NCLAT Fortnightly: Important orders on IBC (Jan 1 – Jan 15, 2026)

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 January 1, 2026, to January 15, 2026.

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

1. In Ujwal Gupta v. Union Bank of India (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2001 of 2024), the NCLAT held that a demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act can constitute a valid invocation of a personal guarantee if, on a reading of its contents and in light of the terms of the guarantee deed, it clearly calls upon the personal guarantor to discharge the liability. The NCLAT held that no specific form or mode of invocation is required unless stipulated in the guarantee deed, and that mere description of the guarantor as a “director” in the notice does not dilute or negate invocation where the substance of the notice demands payment of the guaranteed debt. It was further held that objections based on alleged procedural or authorisation defects in filing a Section 95 application are hyper-technical and cannot defeat initiation of insolvency proceedings in the absence of substantive prejudice.

2. In Chemical Suppliers India Private Limited v. Kanodia Technoplast Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1244 of 2025), the NCLAT deprecated an attempt by the operational creditor to improve their own case by inflating the quantum of default by adding more number of invoices, despite having admitted invoices and the amounts payable in the application filed under section 9. It was further observed that an operational creditor cannot modify the list of invoices filed in the section 9 application by subsequently claiming that there were additional invoices which fell outside the ambit of section 10A period. Additionally, it was observed that the willingness of the corporate debtor to pay the entire amount falling outside the purview of the section 10A period, shows its bona fide intention to discharge their liabilities and the decision of the operational creditor to not accept the payment goes against the spirit of the Code.

1. In Anuj Goyal v. Atul Kumar Kinra (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 29 of 2026), the NCLAT observed that when the committee of creditors (“CoC”) has taken a decision to replace the resolution professional by passing a vote with the requisite majority, then a homebuyer with 0.25% vote share cannot question such appointment.

2. In Gagan Tandon v. IL & FS Financial Services Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 500 of 2025), the NCLAT observed that where security was created over certain projects for repayment of loans, which formed the basis for admission of CIRP, such CIRP should be confined only to those projects and cannot engulf all other projects of the corporate debtor which are in no matter affected by the financial facilities extended by the petitioning financial creditors.

3. In Fivebro Water Services Private Limited v. Doshion Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1730 of 2025), the NCLAT observed that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction under Section 60(5) to decide matters relating to validity of the lease or license agreement as well as the breaches thereof if it facilitates resolution or liquidation. It was further observed that if a lease arrangement has been entered into with the motive to keep the corporate debtor’s assets out of the liquidation estate, the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to allow vacation of the property and take the possession. Finally, the NCLAT deprecated the execution of a fresh lease agreement by the suspended management of the corporate debtor with its subsidiaries after the initiation of the moratorium, with the aim to keep the property out of the liquidation estate.

4. In Intec Capital Limited v. Shivam Continental Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 587 of 2025), the NCLAT observed that, while an acknowledgment of debt by the personal guarantor in its filing for initiation of insolvency resolution process under section 94 amounts to an acknowledgment of the liability of the corporate debtor towards the financial creditor, a belated challenge to the rejection of claim by the resolution professional is not maintainable at a stage where the plan was pending approval by the Adjudicating Authority, as it would result in reopening the whole CIRP process.

5. In Consortium led by Syonira Invecast Private Limited v. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 2319 of 2024), the NCLAT observed that no assessment proceedings can be initiated or continued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (“EPFO”) after the initiation of CIRP and imposition of moratorium under section 14(1) of the Code. Hence, it was held that no claim on the basis of such assessment can be made by the EPFO, which has been founded upon proceedings and determinations undertaken during the moratorium period.

In Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Yadav v. Prabhjit Singh Soni (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1447 of 2025), the NCLAT held that a claim filed after an inordinate delay of several years from the commencement of CIRP cannot be entertained once the resolution plan has already been approved by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT further held that a remand of the resolution plan by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for reconsideration on a limited issue does not reopen or revive the process for filing fresh or belated claims by stakeholders who failed to submit their claims within the prescribed timeline. Accordingly, the rejection of the application seeking acceptance of a belated claim was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

1. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Harshavardhan Cotton and Synthetic Mills Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 455 of 2023), the NCLAT held that in liquidation proceedings, the distribution of assets under Section 53 of the Code is subject to Section 36(4) of the Code, and therefore amounts falling within Section 36(4)(a)(iii) cannot form part of the liquidation estate. The NCLAT categorically held that all sums due to workmen or employees from the provident fund include not only the principal contribution but also interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”), and such dues must be treated as third-party assets kept outside the liquidation estate. It was further held that the existence of a separately maintained or dedicated provident fund account is not a prerequisite for exclusion under Section 36(4)(a)(iii), and even where the employer failed to deposit the amounts, the dues are deemed to be held in trust for employees. Accordingly, the NCLAT held that the liquidator had erred in classifying EPF interest and damages as government dues under Section 53(1)(e), ignoring the priority such dues commanded, and consequently directed  recovery of such dues from the payment made to the financial creditor.

2. In Religare Finvest Limited v. Resolve Support Services Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1057, 1199 & 1346 of 2024), the NCLAT held that while a resolution professional is empowered to raise interim finance, such power must be exercised strictly with specific and informed approval of the CoC on the exact terms and conditions of the interim finance. A general or preliminary approval to raise interim finance does not authorise the resolution professional to unilaterally finalise loan terms. The NCLAT further held that raising interim finance from related parties without full disclosure to the CoC and utilising such funds substantially towards the resolution professional’s own fees and fees of related professionals, constitutes a serious breach of transparency, and fiduciary duty. It was held that interest and processing fees on interim finance raised from related parties cannot be treated as CIRP costs in the absence of CoC approval.

In Subhash Chandra Mishra v. Sunil Kumar (Bankrupt Trustee) (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1300 of 2025), the NCLAT held that upon passing of a bankruptcy order, all property of the bankrupt, including amounts lying in bank accounts as on the bankruptcy commencement date, vests in the bankruptcy trustee and forms part of the bankruptcy estate. It was held that amounts lying in a bank account do not qualify as “excluded assets” under Section 79(14)(b) of the Code, as the expression “provisions necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs” refers to household provisions such as food and essentials, and not monetary balances. The NCLAT further held that in the absence of material evidence, amounts claimed to be held in trust for family members cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy estate. However, it was clarified that amounts received by the bankrupt after the bankruptcy commencement date do not automatically vest in the trustee and must be released to the bankrupt subject to an application being filed by the bankrupt, unless claimed by the trustee by issuing notice under Section 159 of the Code.

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