Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code Half-Yearly Digest 2025

Supreme Court Homebuyers File Review Petition Against Supreme Court Judgment Holding Greater Noida Industrial Authority A 'Secured Creditor' Under IBC Case Title: Blossom Zest Flat Buyers Welfare Association v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Ors. A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its judgment dated February 12, 2024 which classified Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as a 'secured creditor' for the purposes of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Filed by a homebuyers' association, the plea states that the impugned judgment has led the National Company Law Tribunal to send back many resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration on the ground that the same do not treat Noida/Greater Noida as 'secured creditor'. Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included In IBC Resolution Plan Can't Be Enforced: Supreme Court Case Title – Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S ESL Steel Limited) vs Ispat Carrier Private Limited Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 491 The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. “we have no hesitation to hold that upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the resolution plan stood extinguished. Therefore, the award dated 06.07.2018 is incapable of being executed”, the Court said. IBC | Difference Between 'Avoidance Transactions' & 'Fraudulent Or Wrongful Trading' : Supreme Court Explains Case details : PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED) v. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1632-1634 OF 2022 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 374 The Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd v. 63 Moons Technology explained the key difference between how the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 deals with avoidance transactions and transactions relating to fraudulent or wrongful trading. Notably, under the IBC 2016, 'avoidance transactions' are specific transactions conducted by a corporate debtor prior to insolvency proceedings that are deemed detrimental to the interests of creditors. These include (1) Preferential transactions, (2) Undervalued transactions, (3) Extortionate Credit transactions; (4) Fraudulent transactions. S.61 IBC | When Judgment Is Pronounced In Open Court, Limitation Period Runs From That Day : Supreme Court Case : A Rajendra v Gonuganta Madhusudhan Rao and others Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 392 The Supreme Court held that the incident which triggers the running of the limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 is the the date of pronouncement of the Order and in case of non-pronouncement of the Order when the hearing concludes, the date on which the Order is pronounced or uploaded on the website. Supreme Court Upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan For DHFL, Sets Aside NCLAT Order Case details : PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED) v. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED & OTHERS | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1632-1634 OF 2022 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 374 The Supreme Court today (April 1) approved the Resolution Plan proposed by Piramal Capita and Housing Finance for the erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd(DHFL). The Court held that funds recovered from the fraudulent transactions at Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) will go to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. Byju's Insolvency : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Riju Ravindran's Plea Against NCLAT Mandating CoC Nod For CIRP Withdrawal Case no. – C.A. No. 6613/2025 Case Title – Riju Ravindran v. Pankaj Srivastava The Supreme Court recently issued notice on an appeal challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment holding that the application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (trade name Byju's) needed approval from 90 percent of the Committee of Creditors. S. 61(2) IBC | Appeal Filed Beyond 45 Days Not Condonable By NCLAT : Supreme Court Case Title: TATA STEEL LTD VERSUS RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 542 The Supreme Court today (May 7) ruled that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), acting as the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), has no power to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the...

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code Half-Yearly Digest 2025

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags