IBC Laws
رفتن به کانال در Telegram
2 409
مشترکین
اطلاعاتی وجود ندارد24 ساعت
-77 روز
-3730 روز
در حال بارگیری داده...
کانال‌های مشابه
ابر برچسب‌ها
اشارات ورودی و خروجی
---
---
---
---
---
---
جذب مشترکین
اکتبر '26اکتبر '26
اکتبر '26
+2
در 0 کانال‌ها
سپتامبر '26
+13
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '26
+18
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '26
+9
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '26
+8
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '26
+9
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '26
+12
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '26
+7
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '26
+8
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '26
+25
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '25
+25
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '25
+19
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '25
+27
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '25
+27
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '25
+31
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '25
+25
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '25
+27
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '25
+24
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '25
+16
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '25
+13
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '25
+21
در 1 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '25
+22
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '24
+18
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '24
+25
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '24
+14
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '24
+53
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '24
+83
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '24
+31
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '24
+37
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '24
+44
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '24
+59
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '24
+31
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '24
+28
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '24
+36
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '23
+31
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '23
+33
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '23
+29
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '23
+35
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '23
+33
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '23
+46
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '23
+41
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '23
+32
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '23
+31
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '23
+36
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '23
+36
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '23
+31
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '22
+39
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '22
+24
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '22
+32
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '22
+39
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '22
+55
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '22
+47
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '22
+48
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '22
+51
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '22
+67
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '22
+75
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
فوریه '22
+76
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژانویه '22
+68
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
دسامبر '21
+59
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
نوامبر '21
+71
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اکتبر '21
+575
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
سپتامبر '21
+67
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
اوت '21
+73
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئیه '21
+46
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
ژوئن '21
+131
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مه '21
+53
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
آوریل '21
+51
در 0 کانال‌ها
Get PRO
مارس '21
+1 701
در 0 کانال‌ها
| تاریخ | رشد مشترکین | اشارات | کانال‌ها | |
| 13 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 12 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 11 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 10 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 09 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 08 اکتبر | +1 | |||
| 07 اکتبر | +1 | |||
| 06 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 05 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 04 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 03 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 02 اکتبر | 0 | |||
| 01 اکتبر | 0 |
پست‌های کانال
Section 13(3-A) SARFAESI compliance requires demonstrated authority on these facts.
DRAT Delhi held that the bank failed to establish that its advocate was authorised by the Authorised Officer to send the reply/rejoinder to the borrowers’ representation. The reply merely stated that it was sent on the bank’s advice.
Treating the requirement to communicate reasons for non-acceptance as mandatory, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the DRT’s order restraining physical possession of the secured asset. The bank’s appeal was dismissed.
The ruling turns on the absence of proved authorisation; it does not state that counsel can never issue such a reply.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drat-delhi-dismisses-bank-appeal-over-sarfaesi-section-133a-reply/?tgm
By DRAT-Delhi, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 381 DRAT.
Bench: Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm
| 2 |  Section 62 IBC appeals: limitation begins on NCLAT pronouncement.
The Supreme Court held that the time for filing an appeal under Section 62 starts when the NCLAT pronounces its order, not when a party receives a certified copy.
Under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, only the time required to obtain a copy after applying for it can be excluded. Delay before applying for the copy counts towards limitation.
As the appeal exceeded the absolute 45-day period plus the maximum condonable 15 days, the Court sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed it as barred by limitation.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/supreme-court-ibc-appeal-limitation-runs-from-nclat-order-pronouncement/?tgm
By Supreme Court, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 662 SC.
Bench: Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Shri Justice N.V. Anjaria
--
Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm
Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 21 |
| 3 |  RERA: relied-upon material must be supplied before adjudication
REAT-Odisha set aside ORERA’s ₹12 lakh penalty order after finding that the inspection report, photographs and leaflet forming the foundation of the suo motu complaint had not been supplied to the promoter.
The Tribunal held that the non-supply violated principles of natural justice and Section 38(2) of the RERA Act. The complaint was remitted for a fresh hearing after supply of these documents. The Tribunal left open the disputes concerning the project’s status, site identification and project cost.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/odisha-reat-sets-aside-orera-penalty-over-undisclosed-inspection-material/?tgm
By REAT-Odisha, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 640 REAT.
Bench: Sri S.K. Rajguru, Dr. B.K. Das
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 17 |
| 4 |  Refusal of a Section 29A extension does not automatically end the arbitration agreement.
The Bombay High Court appointed a sole arbitrator for disputes connected with a 2024 MOU, notwithstanding that an earlier arbitration had not concluded and extension of time for it was refused in 2020.
The Court held that termination of the earlier arbitral mandate did not necessarily extinguish the arbitration agreement or every future dispute. The 2024 MOU and alleged non-performance under it meant the claims were not shown to be ex facie dead at the Section 11 stage. The pending civil suit did not by itself defeat arbitration between the signatory parties. All merits remain open before the tribunal.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/bombay-high-court-appoints-arbitrator-for-2024-mou-redevelopment-dispute/?tgm
By High Court-Bombay, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 5627 HC.
Bench: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 16 |
| 5 |  Cheque for a time-barred debt can support Section 138 conviction
The High Court-Karnataka held that issuance of a cheque for a time-barred debt attracts the deeming effect of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. The debt thereby becomes legally recoverable to the extent of the cheque amount and can support proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The Court also rejected the plea that statutory notice was not properly served, relying on the notice, postal receipts and acknowledgment on record. Finding no illegality or incorrectness in the concurrent findings, it dismissed the criminal revision petition and left the conviction undisturbed.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/karnataka-high-court-upholds-section-138-conviction-on-time-barred-debt-cheque/?tgm
By High Court-Karnataka, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 5686 HC.
Bench: Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 21 |
| 6 |  IBC Laws Today | Daily Case Laws Updates | 14 October 2026
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/ibc-laws-today-daily-case-laws-updates-14-october-2026/?tgm | 23 |
| 7 |  Jointly held shares cannot be divided on one holder’s request alone, the NCLT-Bengaluru Bench has held.
A request to dematerialise and transfer an alleged half share from a joint holding into one holder’s sole name was held to be, in substance, a request to divide jointly held equity shares.
The Tribunal ruled that such division requires share transfer documents duly signed by both joint holders. Without documented consent from the other holder, the ownership proportion could not be determined. The petition concerning 292 jointly held shares was dismissed.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/nclt-bengaluru-rejects-joint-share-division-without-co-holders-consent/?tgm
By NCLT-Bengaluru Bench, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 3771 NCLT.
Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Shri Radhakrishna Sreepada
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 27 |
| 8 |  Sept. 2026 Review
10 Important NCLAT Judgments on IBC and Corporate Law – September 2026
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/10-important-nclat-judgments-on-ibc-and-corporate-law-september-2026/?tgm | 32 |
| 9 |  Section 11 limitation begins from refusal to arbitrate, not automatically from an earlier alleged termination.
The High Court-Bombay held that the Section 11(6) application was timely: arbitration was invoked on 2 April 2026, refused on 26 April 2026, and the application was filed on 6 May 2026.
The Court declined to decide limitation of the underlying contractual claims at the referral stage. Disputed later correspondence, meetings and redevelopment discussions meant the claims could not be treated as manifestly dead. Questions on waiver, termination, limitation and other defences were left to the arbitral tribunal.
A sole arbitrator was appointed, with all merits kept open.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/bombay-high-court-refers-redevelopment-dispute-to-arbitration-despite-limitation-objection/?tgm
By High Court-Bombay, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 5626 HC.
Bench: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 33 |
| 10 |  Non-signatories may be included in arbitration at the Section 11 stage where the dispute could substantially affect rights claimed by them.
The Supreme Court held, on a prima facie view, that later partners were veritable parties to an arbitration concerning a partnership asset. Although they had not signed the 1985 deed containing the arbitration clause, their claimed rights under subsequent arrangements depended on the validity of the appellants’ alleged retirement.
The order was modified to include them. However, their final status, and objections on limitation and estoppel, remain for the Arbitral Tribunal.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/supreme-court-adds-non-signatories-to-arbitration-as-veritable-parties/?tgm
By Supreme Court, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 661 SC.
Bench: Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 29 |
| 11 |  NCLT-Chandigarh defers liquidation for a final revival exercise
Despite rejection of earlier plans and the CoC’s liquidation decision, the Tribunal found that SEL Textiles’ spinning and terry-towel units were commercially interdependent. Separate disposal in liquidation could erode their combined value.
Taking note of the changed liquidation framework and Section 33(1A), the Tribunal directed one final, strictly time-bound market exercise. The RP must issue a fresh Form G for resolution of the corporate debtor as an integrated undertaking and complete it within 120 days.
The liquidation application was dismissed at this stage, with liberty to seek appropriate orders after the process.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/nclt-chandigarh-orders-fresh-sel-textiles-resolution-process-before-liquidation/?tgm
By NCLT-Chandigarh Bench, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 3775 NCLT.
Bench: Shri K. Biswal, Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 36 |
| 12 |  SARFAESI enforcement against a claimed share cannot proceed pending Civil Court adjudication, DRAT-Kolkata has held.
The respondent claimed a 1/3rd share in property mortgaged by her late husband and was not impleaded in the earlier O.A. The Tribunal held that the O.A. decree was a judgment in personam and did not bind her. It also found that the Bank had impliedly waived its rights against her to that extent.
Reiterating that DRTs cannot adjudicate title under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, DRAT dismissed the Bank’s appeal. Enforcement against her claimed share will depend on the Civil Court’s decision.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drat-kolkata-upholds-bar-on-sarfaesi-action-over-disputed-one-third-share/?tgm
By DRAT-Kolkata, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 385 DRAT.
Bench: Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 48 |
| 13 |  Unfiled pre-plan GST claims stood extinguished: The Calcutta High Court held that GST dues, interest and penalty for FY 2021-22 could not be pursued after approval of the resolution plan, since no GST claim had been lodged during CIRP.
Rejecting the adjudication-versus-recovery distinction, the Court ruled that a Section 73 notice and demand order were proceedings concerning an extinguished claim. It quashed the show-cause notice, demand order, DRC-07 summary and separate Section 50 interest notice. The Court left any subsequent liability, if any, open.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/calcutta-high-court-quashes-gst-demand-extinguished-under-approved-ibc-plan/?tgm
By High Court-Calcutta, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 6129 HC.
Bench: Justice Aryak Dutt
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 37 |
| 14 |  Pre-RERA completion must be proved, not merely asserted.
The MP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal affirmed action against an unregistered project after the promoter failed to produce a Completion Certificate or Occupancy Certificate, despite a municipal requirement for a Completion Certificate.
The Tribunal also found that advertisements and allotment of six shops in 2018, without project registration, violated Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority’s order was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/mp-reat-upholds-₹1-lakh-penalty-for-unregistered-2018-shop-allotments/?tgm
By REAT-Madhya Pradesh(MP), reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 612 REAT.
Bench: Justice B.K. Dwivedi, Shri P.C. Gupta, Shri Ravindra Singh
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 40 |
| 15 |  A guarantor’s subsequent death does not by itself invalidate Section 14 SARFAESI proceedings where the bank initiated them during the guarantor’s lifetime.
DRT-Chennai held that proceedings before the Magistrate under Section 14 are procedural and administrative, not adjudicatory. It found that the Section 14(1) requirements were reflected in the impugned order and that the applicants had not substantiated alleged defects in notice service, NPA classification or the affidavit.
The securitisation application was dismissed, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order and consequential measures were affirmed.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drt-chennai-upholds-section-14-sarfaesi-possession-order-despite-guarantors-death/?tgm
By DRT-Chennai, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 784 DRT.
Bench: Shri Sharang Dhar Upadhyay
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 44 |
| 16 |  SARFAESI auction quashed by DRT-Patna
The Tribunal held that the bank failed to prove service of the demand, possession and sale notices. It also found that the sale notice issued on 11 October 2021 for auction on 29 October 2021 did not provide the required 30 days’ notice.
The bank did not produce the valuation report despite the allegation of a throwaway sale, or proof of timely deposit by the auction purchaser. The SA was held within limitation, allowed with costs, and the auction purchaser’s deposit was ordered to be refunded with 10% simple interest.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drt-patna-quashes-indian-bank-sarfaesi-auction-over-notice-failures/?tgm
By DRT-Patna, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 750 DRT.
Bench: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 45 |
| 17 |  IBC Laws Today | Daily Case Laws Updates | 13 October 2026
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/ibc-laws-today-daily-case-laws-updates-13-october-2026/?tgm | 40 |
| 18 |  NCLT-Chandigarh Bench: A homebuyer claim could not be disregarded solely because it was filed after the public-announcement deadline, particularly where it was received before CoC approval of the resolution plan.
However, recognition as a financial creditor in a class under Section 5(8)(f) requires establishing that the amount is a debt owed by the corporate debtor. Payments made to associate entities, supported by allotment and adjustment documents, did not conclusively establish that nexus on the available record.
The RP must verify further material and reconsider the claim. If the nexus is proved, it must be considered under Section 5(8)(f); otherwise, it may be considered under Other Creditors.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/nclt-chandigarh-directs-rp-to-reconsider-homebuyers-₹54-lakh-claim/?tgm
By NCLT-Chandigarh Bench, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 3776 NCLT.
Bench: Shri K. Biswal, Shri Kaushalendra Kumar Singh
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 46 |
| 19 |  An alleged HUF share must be proved to challenge a SARFAESI Section 14 order.
DRAT Chennai confirmed dismissal of an appeal where the appellant claimed a 1/6th undivided share in the secured property. The Tribunal found that the income-tax records, construction agreement and legal opinion did not establish that the asset was HUF property.
The sale deed, mortgage and loan documents, along with tax records, showed the property was the third respondent’s individual asset. As no other specific Section 14 defect was pleaded, the appeal was dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drat-chennai-upholds-sarfaesi-mortgage-rejects-daughters-huf-share-claim/
By DRAT-Chennai, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 380 DRAT.
Bench: Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/ | 62 |
| 20 |  Schedule II CIRP fees are not automatic during judicially restricted proceedings.
The NCLT Mumbai Bench held that an RP is not automatically entitled to the full Schedule II minimum fee where publication of Form G is stayed and CIRP functions are substantially restricted.
Reviewing the CoC minutes, the Tribunal found that post-stay work was limited mainly to status meetings, updates, CIRP-cost matters and the section 12A withdrawal proposal. It fixed the RP’s fee at ₹2 lakh per month plus taxes until the stay, and ₹40,000 per month plus taxes from 25 July 2024 until CIRP termination, with actual CIRP expenses reimbursable. Payment was directed within 30 days.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/nclt-mumbai-says-schedule-ii-cirp-minimum-fee-is-not-mandatory/
By NCLT-Mumbai Bench, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 3836 NCLT.
Bench: Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Shri Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/ | 57 |
