)(c) to attach a certificate from the financial institution confirming non‑payment of an operational debt is a mandatory condition precedent, and (ii) whether a demand notic

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM)versusABHILASH LAL & ORS.

2019 INSC 125715 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) owned several plots that were leased to SevenHills Healthcare for a 1500‑bed hospital, but the project was not completed and lease rent was in default. MCGM issued a show‑cause notice and, before the notice period expired, the corporate debtor was admitted to insolvenc

M/S S.S. ENGINEERSversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2022 INSC 130915 July 2022Dismissed

M/S S.S. Engineers, an operational creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s subsidiary, HPCL Biofuels Ltd (HBL). The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITEDversusBISHAL JAISWAL & ANR.

2021 INSC 25415 April 2021Disposed off

The Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., a consortium of lenders, filed a Section 7 application before the NCLT seeking initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings against Corporate Power Ltd. after the latter defaulted on its loans. The NCLT admitted the application, relying on entries in the debtor's balance

AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKAversusTOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

2023 INSC 23215 March 2023Dismissed

The Tourism Finance Corporation of India advanced a Rs 30 crore loan to Rainbow Papers Ltd, whose Managing Director Ajay Kumar Goenka signed a post‑dated cheque that was later dishonoured. A demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued and a criminal complaint was filed against the compa

ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKAversusJINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 18715 March 2021Dismissed

The corporate debtor Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd (GNCL) initiated a corporate insolvency resolution process, but its promoter Arun Kumar Jagatramka was deemed ineligible to submit a resolution plan under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). After the liquidation order, Jagatramka filed an application under

ALOK KAUSHIKversusMRS BHUVANESHWARI RAMANATHAN AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 18415 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a registered valuer, was appointed by the resolution professional (RP) to value plant and machinery of Kavveri Telecom Infrastructure Ltd during a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). His fee of Rs 7.5 lakhs and expenses were ratified by the Committee of Creditors, but after the National Compa

E S KRISHNAMURTHY & ORS.versusM/S BHARATH HI TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 88414 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a group of home buyers, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against M/s Bharath Hi Tech Builders for defaulting on a repayment of Rs 33.84 crore. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) declined to admit the petition and instead directed the corporate debtor to

DIAMOND EXPORTS & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 88314 December 2021Disposed off

The appeal concerned a order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that condoned a 100‑day delay in filing the respondent's written statement in a consumer complaint. The condonation was granted on 25 February 2020, a few days before the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench judgment in New India

ESSAR HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusARCELLOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 95714 September 2022Dismissed

Essar Steel deposited roughly Rs 35 crore and Rs 47 crore as refundable security deposits with Essar House Private and Essar Services respectively. After Essar Steel entered corporate insolvency resolution, the resolution applicant Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (Arcellor) sought repayment of those deposits and filed Sect

BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJARversusVEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2020 INSC 49014 August 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The corporate debtor Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries defaulted on its loans on 08 July 2011. The financial creditor, JM Financial Assets Reconstruction Company, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in March 2018 to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process, stating

K. KISHANversusM/S VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 71014 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (KCPL) challenged a Section 9 petition filed by the respondent (Vijay Nirman) which sought to treat an arbitral award as an undisputed operational debt. The award, favouring the respondent, was under challenge in a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Supreme Court held that

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusV. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.

2018 INSC 71114 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

State Bank of India (SBI) sought recovery of a loan from a corporate debtor whose managing director, V. Ramakrishnan, had also given a personal guarantee. After the corporate debtor defaulted, SBI invoked SARFAESI provisions and the debtor filed an insolvency petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016

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

VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD.versusJITENDRA LOHIA & ANR

2023 INSC 23014 March 2023Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising out of a corporate insolvency resolution process involving Avani Towers (the corporate debtor), Energy Properties (the ostensible owner of a 10.19‑acre land), and Victory Iron Works (a licensee of a 10,000 sq ft portion). The corporate debtor had financed the purchase of t

PRAKASH CORPORATESversusDEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED

2022 INSC 18014 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Prakash Corporates filed a money suit against Dee Vee Projects Limited on 21‑12‑2020. The defendant failed to file a written statement within the 30‑day period and sought extensions, which were granted up to 15‑04‑2021, but the 120‑day deadline fell on 06‑05‑2021. The trial court and the High Court refused further exte

RAJRATAN BABULAL AGARWALversusSOLARTEX INDIA PVT. LTD.& ORS.

2022 INSC 108113 October 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an ex‑director of the corporate debtor, contested the admission of an application filed by the operational creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) alleging a debt for coal supplied under a purchase order. The creditor claimed the coal was of inferior quality, leading to email

R. RAGHAVENDRANversusC. RAJA JOHN & ORS.

2023 INSC 84913 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal arose from an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that, on the basis that the corporate debtor Springfield Shelters Pvt. Ltd. was an MSME, the promoter need not compete with other resolution applicants to regain control of the debtor. The Resolution Professional, acting under the Ins

INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED & ANR.

2021 INSC 29613 May 2021Dismissed

India Resurgence ARC Private Ltd., a dissenting secured financial creditor, challenged the approval of a resolution plan for VSP Udyog Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) failed to consider the full value of its security interest, alleging denial of fair and equitable treatment. The CoC had ap

GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORYversusEDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR & ORS.

2021 INSC 25013 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered the corporate insolvency case of Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., where the National Company Law Tribunal approved a resolution plan submitted by GMSPL. The Court examined whether, after approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), the pl

JAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY MR. TEJ RAM MEENAversusJAIPUR METALS & ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

2018 INSC 119612 December 2018Leave granted

The employees' union of Jaipur Metals & Electricals Ltd challenged a High Court order that refused to transfer winding‑up proceedings, filed under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and set aside an NCLT order admitting a Section 7 insolvency application by Alch

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

AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SHETH & ANR.

2023 INSC 82012 September 2023Dismissed

Axis Bank Limited (appellant) appealed against the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by State Bank of India (respondent No.2) against Shreem Corporation Limited (the corporate debtor). The dispute centered on whether the petition was time‑barred under the three‑year limitation period, given that the debtor was de

VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITEDversusAXIS BANK LIMITED

2022 INSC 71012 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd., a power generating company, sought a stay of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by its financial creditor, Axis Bank Ltd., arguing that pending regulatory disputes and a favourable APTEL award of Rs.1,730 crore rendered the admission of the petition inappropriat

ANGELWOODS APARTMENT ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATIONversusM LALITHA AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 47912 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Angelwoods Apartment Allottees Association, challenged the approval of its resolution plan by the NCLT, which was appealed by respondent M Lalitha, a financial creditor, under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Lalitha filed the appeal on the last permissible day but failed to attach a cer

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusVENKATESWARLU KARI AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 56212 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned PTC India Financial Services Ltd (PIFSL) who, after a corporate debtor defaulted, invoked a pledge over 31,80,678 dematerialised shares of NEVPL under a pledge deed and sought to enforce its rights under the Contract Act, 1872. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had held that the pledge cr

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.

2024 INSC 10212 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) claimed that it had submitted a claim of Rs 43.40 crore as a financial creditor against JNC Construction Ltd., but the resolution professional treated it as an operational creditor and the resolution plan approved by the NCLT omitted its claim and undervalued i

B.K. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPARAG GUPTA AND ASSOCIATES

2018 INSC 95611 October 2018

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by B.K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. challenging the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the retrospective effect of the newly inserted Section 238A. The Court examined the Insolvency La

M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusMUKUL KUMAR & ANR.

2023 INSC 81611 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

RPS Infrastructure Ltd entered into a development agreement with KST Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, which later led to an arbitral award in favour of RPS in 2016. While the award was under challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) was initiated against KST Infrastructu

M. SURESH KUMAR REDDYversusCANARA BANK & ORS.

2023 INSC 52111 May 2023Dismissed

Canara Bank (successor to Syndicate Bank) filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against its corporate debtor, Kranthi Edifice Pvt. Ltd., alleging default on a secured overdraft facility and bank guarantees. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitted the petition a

UPENDRA CHOUDHURYversusBULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2021 INSC 7711 February 2021Disposed off

The petitioner, a single home buyer, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking cancellation of agreements, refund of monies, or completion of the Sushant Megapolis real estate project, along with directions for a monitoring committee, forensic audit, and investigations by various agencies. The

BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusVCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD.

2022 INSC 119310 November 2022Dismissed

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (now part of ICICI Bank) granted a term loan and overdraft facility to VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd., which defaulted. The bank sought recovery of the debt before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act).

KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LTD.versusOVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

2021 INSC 39410 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. (appellant) contested a Section 9 petition filed by Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Ltd. (respondent) which sought initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The dispute centred on an advance payment of Rs 47.12 crore

KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR.versusKOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 17310 March 2021Disposed off

The corporate debtor Ricoh India Ltd. initiated a corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC, inviting resolution plans. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (KIAL) submitted its plan on time, while Kalpraj submitted a belated plan which was later accepted by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and approved by the NC

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

ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC

2021 INSC 8599 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Electrosteel Steels Ltd. obtained environmental clearance (EC) and consent to establish a steel plant at a specified site in Bokaro, but later shifted the plant 5.3 km away, allegedly encroaching forest land. The Ministry of Environment and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) revoked the EC, leading the

M/S. IFCI LIMITEDversusSUTANU SINHA & ORS.

2023 INSC 10239 November 2023Dismissed

The appellant IFCI Ltd. had subscribed to Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) issued by ICTL, a special purpose vehicle of IVRCL, for financing a highway concession project. When ICTL defaulted, the CCDs were treated as equity under the project’s concession agreement and the Resolution Professional rejected IFCI

DILIP B JIWRAJKAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 10189 November 2023Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, alleging violations of Articles 14 and 21 and the denial of a hearing before a resolution professional is appointed. They argued that the resolution professional’s powers to seek information and the

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

PIONEER URBAN LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 8899 August 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, which classifies home‑buyers/allottees of real‑estate projects as "financial creditors" under the Code, thereby permitting them to invoke Section 7 and to be

CHITRA SHARMA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 6819 August 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

Jaypee Infratech Ltd (JIL) defaulted on a loan from IDBI Bank, prompting the bank to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Home buyers filed a writ petition alleging that the CIRP ignored their interests and sought a pro‑rata refund of the Rs 750

RAMESH KYMALversusM/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 719 February 2021Dismissed

Ramesh Kymal, an operational creditor, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 11 May 2020 alleging a default by Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Ltd on 30 April 2020. While the petition was pending, Section 10A was inserted into the IBC by the 2020 amendment (effective 5 June 2020

MISHRA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]versusRAVE SCANS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 12288 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) was initiated against Rave Scans Pvt. Ltd. under Section 10 of the IBC, and the resolution applicant offered Rs. 54 crore against a liquidation value of Rs. 36 crore. The approved resolution plan gave the dissenting financial creditor, Hero Fincorp Ltd., only 32.34% of

ANJALI RATHI AND OTHERSversusTODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 4608 September 2021Disposed off

The petitioners, home buyers in a Gurgaon housing project, obtained a refund order with interest from the NCDRC, which was stayed by the Delhi High Court. An operational creditor later initiated a corporate insolvency proceeding against the developer (Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd) under Section 9 of the IBC, le

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. JAH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 6528 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether borrowers classified as wilful defaulters under RBI's 2015 Revised Circular could be represented by lawyers before the in‑house committees that determine such classification. The Court held that the First and Review Committees are administrative bodies, not tribunals vested with judic

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITEDversusMR. AMIT GUPTA & ORS.

2021 INSC 1638 March 2021Dismissed

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (GUVNL) allocated a 25‑MW solar project to Astonfield Solar (the corporate debtor) under a 25‑year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed in 2010. After severe flood damage the plant operated at a fraction of capacity and the corporate debtor was declared a non‑performing asset, prompting

PUNJAB & SIND BANKversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2023 INSC 10797 December 2023Dismissed

Punjab & Sind Bank appealed against a High Court order that upheld the State of Punjab's claim of priority over tax dues under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which it alleged superseded the bank's charge on the borrower’s immovable property. The State asserted a first charge under Section 35 of the 2005 Act for

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

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTDversusSUSHMA ASHOK SHIROOR

2022 INSC 4047 April 2022Disposed off

The developer Experion Developers failed to deliver possession of an apartment to the consumer, Sushma Ashok Shiroor, within the 42‑month period stipulated in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. The consumer filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ordered the developer to refund

M/S WIZAMAN IMPEX PVT. LTD.versusKEDRION BIOPHARMA INC.

2022 INSC 1597 February 2022Case Partly allowed

M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt Ltd, the corporate debtor, challenged a Section 9 application filed by Kedrion Biopharma Inc., an operational creditor, which sought to initiate corporate insolvency proceedings. The NCLT rejected the application, holding it was time‑barred under the three‑year limitation period. On appeal, the NC

UNION OF INDIAversusRELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ANR.

2020 INSC 77 January 2020Dismissed

The Union of India sought to retain Rs.134.66 crore that it had encashed from bank guarantees of Reliance Communication Ltd (RCL) and Reliance Telecom Ltd (RTL) after they failed to pay deferred spectrum charges of Rs.774.25 crore. The respondents furnished fresh bank guarantees for the same amount and petitioned the T

JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANR.versusIDBI BANK LTD. & ANR.

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 3126 November 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard appeals arising from the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Jaypee Infratech Ltd., a subsidiary of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., after IDBI Bank filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and home buyers sought clarification on their voting share in

VISHAL CHELANI & ORS.versusDEBASHIS NANDA

2023 INSC 9136 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, home buyers in a real‑estate project, obtained a decree from the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) ordering a refund of their investments with interest. While insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) were pending, the resolution professional propo

EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

2023 INSC 8096 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Eva Agro Feeds Private Ltd bid the reserve price of Rs.10 crore for a corporate debtor's property in an e‑auction and was issued a certificate of winning on 20 July 2021. The liquidator cancelled the auction the next day under Clause 3(k) of the E‑Auction Process Information Document without giving any reasons, prompti

STATE TAX OFFICER (1)versusRAINBOW PAPERS LIMITED

2022 INSC 9276 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State Tax Officer (appellant) claimed GST and CST dues of about Rs. 47.36 crore from Rainbow Papers Limited (respondent) during a corporate insolvency resolution process. The claim was filed after the deadline prescribed in the IBBI Regulations and was waived by the Resolution Professional, leading to the approval

K. PARAMASIVAMversusTHE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 9266 September 2022Dismissed

The financial creditor, Karur Vysya Bank, advanced loans to three non‑corporate borrowers who defaulted. Maharaja Theme Parks and Resorts Private Limited (MTPR) had given corporate guarantees for those loans. The bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corpora

DECCAN VALUE INVESTORS L.P. & ANR.versusDINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 3216 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed by the successful resolution applicants, Deccan Value Investors L.P. and DVI PE (Mauritius) Ltd., who sought to withdraw their approved resolution plan for Metalyst Forgings Ltd., alleging fraud by the resolution professio

UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED

2026 INSC 146 January 2026Dismissed

The appellant UV Asset Reconstruction Company claimed that Electrosteel Castings Ltd (ECL), as promoter of borrower Electrosteel Steels Ltd (ESL), had provided a guarantee for a Rs 500 crore loan from SREI, based on Clause 2.2 of a Deed of Undertaking which required ECL to arrange infusion of funds to help ESL meet fin

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITYversusMANISH AGARWAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 8395 November 2024Dismissed

The NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority (appellant) claimed INR 6.29 crore as an operational creditor against Shree Bhoomika International Ltd., the corporate debtor, whose lease of a plot in the SEZ had defaulted. The claim was admitted, but the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved a resolution plan that aw

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusKEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 8005 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. after the debtor defaulted on loans. The debtor had offered a one‑time settlement on 20 December

K. SASHIDHARversusINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.

2019 INSC 1485 February 2019Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals by K. Sashidhar challenging the rejection of resolution plans for two corporate debtors, KS&PIPL and IIL, by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The CoC had approved the plans with less than the statutory 75% voting share of financial creditors, leading the NCLT to deem the plans reje

M/S. SHEKHAR RESORTS LIMITED (UNIT OF ORIENT TAJ)versusUNION OF INDIA

2023 INSC 155 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

M/S Shekhar Resorts Ltd., a corporate debtor, was under a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) from September 2018 until July 2020. While the moratorium was in force, the company applied for the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and was issued Form No.3 requiring a payment of R

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusGIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 125 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., a secured creditor, sought possession of mortgaged assets of One Mission Vivacare under the SARFAESI Act after the borrower defaulted. The District Magistrate ordered possession, but the Naib Tehsildar refused, invoking a recovery award under the MSMED Act. The High Court Division Bench held t

TATA SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY TATA SONS LTD)versusSIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LTD & ORS

2023 INSC 135 January 2023Appeal(s) allowed

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. initiated arbitration against Siva Industries and its promoter under an inter‑se agreement, invoking the London Court of International Arbitration. The sole arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceeded beyo

DEVARAJAN RAMANversusBANK OF INDIA LIMITED

2022 INSC 145 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Resolution Professional (RP), was appointed interim RP in a corporate insolvency case and submitted a claim of Rs 14,75,660 for fees and costs, of which Rs 5,66,667 was reimbursed by the respondent bank. The appellant sought the balance of Rs 9,08,993, but the NCLT directed payment of only the expenses

SANJAY PANDURANG KALATEversusVISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 10634 December 2023Disposed off

The appellant, a former director of Evirant Developers Private Ltd, challenged an interlocutory order of the NCLT dismissing his application alleging unauthorized filing of a reply in a Section 7 proceeding. The NCLT heard the matter on 17 May 2023 but did not pronounce a substantive order until it was uploaded on 30 M

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD.versusA. J. AGROCHEM

2019 INSC 11364 October 2019Dismissed

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES Ltd., a corporate debtor managing fourteen tea gardens, defaulted on payments to operational creditor A.J. Agrochem. The creditor filed an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The debtor argued that, because the Central Government had issued a notific

ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.

2018 INSC 9354 October 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the eligibility of ArcelorMittal India Private Ltd (AMIPL) and Numetal Ltd to submit resolution plans for Essar Steel India Ltd (ESIL) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the introduction of Section 29A. The Court held that disqualification under sub‑clause (c) of Section 29A

THE KARAD URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusSWWAPNIL BHINGARDEVAY & ORS.

2020 INSC 5334 September 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., a financial creditor, filed a Section 7 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against M/s Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., the corporate debtor. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a resolution plan submitted by M/s Sai Agro (India) Chemicals, which

DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA)versusC. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR.

2021 INSC 3804 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Bank (Dena Bank, now Bank of Baroda) filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2018 to initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor, C. Shivakumar Reddy, after the debtor defaulted in 2013. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ad

SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2026 INSC 4424 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant company alleged that the appellants forged documents to obtain a property measurement and sought registration of a FIR. After filing complaints with the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, the authority declined coercive action and referred the matter to the police, which returned the case to the lan

M/S VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LTD & ORS.versusMR. DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR.

2023 INSC 5004 May 2023Disposed off

The corporate debtor Amtek Auto Ltd pledged 66.77% of its shares in JMT Auto Ltd as security to M/s Vistra ITCL (appellant No.1) for short‑term loans extended to its group companies. Vistra filed a claim as a secured creditor, which was rejected by the resolution professional and later by the adjudicating authority. Th

FORUM FOR PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

2021 INSC 2834 May 2021Case Allowed

The petitioners challenged the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 (WB‑HIRA) on the ground that it largely reproduces the provisions of the central Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and therefore violates the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution. The Court e

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

ANKHIM HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusZAVERI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2026 INSC 1374 February 2026Disposed off

The parties, Ankhim Holdings and Zaveri Construction, formed a partnership to develop an SRA project and later fell into dispute. The Bombay High Court appointed an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve the dispute. While arbitration was pending, the respondent was admitted to corporate

SABARMATI GAS LIMITEDversusSHAH ALLOYS LIMITED

2023 INSC 104 January 2023Dismissed

Sabarmati Gas Ltd. entered into a gas‑sale agreement with Shah Alloys Ltd., which later defaulted on payments. The respondent was declared a 'sick company' by the BIFR, invoking a moratorium under SICA that barred legal recovery until the Code came into force on 1‑Dec‑2016. After issuing a demand notice under Section 8

VALLAL RCKversusM/S SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 6363 June 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a promoter of M/s Siva Industries, sought withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) that had been initiated against the corporate debtor after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a settlement plan with 94.23% voting share. The Resolution Professional filed an application under

M. K. RAJAGOPALANversusDR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER & ANR

2023 INSC 4863 May 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order that set aside the approval of a resolution plan for Appu Hotels Ltd. The Court held that the resolution applicant, M.K. Rajagopalan, was ineligible to submit a plan because he was the managing trustee

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

AMIT KATYALversusMEERA AHUJA AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 2603 March 2022Disposed off

The appellant, promoter of Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., failed to complete the Krrish Provence housing project after eight years, prompting three home‑buyers (original applicants) to file a Section 7 application before the NCLT seeking initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and a refund of Rs 6.

N. SUBRAMANIANversusM/S ARUNA HOTELS LTD. & ANR.

2021 INSC 1443 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former employee of Aruna Hotels Ltd., claimed arrears of salary of Rs 1.87 crore for the period 1998‑2013 and filed a Section 9 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on 21 July 2017. The company contended that the claim was time‑barred. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admi

PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD.versusKETULBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL

2021 INSC 593 February 2021Dismissed

L&T Infrastructure Finance advanced a Rs 40 crore loan to Doshion Ltd., with Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt Ltd (the corporate debtor) providing a non‑disposal undertaking and pledging 40,160 shares of Gondwana Engineers Ltd as security. L&T assigned its rights to Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd, which claimed to be a financia

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

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusVIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 153 January 2024Dismissed

Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Bharti Hexacom Ltd. entered into spectrum trading agreements with Aircel Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd., which later led to disputes over bank guarantees and payments. When Aircel entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Airtel claimed a right to set‑off Rs. 112.87 crore agains

VASHDEO R BHOJWANIversusABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ANR.

2019 INSC 9842 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant claimed a default of Rs 6.7 crore against the respondent, which was declared a non‑performing asset in 1999 and a recovery certificate was issued in 2001. A petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was filed in 2017, and the NCLT admitted it on the ground that the default was continu

POOJA RAMESH SINGHversusJAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. & ANR.

2026 INSC 6682 July 2026Disposed off

The appellant, a suspended director of Essel Infraprojects Ltd., was a corporate guarantor for a loan taken by Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd. from Jammu and Kashmir Bank. The bank filed a Section 7 insolvency petition before the NCLT, which was admitted, and the appellant's appeal before the NCLAT was di

DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 4572 April 2019Disposed off

The petitioners, led by Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2017 which introduced sections 35AA and 35AB, and contended that the RBI circular of 12‑02‑2018 directing banks and NBFCs to resolve stressed assets within six months was ultra vi

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

M/S. JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIESversusD.K. MOHANTY & ANR.

2021 INSC 5901 October 2021Dismissed

M/s. Jai Balaji Industries (operational creditor) entered into MOUs with Orissa Minerals Development Company Ltd for iron ore supply, leading to arbitration awards in its favour. The corporate debtor challenged the awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the challenges were dismissed in default on 22.1

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 5271 September 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered the Union of India's demand that telecom service providers (TSPs) pay Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues as determined in earlier judgments, while several TSPs were under insolvency proceedings. The Court examined whether spectrum, a natural resource licensed under the Indian Telegraph Act,

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITEDversusTULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED & ORS.

2022 INSC 7771 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., a financial creditor, against a NCLAT order that held a Section 7(2) IBC application against V. Hotels Ltd. was time‑barred. The Court clarified that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to IBC applications and that the three‑year limitation

CA RAMCHANDRA DALLARAM CHOUDHARYversusADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2026 INSC 6291 June 2026Dismissed

The liquidator of a corporate debtor filed an appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the 45‑day filing period but within the 60‑day grace period, and the appeal was marked defective. The liquidator failed to cure the defects within the 28‑day period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rul

SANKET KUMAR AGARWAL & ANRversusAPG LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED

2023 INSC 7271 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in June 2021, which the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed on 26 August 2022. They applied for a certified copy of the order, received it on 15 September 2022, and e‑filed an appeal before the National Company Law Ap

P. MOHANRAJ & ORS.versusM/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD.

2021 INSC 1331 March 2021Disposed off

The appellant company failed to honour multiple cheques, leading the respondent to issue statutory notices under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and file criminal complaints. While the corporate debtor was placed under a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the

A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 1281 March 2021Dismissed

A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited, an operational creditor, challenged the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by SREI Equipment Finance Limited before the NCLT, arguing that a winding‑up petition against the same debtor was already pending in the Bombay High Court and that the Companies Act provisions should

PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSPADE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 511 February 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Spade Financial Services Ltd. and AAA Landmark Pvt. Ltd. could be treated as financial creditors of AKME Projects Ltd. during its corporate insolvency resolution process. It held that the transactions between the corporate debtor and the two entities were collusive, lacking genuine di

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