IBC Quarterly Digest: July-September 2025

Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Doesn't Bar Voluntary Surrender Of Corporate Debtor's Leased Property To Lessor: Supreme Court Cause Title: Sincere Securities Private Limited & Ors. Versus Chandrakant Khemka & Ors. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 774 The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5) held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), does not bar the voluntary handover of property leased by the corporate debtor to the lessors if retaining the asset is deemed unviable and the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) endorses the decision. Committee Of Creditors Continues To Exist Till Resolution Plan Is Implemented Or Liquidation Order Is Passed : Supreme Court Case No.: KALYANI TRANSCO Vs MS BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. | C.A. No. 1808/2020 and connected matters Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 954 In the JSW Steel matter, the Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) does not become functus officio merely upon the approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Court held that the CoC continues to have a role until the resolution plan is fully implemented or an order of liquidation is passed. NCLT, NCLAT Vacancies Must Be Filled On War Footing; RERA Must Be Adequately Staffed : Supreme Court Cause Title: Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. (and connected cases) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 903 The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to fill up the vacancies at the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on a “war-footing.” The Court observed that dedicated IBC benches with additional strength should be constituted and services of retired judges may be utilized on an ad hoc basis until regular appointments are made. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan further directed the Union Government, within three months, to file a compliance report on measures taken to upgrade NCLT/NCLAT infrastructure nationwide. The Court also directed the States to ensure that RERA authorities are adequately staffed with infrastructure, experts, and resources, emphasizing that failure to do so may invite strict intervention by the Court. IBC | Homebuyers Can't Be Denied Flat Possession If Their Claims Were Verified & Admitted By Resolution Professional : Supreme Court Cause Title: AMIT NEHRA & ANR. VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR GARG & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 882 The Supreme Court has held that once a claim is verified and admitted by the Resolution Professional (RP), it cannot be treated as “belated” to deny substantive relief under a resolution plan. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled in favour of the homebuyers, observing that their verified and admitted claims could not be downgraded to 'unverified' merely because of delayed filing, especially when such treatment wrongly denied them flat possession and confined them to a partial refund despite having paid substantial consideration. The Court directed the Resolution Applicant to execute the conveyance deed and hand over possession of the flat to the appellants within two months. Supreme Court Allows Open Court Hearing Of Review Petitions Against Rejection Of JSW's Resolution Plan For Bhushan Power & Steel Case Name: Punjab National Bank & Anr v Kalyani Transco & Ors Case Number: R.P.(C) No. 1432/2025 in C.A. No. 1808/2020 and connected cases The Supreme Court accepted the request for an open court hearing of the review petition filed against the May 2 judgment which had rejected JSW's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL). A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the parties on the review petition and posted the matter for hearing on July 31 at 3 PM. High Court Scheme Of Compromise Sanctioned By Court Under Companies Act Cannot Be Frustrated By Invoking Provisions Of SARFAESI Act: Calcutta HC Case Name:ARCL Organics Ltd. Versus Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund Case Number:CA 136 of 2017 The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a scheme of arrangement/compromise sanctioned under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be unilaterally frustrated by a secured creditor by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The application was filed, praying for the execution of an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement/ compromise under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, as a deemed decree within the meaning of CPC, 1908. The applicant also requested the Hon'ble High Court to direct the respondent to issue “No Objection Certificate” for release of all charges on assets and properties of the applicant. Insolvency Resolution Professional Is Public Servant, Sanction Needed To Prosecute Him Under Prevention of Corruption Act: Madras...

IBC Quarterly Digest: July-September 2025

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags