2 408
Подписчики
Нет данных24 часа
-67 дней
-4030 дней
Загружаем данные
Похожие каналы
Облако тегов
Входящие и исходящие упоминания
---
---
---
---
---
---
Привлечение подписчиков
октябрь '26окт. '26
октябрь '26
+2
в 0 каналах
сентябрь '26
+13
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '26
+18
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '26
+9
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '26
+8
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '26
+9
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '26
+12
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '26
+7
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '26
+8
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '26
+25
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '25
+25
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '25
+19
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '25
+27
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '25
+27
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '25
+31
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '25
+25
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '25
+27
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '25
+24
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '25
+16
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '25
+13
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '25
+21
в 1 каналах
Get PRO
январь '25
+22
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '24
+18
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '24
+25
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '24
+14
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '24
+53
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '24
+83
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '24
+31
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '24
+37
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '24
+44
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '24
+59
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '24
+31
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '24
+28
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '24
+36
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '23
+31
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '23
+33
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '23
+29
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '23
+35
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '23
+33
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '23
+46
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '23
+41
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '23
+32
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '23
+31
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '23
+36
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '23
+36
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '23
+31
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '22
+39
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '22
+24
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '22
+32
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '22
+39
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '22
+55
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '22
+47
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '22
+48
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '22
+51
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '22
+67
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '22
+75
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
февраль '22
+76
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
январь '22
+68
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
декабрь '21
+59
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
ноябрь '21
+71
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
октябрь '21
+575
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
сентябрь '21
+67
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
август '21
+73
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июль '21
+46
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
июнь '21
+131
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
май '21
+53
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
апрель '21
+51
в 0 каналах
Get PRO
март '21
+1 701
в 0 каналах
| Дата | Привлечение подписчиков | Упоминания | Каналы | |
| 15 октября | 0 | |||
| 14 октября | 0 | |||
| 13 октября | 0 | |||
| 12 октября | 0 | |||
| 11 октября | 0 | |||
| 10 октября | 0 | |||
| 09 октября | 0 | |||
| 08 октября | +1 | |||
| 07 октября | +1 | |||
| 06 октября | 0 | |||
| 05 октября | 0 | |||
| 04 октября | 0 | |||
| 03 октября | 0 | |||
| 02 октября | 0 | |||
| 01 октября | 0 |
Посты канала
🚀 A judgment becomes useful in your practice only when you find it in time
What IBC Laws Offers:
🔎 Explore All Features: https://ibclaw.in/products-features/?tgm
Comprehensive Legal Research Modules
🏢 Insolvency & Corporate Laws
🏦 Banking & Debt Recovery
⚖️ Commercial & Dispute Resolution
Explore Our Powerful Research Features
✨ ResearchAI Pro (AI-Powered Legal Research & Drafting)
🔍 SearchAI+ (AI-Powered Legal Search)
🎯 EXTRA Filters (Advanced Research Filters with Boolean Operators
📑 DeepSummary (Complete Case Summary with HeadNote)
📝 Expert Notes (Editorial Headnote & Expert Note)
📖 Full Text of Judgments & Orders
🔗 Case History, Current Status & CitedBy
🖨️ Court-Ready Judgment Print/ PDF
🏛️ Original Court / Tribunal Judgment Copy
📂 Case Notes & MyFolder
📋 Copy Citation. Submit with Ease
🔄 Amended Legal Contents and more...
Why spend hours searching when you can research and analyse, all on one platform?
Subscribe Now: https://ibclaw.in/subscription/?tgm
| 2 |  DRAT: 10 Important Judgments of September 2026
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drat-10-important-judgments-of-september-2026/?tgm | 21 |
| 3 |  Article 21 cannot be overridden by Section 45 PMLA where custody becomes prolonged and trial is unlikely to conclude soon, the Supreme Court ruled.
Granting bail, the Court noted that the appellant had spent over 20 months in custody, investigation qua him was complete, and the trial—given its extensive documents and witnesses—would be time-consuming.
The Court nevertheless rejected the challenge to arrest based on a five-day delay in forwarding material under Section 19(2). The provision sets no rigid timeline and permits absolutely necessary administrative time for voluminous records.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/supreme-court-grants-pmla-bail-says-section-45-cannot-override-article-21/?tgm
By Supreme Court, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 663 SC.
Bench: Shri Justice Aravind Kumar, Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
--
Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm
Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 29 |
| 4 |  Supreme Court: Important Arbitration Law Judgments of September 2026
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/supreme-court-important-arbitration-law-judgments-of-september-2026/?tgm | 25 |
| 5 |  Regulation 9: erstwhile RP must address liquidation record request
NCLT-Indore Bench held that an erstwhile Resolution Professional cannot defeat a Regulation 9 request for information and records merely by pleading that he became functus officio after approval of a resolution plan.
Finding that the Liquidator had made reasonable efforts to obtain the records, the Tribunal directed the suspended directors and erstwhile RP to furnish documents in their possession or control and file document-wise affidavits within 30 days. No direction was issued against the successful resolution applicants, as their possession of corporate-debtor property or records was not established.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/nclt-indore-directs-former-rp-directors-to-furnish-liquidation-records/?tgm
By NCLT-Indore Bench, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 3920 NCLT.
Bench: Shri Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Shri Man Mohan Gupta
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 26 |
| 6 |  Section 138 NI Act: proof of entitlement is essential where a cheque is issued to a concern.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld an acquittal because the cheque was issued in the name of Sanjay Traders, but the complainant did not establish that he was its proprietor or otherwise the payee/holder in due course.
The Court clarified that a complaint cannot be dismissed merely because a power-of-attorney holder deposes; such a holder may testify if he witnessed the transaction as agent or has due knowledge. However, that did not cure the lack of proof connecting the complainant with the named concern. The appeal was dismissed.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/himachal-pradesh-high-court-upholds-section-138-acquittal-over-proprietorship-proof/?tgm
By High Court-Himachal Pradesh, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 5953 HC.
Bench: Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 20 |
| 7 |  A later arbitration notice cannot revive a stale claim—but it may cover genuinely later disputes under the same contract.
In a Section 11 matter concerning a development agreement, the Court distinguished earlier claims from grievances linked to amended plans in October 2023 and alleged post-completion failures. It held that each claim must be assessed by its own accrual date; a prior arbitration invocation does not make every subsequent breach non-arbitrable.
As some disputes were arguable and based on later events, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator. Claims alleged to be time-barred, and all merits issues, remain open before the tribunal.
Read here: https://ibclaw.in/bombay-high-court-refers-later-development-agreement-disputes-to-arbitration/?tgm
By High Court-Bombay, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 5621 HC.
Bench: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar
Download Mobile App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm | 22 |
| 8 |  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 | 39 |
| 9 |  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 | 34 |
| 10 |  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 | 25 |
| 11 |  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 | 24 |
| 12 |  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 | 28 |
| 13 |  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 | 29 |
| 14 |  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 | 33 |
| 15 |  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 | 40 |
| 16 |  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 | 36 |
| 17 |  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 | 32 |
| 18 |  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 | 39 |
| 19 |  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 | 51 |
| 20 |  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 | 39 |
