IBC Laws

IBC Laws Today | Daily Case Laws Updates | 15 October 2026 Read here: https://ibclaw.in/ibc-laws-today-daily-case-laws-updates-15-october-2026/?tgm -- Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm

Authenticated Information Utility records can prima facie establish default under Section 7 of the IBC, the Supreme Court has held. The Section 7 inquiry is summary and proceeds on a preponderance of probabilities; it does not require final adjudication of the exact outstanding quantum. An authenticated IU record has very high evidentiary value and cannot be displaced by bare denial, bookkeeping disagreements or unsupported assertions. Disputes over CMA adjustments, DSRA, interest and charges may be addressed in claim verification during CIRP. The Court also held that positive EBITDA or profitability does not negate a payment default. The appeals were dismissed and the CIRP admission orders against both corporate debtors were upheld. Read here: https://ibclaw.in/supreme-court-sets-evidentiary-hierarchy-for-ibc-section-7-default-proof/?tgm By Supreme Court, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 669 SC. Bench: Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih -- Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm

NCLAT on Section 242 share buy-outs A direction to purchase shares under Section 242(2)(b) cannot be made without first recording findings of oppression or mismanagement under Section 241 and forming the opinion required by Section 242(1). NCLAT also held that non-filing of objections does not remove the Tribunal’s duty to scrutinise a valuation report. A compulsory buy-out must be based on current value, or valuation close to the order date—not a report valuing shares as on 31 March 2018. The NCLT order was quashed. The matter was remitted for fresh valuation and a fresh decision on merits. Read here: https://ibclaw.in/nclat-sets-aside-share-buyout-order-without-section-241-findings/?tgm By NCLAT-New Delhi, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 1148 NCLAT. Bench: Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Mr. Arun Baroka, Mr. Indevar Pandey -- Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm

REAT-Maharashtra on forfeiture before a registered Agreement for Sale The Tribunal held that ₹4,27,173.50 paid by an allottee was part consideration, not earnest money. A promoter could not mechanically forfeit the entire amount merely under forfeiture clauses in the Application Form and Allotment Letter. No registered Agreement for Sale existed, and the promoter did not prove actual loss corresponding to the full forfeiture or establish that the flat could not be sold to another purchaser. While termination could be contractually permissible, any deduction had to be reasonable and fair. The appeal was dismissed, with ₹25,000 costs to the allottee. Read here: https://ibclaw.in/maharashtra-reat-rejects-full-forfeiture-of-flat-booking-consideration/?tgm By REAT-Maharashtra, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 578 REAT. Bench: Mr. justice S. S. Shinde, Dr. Rajagopal Devara -- Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm

MSMED Act and parallel arbitration: The Bombay High Court has held that once the MSEFC proceeds to statutory arbitration under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, a court should not appoint another arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the same dispute. Applying Mahakali Foods, the Court held that Chapter V of the MSMED Act overrides the contractual arbitration arrangement. A defence filed before the Council under protest did not waive jurisdictional objections, but it did not entitle the applicant to a parallel arbitral forum. The Section 11 application was dismissed, while objections to the Council proceedings were left open for the competent forum. Read here: https://ibclaw.in/bombay-high-court-rejects-section-11-plea-after-msmed-statutory-arbitration-begins/?tgm By High Court-Bombay, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 5625 HC. Bench: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar -- Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm

Lead bank may pursue SARFAESI recovery where consortium terms contain no specific bar. DRT-Chennai held that the consortium agreement did not prevent the lead bank from proceeding against borrowers without participation or separate authorisation of the other lenders. It found no patent illegality, perversity or non-compliance with Section 14(1) in the challenged Section 14 order, and rejected the objection to the bank’s SARFAESI registration. The securitisation application was dismissed and the order affirmed. However, execution was deferred until 31 October 2026 in light of the bank’s conditional no-objection for creation of a second charge to raise finance. Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drt-chennai-upholds-sarfaesi-section-14-order-grants-time-until-october-31/?tgm By DRT-Chennai, reported at (2026) ibclaw.in 767 DRT. Bench: Mr. A.S. Jayachandra -- Subscribe Newsletter: https://ibclaw.in/newsletter/?tgm Download App(iOS/Android): https://ibclaw.in/mobile-app/?tgm

RERA: Important Real Estate Judgments of September 2026 Read here: https://ibclaw.in/rera-important-real-estate-judgments-of-september-2026/?tgm

🚀 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

DRAT: 10 Important Judgments of September 2026 Read here: https://ibclaw.in/drat-10-important-judgments-of-september-2026/?tgm

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

Supreme Court: Important Arbitration Law Judgments of September 2026 Read here: https://ibclaw.in/supreme-court-important-arbitration-law-judgments-of-september-2026/?tgm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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