NCLAT Fortnightly: Important orders on IBC (Dec 16 – Dec 31, 2025)

The following is a snapshot of the important orders passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code”), during the period between December 16, 2025 to December 31, 2025.

For ease of reference, the orders have been categorized and dealt with in the following categories i.e., Pre-admission stage, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) stage, Post-CIRP stage, Liquidation and Miscellaneous.

1. In Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited v. Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)  No. 1771 of 2025), the NCLAT upheld the rejection of the Section 7 application against the financial service provider whose registration was not cancelled as on the date of the filing of the Section 7 application, by observing that a financial service provider is excluded from the definition of corporate person under Section 3(7) of the Code, irrespective of the restriction imposed upon the entity from increasing the size of balance sheet or accessing public funds or generally from undertaking the business of a financial service provider.

1. In Jatinder Oberoi v. Narendra Singh Chhabra (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 536 of 2024), the NCLAT held that a del credere agent who bears the financial risk of buyer default and is contractually obliged to make good the dues to the principal, stands on a different footing from a commission agent or a sub-contractor and qualifies as an operational creditor under the Code. The NCLAT affirmed that the operational debt stood effectively assigned to the del credere agent by virtue of the contractual arrangement, and that the absence of invoices or GST returns in the agent’s own name does not defeat the existence of operational debt where supply of goods, liability, and default are otherwise established.

2. In Mehar Bhoomi Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. v. Angad Infrastructure Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1876 of 2025), the issue before the NCLAT was whether, upon an approved plan being remanded back to the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) for consideration of certain issues, can be reopened by the CoC which has undergone reconstitution in the interim period. Noting the absence of such a right, the NCLAT held that once a resolution plan has been approved by the CoC, the CoC has no jurisdiction to withdraw from, revisit, or take any decision affecting the approved plan, even if the CoC is subsequently reconstituted. It also observed that a subsequent change in the composition of the CoC does not invalidate or reopen decisions validly taken earlier, and a newly inducted creditor has no right to seek reconsideration of an already approved plan.

3. In Gir Vanvaso Resort v. Pancard Clubs Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1482 of 2025), the NCLAT upheld the exercise of jurisdiction by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(5) of the Code to entertain application regarding corporate debtor’s control and possession of assets and to examine instruments have bearing on corporate debtor’s control over assets and adjudication of incidental contractual disputes. In this case, the NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s direction for handing over of possession of the corporate debtor’s asset, which was unlawfully being possessed by the appellant under an unregistered and unstamped memorandum of understanding. The NCLAT further upheld the direction to pay usage charges/mesne profits for continued occupation of the property, holding that enjoyment of the corporate debtor’s assets without lawful authority obliges the occupier to compensate the estate.

4. The NCLAT, in Neeta Saha v. Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 61 of 2025), observed that the initiation of CIRP proceedings and the imposition of a moratorium on a corporate debtor does not preclude a financial creditor from issuing a loan recall notice or initiating action against the personal guarantor under Section 95 of the Code. It was further observed that the provisions of Section 10A, which is applicable only to applications made under Chapter II of the Code, do not bar proceedings against the personal guarantor initiated under Part III of the Code. Further, it was also held that the difference in the quantum of debt alleged by the personal guarantor need not defer the admission, with the exact calculation of the difference in the quantum amount of debt being left to be done at the time of repayment of the plan.

1. In Bank of Baroda v. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors, the NCLAT held that once a resolution plan, including the manner of distribution of assets amongst the stakeholders is approved by the CoC under Section 30(4) of the Code, it becomes final and binding on all stakeholders, including the CoC itself, and the CoC cannot subsequently modify or alter such distribution mechanism even in the exercise of its commercial wisdom. It was further observed that, where the resolution plan contemplated the assignment of the loan to approving financial creditors or ‘such other entity’, the same could not be assigned in favour of dissenting financial creditors, if such assignment is objected to by such dissenting financial creditors.

2. In Sharad Kumar Bakliwal v. J.P. Engineering Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1098 of 2025), the NCLAT observed that an appeal challenging rejection of a belated claim that did not form a part of the resolution plan would become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the same, since all claims that are not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished upon the order of approval of the resolution plan.

1. In Narayan Maheshwari v. Shri Veerganapathi Steels Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 63 of 2024), the NCLAT held that an application for withdrawal of insolvency proceedings under Section 12A of the Code is not maintainable once the corporate debtor has entered the liquidation stage. The NCLAT clarified that Section 12A is statutorily confined to proceedings during the CIRP stage under Chapter II of the Code and cannot be extended, by interpretation or by invoking inherent powers, to liquidation proceedings governed by Chapter III. It further held that any settlement or one-time settlement arrived at after the commencement of liquidation cannot be a basis to withdraw or reverse the liquidation process, as the legislature has consciously omitted any provision permitting such withdrawal at the liquidation stage.

1. In Smartpaddle Technology Private Limited v. Otis Textiles Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT)(CH) (Ins) No.512/2025), the NCLAT observed that in cases of non-appearance of parties, the Adjudicating Authority is empowered only to close the opportunity of the absent party to place documents on record, and cannot dismiss the application on merits on the same date merely due to such absence. The NCLAT further clarified that an application seeking recall of an ex-parte order passed on account of non-appearance does not partake the character of a review, and is consequently maintainable under law.

About the authors: Arka Majumdar is a Partner, Aakriti Garodia and Milind Anand are Associates at Argus Partners.