NCLAT Fortnightly: Important orders on IBC (Jan 16 – Jan 31, 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 16, 2026, to January 31, 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, Liquidation and Miscellaneous stage.

1. In SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. R S Kamthe Infrastructure Developers Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 116 of 2024), the NCLAT observed that notwithstanding the fact that the first default had taken place during the Section 10A period, when the default continues beyond such period, and the amount claimed subsequent to such period is beyond the threshold, then a Section 7 application can be filed by the financial creditor basis such subsequent date of default.

2. In Mrudul Balwant Kulkarni v. Kakumanu Lakshmi (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.386 of 2023), the NCLAT observed that the allottees who have entered into leave and license agreements at the instance of the corporate debtor, cannot be termed as ‘speculative investors’ merely because they have been referred to as financial creditors in the consent terms. It was observed that the nature of the transaction determines the maintainability of the application, and entering into consent terms would not wipe out the original debt or change the nature of creditor. Further, it was also noted that the Adjudicating Authority must record a positive finding that the statutory threshold under the second proviso to Section 7(1) of the Code (minimum 100 allottees or 10% of total allottees, whichever is less) was met by the allottees.

3. In Raj Singh Gehlot v. Aman Hospitality Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.94 of 2026), the NCLAT held that reservation of an order did not bar the corporate debtor from filing an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking leave to deposit the entire amount claimed by the financial creditor in the name of registrar NCLT. It was further observed that, in such an eventuality, it was an error in the part of the Adjudicating Authority to admit the Section 7 application, despite the corporate debtor offering to deposit the entire defaulted amount. Finally, it was observed that compliance with Section 12A was not applicable in the instant case as the admission order itself was unsustainable.

4. In Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Ravi Kumar Jain (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1141 of 2025), the NCLAT observed that interim moratorium commences automatically upon an application under Section 95 being filed, except in the event where the filing is made before an Adjudicating Authority which lacked the jurisdiction to entertain such application. Further, it was observed that a legal notice demanding payment from the corporate debtor as well as the personal guarantor constitutes a valid invocation of personal guarantee and a Section 9 application filed basis such invocation cannot be invalidated for non-filing of income tax returns of the personal guarantor in support of the annual income of the guarantor.

5. In Shri Durga Scaffolding Noida Private Limited v. Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1666 of 2025), the NCLAT observed that the interest amount unilaterally inserted in the invoices which was neither backed by a contractual agreement nor demonstrated by past conduct and practice between the parties, cannot operate against the corporate debtor sans a separate agreement for payment of interest. Such levy of interest by one party and denial to pay interest by the other party was held to be a veritable ground of dispute, forming sufficient basis for rejection of the Section 9 application. It was also observed that when the corporate debtor raises a pre-existing dispute, the Adjudicating Authority is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence raised is likely to succeed or not as long as it such defence is plausible.

1. In Canbank Factors Limited v. RCI Industries and Technologies Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 742 of 2025), the NCLAT held that amounts claimed by a factor arising from discounting of trade receivables under a TReDS/factoring arrangement constitute operational debt and not financial debt. The NCLAT held that mere assignment of trade receivables originally payable by the corporate debtor to its suppliers does not alter the intrinsic nature of the debt, and in the absence of any disbursement to the corporate debtor against consideration for the time value of money, the requirements of Section 5(8) of the Code are not satisfied. It was further held that the factor merely steps into the shoes of the supplier and can only be treated as an operational creditor under Sections 5(20) and 5(21) of the Code, and that no fresh or reclassified claim can be entertained after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”).

2. In CoC, Nirmal Lifestyle (Kalyan) Private Limited v. Shailendra Ajmera (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1521, 1491, 1518 & 1605 of 2025), the NCLAT held that although the CoC is empowered to extend timelines for receipt of expressions of interest and resolution plans, any inclusion of a new prospective resolution applicant must strictly comply with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 36A of the CIRP Regulations. The NCLAT held that inclusion of a resolution applicant’s name in the final list of PRAs without first placing it in the provisional list and without affording stakeholders an opportunity to raise objections is impermissible and vitiates the process. It was further held that such procedural non-compliance constitutes a material irregularity in the CIRP and renders the consideration of the resolution plan unsustainable in law.

3. In Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation v. Rachna Jhunjhunwala (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1412 of 2024), the NCLAT held that only provident fund contributions that had been finally determined and crystallised as on the insolvency commencement date are required to be paid in full under a resolution plan. It was held that claims towards interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which had not attained finality through statutory adjudication prior to the commencement of CIRP, remain uncrystallised and cannot be enforced or provided for in the CIRP.

4. In Jogihali Wind Energy Private Limited v. Yogesh Mehra (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1249 of 2022), the NCLAT held that exclusion of a member of the Committee of Creditors, even if such member holds a minimal voting share, is a serious matter and cannot be done without affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

5. In Lotus Auto Engineering Limited v. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramaniam (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1356 & 1357 of 2023), the NCLAT held that amounts arising from related party transactions undertaken during the CIRP cannot be treated as insolvency resolution process costs unless such costs are specifically placed before and approved by the Committee of Creditors in accordance with the Code and CIRP Regulations. The NCLAT clarified that approval of related party transactions under Section 28(1)(f) of the Code is distinct from approval of CIRP costs, and ratification of transactions to maintain the corporate debtor as a going concern does not, by itself, confer the status of CIRP cost.

In Cine-Corp Filmdom Private Limited v. Carnival Films Private Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1614 of 2025), the NCLAT held that once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC in exercise of its commercial wisdom and is found to be compliant with Section 30(2) of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to suo motu impose conditions or modifications that interfere with or alter the commercial terms of the plan. The NCLAT held that directing how funds lying in the corporate debtor’s accounts are to be utilised, contrary to the approved resolution plan, amounts to impermissible interference with the CoC’s commercial wisdom. Accordingly, such conditions were set aside.

In Rajesh Toshniwal v. Toshniwal Enterprises Controls Limited (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1437 of 2023), the NCLAT observed that the son (class I heir) of the deceased proprietor of the firm, would be liable to return benefits received by his father from preferential transactions under Section 43 of the Code as he would also be a beneficiary to such transaction and could be directed under Section 44(1)(d) to pay sums representing benefits received. Further, it was observed that when the suspended directors have not provided documents and financial statements to the resolution professional, they cannot contend that the material available with the transaction auditor is insufficient. Lastly, it was also noted that when the undisputed transactions to related parties basis the bank account statements of the corporate debtor was shown by the transaction auditor, the onus shifted to the suspended directors to prove such transactions were in the ordinary course of business, in order to prove that such transactions were not preferential in nature.

In Brijinder Singh v. Bank of Baroda (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1801 of 2025), the NCLAT held that for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 61(2) of the Code, the date of e-filing of the appeal is to be treated as the date of filing. It was further held that the statutory period of 30 days, extendable by a maximum of 15 days on sufficient cause, is mandatory and cannot be extended beyond the outer limit of 45 days. The NCLAT also held that an application for a certified copy made after expiry of the initial limitation period does not entitle the appellant to exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and delay beyond the condonable period cannot be condoned as the NCLAT’s jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute.

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