IBC Weekly Round-Up: 14th July To 20th July 2025

High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked When Party Has Already Approached DRT Under SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab national Bank & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 823 The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition while upholding that if a borrower has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, for a one-time settlement, a writ seeking the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. NCLAT [Reverse CIRP] NCLAT Closes CIRP Against Grand Reality Under Its Inherent Powers Upon Handover Of Flats To Homebuyers & Satisfaction Of Claims Case Title: Satish Chander Verma v. Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 289 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1401, 3827 of 2024 with Contempt Case (AT) No. 14 & 15 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) exercising its inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, has closed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. through the 'Reverse CIRP' mechanism. The project was completed under court-monitored supervision, and possession was handed over to all homebuyers, and no outstanding claims were due. Procedural Direction To File An Affidavit On Ledger Accuracy Is Not Appealable U/S 61 Of IBC: NCLAT Chennai Case Title: Medekar Mohamed v. K. Muruganandan (Liquidator of Samaara Leathers Private Limited) Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 275/2025 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member – Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member – Technical), has held that the procedural direction requiring the appellant to file an affidavit confirming the accuracy of certain ledger transactions could not be appealed. The appeal was preferred u/s 61 of the IBC. Ratification Of IRP Fees By CoC Can Be Implied From Meeting Minutes And Conduct: NCLAT Chennai Case Title: Canara Bank v. Kantipudi Venkata Raju & Anr. Case Number: IA No. 580/2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 165/2023 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member – Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member – Technical), has addressed the question of whether ratification of fees and expenses payable to an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) must be express and recorded formally, or it can be implied from the conduct and minutes of the CoC. The bench held that the formal ratification is not mandatory if the CoC's conduct and meeting records are approved. CIRP Cannot Be Sustained If Default Is Cured Before Admission Of Section 9 Application: NCLAT New Delhi Case Title: Basant Kumar Upadhyay v. Kuber Shree Construction Company & Anr. Case Number: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 957/2025 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member – Technical), has ruled that the application u/s 9 of the IBC, 2016, cannot be sustained if the operational debt is settled before the date of admission. Financial Creditor Can't File Same Claim Twice For Same Loan In Multiple Insolvency Proceedings Without Proper Adjustment: NCLAT Case Title: Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Mr. Arunava Sikdar Case Number:Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 310 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mr Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that a financial creditor is not permitted to file the same claim twice for the same loan in multiple insolvency proceedings without proper adjustment. In the present case, the Appellant filed the same claim in two separate proceedings without disclosing the claims filed in an earlier proceeding. Intervention Application U/S 60(5) Of IBC Can't Be Entertained Beyond Limitation Period Of Three Years: NCLAT Case Title: Nextgen Procon Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Liquidator Rajesh Panayanthatta) Versus M.R.A Associates Pvt. Ltd. Case Number:Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1894 of 2024 The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) New Delhi bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Mr. Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) has held that Intervention Application under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be entertained beyond the limitation period of 3 years. The present appeal has been filed by the Corporate Person through its Liquidator against an order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by which it ...

IBC Weekly Round-Up: 14th July To 20th July 2025

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

IBC Weekly Round-Up: 14th July To 20th July 2025

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers