LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS ON INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17

Several provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were challenged before the Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17 mainly on the grounds that they are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held most of these provisions including classification of financial creditors and operational creditors, Section 12 A and 29A valid and Constitutional.

OVERRIDIG EFFECT OF IBC

Innoventive Industries Ltd Vs ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407

The Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd Vs ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407 held that certain provisions of Maharashtra Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 are repugnant to IBC under Article 254 of the Constitution as such void to that extent. The Supreme Court also held that non-obstante clause under Section 238 IBC will override limited non-obstante clause in Maharashtra Act.

Duncans Industries Ltd. Vs A J Agrochem 2019 (9) SCC 725

The Supreme Court in Duncans Industries Ltd. Vs A J Agrochem 2019 (9) SCC 725 held that provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will have overriding effect over Tea Act, 1953.

APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION ACT

B. K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633

The Supreme Court in B. K. Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2019) 11 SCC 633 held that Section 238A of the Code introduced through 2018 Second Amendment is clarificatory in nature and will be applicable with retrospective effect.

Jignesh Shah Vs Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 750

The Supreme Court in Jignesh Shah Vs Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 750 has held that suit for recovery and winding up petitions are separate and distinct remedy. A suit of recovery instituted prior to winding up petition will not impact the limitation within which the winding up proceedings is to be filed by keeping the debt somehow alive for the purpose of winding up proceedings.

Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2020) SCC Online SC 647

The Supreme Court in Babulal Vardharji Gurjar Vs Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2020) SCC Online SC 647 held that Limitation will start running in case of Section 7 application from date of default and not from commencement of IBC. The Supreme Court also held that Section 7 IBC application is not for enforcement of mortgage and limitation prescribed under Article 62 of Limitation Act will not apply on Section 7 Applications.

Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs K. P. Jayaram & Ors (2020) 10 SCC 538

The Supreme Court in Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs K. P. Jayaram & Ors (2020) 10 SCC 538 held that the Application filed by the Respondents for initiation of CIRP was time barred. The Application was also not maintainable as there was no financial debt in existence.

Sesh Nath Singh Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd AIR 2021 SC 2637

The Supreme Court held in Sesh Nath Singh Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd AIR 2021 SC 2637 that delay in filing Application under Section 7 or Section 9 can be condoned in absence of application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court also held that Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable on application under Section 7 or Section 9.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs Bishal Jaiswal & Anr (2021 ) SCC Online SC 321

The Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs Bishal Jaiswal & Anr (2021 ) SCC Online SC 321 held that entry made in balance sheet may be treated as acknowledgment under Section 18 of Limitation Act and will depend on facts of each case.

Rajendra Narottamdas Seth Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (2021) SCC Online 843

The Supreme Court in Rajendra Narottamdas Seth Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (2021) SCC Online 843 approved the view taken by NCLAT in Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2017) SCC Online NCLAT 266 in respect of institution of Section 7 IBC Application through power of attorney holder. The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 18 of Limitation Act is applicable on proceedings under IBC.

STATUS OF HOME BUYERS

Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors (2019) 8 SCC 416

The Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors (2019) 8 SCC 416 held that amendment to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is valid whereby home buyers have been included in category of Financial Creditors.

Manish Kumar Vs Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 1

The Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Vs Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 1 held that Section 3, 4 and 10 of Insolvency and bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020 are constitutionally valid.

Elegna Co-op Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (Civil Appeal 10261/2025)

The Supreme Court in Elegna Co-op Housing and Commercial Society Ltd. Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (Civil Appeal 10261/2025) held that the right to initiate or participate in insolvency proceedings is statutory, not equitable. The Supreme Court further held that a society or Resident Welfare Association, not being a creditor in its own right and not recognised as an authorised representative of allottees under the IBC, has no locus standi to intervene in proceedings arising out a Section 7 petition.

CLASSIFICATION OF CREDITORS

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs Anand Sonbhadra (2023 ) 1 SCC 724

The Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs Anand Sonbhadra (2023 ) 1 SCC 724 held that New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is not a Financial Creditor and claim of the authority falls under category of Operational Debt.

Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd Vs Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt Ltd (2022) SCC Online SC 142

The Supreme Court held in Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd Vs Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt Ltd (2022) SCC Online SC 142 that Operational Creditors include all those who provide or receive operational services from the Corporate Debtor. Advance payment made to the Corporate Debtor for supply of goods or services will be covered under definition of “Operational Debt”.

M/s Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. (2023 ) 3 SCC 753

The Supreme Court in M/s Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd. (2023 ) 3 SCC 753 held that interest free loan will be covered under definition of financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

EPC Constructions Ltd Vs. Matix Fertilisers & Chemical Ltd. (Civil Appeal 11077/2025)

The Supreme Court held in EPC Constructions Ltd Vs. Matix Fertilisers & Chemical Ltd. (Civil Appeal 11077/2025)  that Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) are part of the share capital of a company and cannot be treated as “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

INITIATION OF CIRP

M/s Surendra Trading Company Vs M/s Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (2017)16SCC 143

The Supreme Court held in M/s Surendra Trading Company Vs M/s Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (2017)16SCC 143 that period of seven days provided under Section 7 (5), Section 9 (5) or Section 10 (4) for removal of defects in an Application for initiating CIRP is not mandatory.

Macquarie Bank Ltd. Vs Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. (2018) 2 SCC 674

The Supreme Court in Macquarie Bank Ltd. Vs Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. (2018) 2 SCC 674 held that certificate from financial institution under Section 9 (3) (c) is not mandatory for filing Application under Section 9 IBC. It was also held that an Advocate is competent to send demand notice under Section 8 IBC.

Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore Fund ) & Ors AIR 2021 SC 1638

The Supreme Court held in Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore Fund ) & Ors AIR 2021 SC 1638 that if Application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed before NCLT, the submissions made in Section 7 IBC Application have also to be considered. After considering all the relevant facts NCLT may admit 7 IBC Application or reject the same. In case of rejection the parties can approach appropriate forum for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal.

Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda ) Vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330

The Supreme Court in Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda ) Vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 330 held that a judgment/decree in favor of Financial Creditor would give rise to fresh cause of action to initiate proceedings under Section 7 IBC.

E. S. Krishnamurthy Vs Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd (2022) 3 SCC 161

The Supreme Court in E. S. Krishnamurthy Vs Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd (2022) 3 SCC 161 held that once an application is filed under Section 7 IBC, the NCLT has only jurisdiction to admit the application or reject it. NCLT cannot compel the parties to settle the matter.

Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. Vs Axis Bank Ltd (2022)8SCC352

The Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. Vs Axis Bank Ltd (2022)8SCC352 held that admission of Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on behalf of the Financial Creditor is discretionary even if Corporate Debtor has defaulted in payment of debt.

M. Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs. Canara Bank & Ors ( Civil Appeal NO. 7121 of 2022)

Supreme Court in M. Suresh Kumar Reddy Vs. Canara Bank & Ors ( Civil Appeal NO. 7121 of 2022) has held that once NCLT is satisfied that the default has occurred, there is hardly any discretion left with NCLT to refuse admission of application under Section 7.

Axis Bank Ltd Vs. Naren Sheth & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022)

The Supreme Court in Axis Bank Ltd Vs. Naren Sheth & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 2022) has reiterated that documents related with acknowledgment of debt can be accepted at appellate stage.

Tottempudi Salalith Vs State Bank of India & Ors (Civil Appeal 2348 of 2021 )

The Supreme Court in Tottempudi Salalith Vs State Bank of India & Ors (Civil Appeal 2348 of 2021 ) has held that recovery certificate issued by DRT creates a fresh cause of action and doctrine of election will not apply in initiating insolvency proceedings. The Supreme Court has also held that specific pleadings are required for acknowledgement or admission of claim in the Application for initiating insolvency proceedings.

Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors  (Civil Appeal No 13628 of 2025 )

The Supreme Court in Satinder Singh Bhasin Vs. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors  (Civil Appeal No 13628 of 2025 ) held that in cases of  intrinsically linked companies it would be in their interest to have a joint insolvency process so as to maximize asset realization.

Mansi Brar Fernandes Vs Shubha Sharma & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 3826/2020)

The Supreme Court in Mansi Brar Fernandes Vs Shubha Sharma & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 3826/2020)  has reiterated that speculative investors cannot be permitted to misuse the code as recovery mechanism. The Supreme Court has also issued several important directions for reforms in Real Estate Sector.

Visa Coke Ltd. Vs. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd  (Civil Appeal 357/2025)

The Supreme Court held in Visa Coke Ltd. Vs. M/s Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd  (Civil Appeal 357/2025) that demand notice under Section 8 sent to key managerial personnel at the registered office address in the capacity of their official position can be considered proper service on the Corporate Debtor.

DISPUTE

Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 353

The Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 353 interpreted the term “dispute. The Supreme Court held that at the admission stage all that the adjudicating has to see is whether there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence.

K. Kishan Vs M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd (2018) 17 SCC 662

The Supreme Court in K. Kishan Vs M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd (2018) 17 SCC 662 held that if Section 34 Petition has been filed against an award, the same will be treated as dispute.

M/s Jai Balaji Industries Vs D. K. Mohanty & Anr (2021 ) SCC Online SC 3104 r

The Supreme Court in M/s Jai Balaji Industries Vs D. K. Mohanty & Anr (2021 ) SCC Online SC 3104 reiterated that in case of Application under Section 9 IBC , the Adjudicating Authority is supposed to examine prima facie if dispute truly existed between parties and the same was not patently feeble or imaginary. The Supreme Court also held that when a suit or appeal is dismissed in default and restored , such restoration would revive the proceedings to their status before dismissal and doctrine of relation back would come into play.

Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. Vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India ) Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 483

The Supreme Court in Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. Vs. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India ) Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 483 reiterated that Section 9 IBC Application has to be rejected in case dispute exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory.

LIABILITY OF CORPORATE GUARANTOR

Laxmipat Surana Vs. Union Bank of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020)

The Supreme Court has held in Laxmipat Surana Vs. Union Bank of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020) that status of guarantor, who is a corporate person, metamorphoses into corporate debtor, the moment principal borrower (regardless of not being a corporate person) commits default in payment of debt which had become due and payable. As such insolvency proceedings can be initiated against Corporate Guarantor. The Supreme Court has also reiterated that Section 18 of Limitation will be applicable to the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

K. Paramasivam Vs. the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. AIR (2022) SC 4184

The Supreme Court in K. Paramasivam Vs. the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. AIR (2022) SC 4184 held that it is open for the Financial Creditor to proceed against the Corporate Guarantor without first suing the Principal Borrower.

BRS Ventures Investment Ltd. Vs SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4565 /2021 )

The Supreme Court in BRS Ventures Investment Ltd. Vs SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4565 /2021 ) has reiterated that CIRP can be initiated simultaneously against Corporate Debtor as well as Corporate Guarantor. The Supreme Court also held that assets of Subsidiary Company cannot be included in Resolution Plan of the Holding Company.

WITHDRAWAL OF CIRP

Vallal RCK Vs M/s Siva Industries and Holding Ltd. (2022) SCC Online SC 717

The Supreme Court in Vallal RCK Vs M/s Siva Industries and Holding Ltd. (2022) SCC Online SC 717 held that if more than 90% or more of members of CoC in their wisdom have permitted settlement and withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Adjudicating Authority cannot sit in appeal over it.

Glas Trust Company LLC Vs. Byju Raveedran (Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024)

The Supreme Court in Glas Trust Company LLC Vs. Byju Raveedran (Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024) held that inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules cannot be invoked for withdrawal of CIRP proceedings, as detail procedure for withdrawal has been provided under IBC and regulations made thereunder.

MORATORIUM

P. Mohanraj Vs Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt Ltd (2021) 6 SCC 258

The Supreme Court in P. Mohanraj Vs Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt Ltd (2021) 6 SCC 258 held that proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will be covered under Section 14 (1) (a) IBC. The Supreme Court also held that such proceedings can be initiated against persons mentioned under Section 141 (1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Civil Appeal No. 7667/2021)

The Supreme Court in Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Civil Appeal No. 7667/2021) held that after initiation of moratorium, the custom authorities had only limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies and after such assessment can file claim. Further, IRP/RP/Liquidator can immediately secure goods to be dealt with appropriately in terms of IBC.

Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal Vs. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors (2025 INSC 314)

The Supreme Court in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal Vs. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors (2025 INSC 314) has held that the penalties imposed by the NCDRC are regulatory in nature and donot constitute “debt” under IBC. Moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws.

Rakesh Bhanot Vs. M/S Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 445 )

The Supreme Court in Rakesh Bhanot Vs. M/S Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 445 ) held that Interim Moratorium under Section 96 or 101 IBC does not stall criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

A A Estates Ltd, through RP Vs Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Society Ltd. (2025 INSC 1366)

The Supreme Court held in A A Estates Ltd, through RP Vs Kher Nagar Sukhsadan Co-operative Society Ltd. (2025 INSC 1366) held that the moratorium under Section 14 does not revive terminated contracts or protect rights that have ceased to exist prior to insolvency.

Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Amit Metaliks Ltd (2021 SCC

The Supreme Court in India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Amit Metaliks Ltd (2021 SCC online 409) held that dissenting Secured Creditor cannot suggest a higher amount to be paid to it with reference to the value of the security interest during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd (2022) SCC Online SC 1162

The Supreme Court in State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd (2022) SCC Online SC 1162 held that Section 53 IBC does not override Section 48 of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act) and State is a secured creditor under GVAT Act. Time period of filing claim is directory. The Supreme Court also held that if the Resolution Plan ignores statutory dues, the Resolution Plan is bound to be rejected.

DBS Bank Ltd Singapore Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd (Civil Appeal 9133 of 2019 )

The Supreme Court in DBS Bank Ltd Singapore Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd (Civil Appeal 9133 of 2019 ) has referred the matter in respect of treatment of dissenting secured creditors during CIRP to a larger bench.

TREATMENT OF CLAIMS

RPS Infrastructure Vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr (2023 INSC816)

The Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr (2023 INSC816) has held that once the Resolution Plan has been submitted, fresh claim cannot be admitted and hydra headed monster of undecided claims cannot be unleashed on the Resolution Applicant.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Anr Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer & Ors ( 2024 INSC 15 )

The Supreme Court has held in Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Anr Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer & Ors ( 2024 INSC 15 ) that set off is not permissible under CIRP except certain contractual and equitable set off in certain circumstances.

Amit Nehra & Anr vs. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors (2025INSC1086)

The Supreme Court in Amit Nehra & Anr vs. Pawan Kumar Garg & Ors (2025INSC1086) held that once a claim is verified and incorporated in the list of creditors, it gets full legal recognition.

China Development Bank Vs Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. (2024INSC1029)

The Supreme Court in China Development Bank Vs Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. (2024INSC1029) held that held that that Appellants, in favor of whom  Corporate Debtor has executed guarantee, were Financial Creditors. The Supreme Court also observed that for submitting claim by a Financial Creditor, there is no requirement of actual default.

INELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 29A

ArcelorMittal India Pvt Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 2 SCC 1

The Supreme Court in ArcelorMittal India Pvt Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 2 SCC 1 held that stage of ineligibility under 29A attaches when Resolution Plan is submitted but proximate factors can be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court also held that Resolution Professional is not empowered to take a decision on Resolution Plan but has to ensure that Resolution Plan are complete in all respects before it is submitted before CoC.

Arun Kumar Jagatramka Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (2021) 7 SCC 474

The Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Jagatramka Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (2021) 7 SCC 474 held that Regulation 2B of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations is valid. A person who is ineligible under Section 29A of IBC to submit a Resolution Plan will also be ineligible to submit scheme for compromise or arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Bank of Baroda Vs MBL Infrastructure Ltd (2022) SCC Online SC 48

The Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda Vs MBL Infrastructure Ltd (2022) SCC Online SC 48 held that what is required under 29 A (h) is mere existence of personal guarantee that stands invoked by a single creditor, notwithstanding the application seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings filed by other creditor. The Supreme Court found that Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 3 is not maintainable but in light of peculiar facts of the case refused to disturb the Resolution Plan.

Hari Bhai Thota (2023INSC 1056 )

The Supreme Court in Hari Bhai Thota (2023INSC 1056 ) has held that in respect of Micro , Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) that the view of NCLAT in Digambar Anand Rao Pigle Vs Shrikant Madanlal Zawar & Ors that Section 240A will be applicable from initiation of CIRP is not correct view. Relevant date is date of submission of Resolution Plan.

DISABILITY OF RELATED PARTY

Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd Vs Spade Financial Services Ltd AIR 2021 SC 776

The Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd Vs Spade Financial Services Ltd AIR 2021 SC 776 held that Financial Creditors, who are related party in praesenti, are barred from becoming member of CoC under first proviso of Section 21 (2) of IBC. Such Financial Creditors are also barred from becoming members of CoC, who have ceased to be related parties only to circumvent the exclusion under first proviso of Section 21 (2) of IBC.

RESOLUTION PLAN

K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150

The Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Overseas Bank (2019) 12 SCC 150 held that commercial wisdom of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision is non-justiciable. The Adjudicating authority can only interfere with the Resolution Plan on the grounds given under Section 30 (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Essar Steel India Ltd vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531

The Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd vs Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531 struck down “mandatorily” word in Section 12 IBC, which made it compulsory to complete CIRP in 330 days. The Supreme Court also held that CoC does not need to treat all creditors equally. The Supreme Court also reiterated that NCLAT cannot replace its wisdom with commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors.

Maharashtra Seamless Vs Padmanabhan Venkatesh (2020) 11 SCC 467

The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Seamless Vs Padmanabhan Venkatesh (2020) 11 SCC 467 has held that the Resolution Plan amount need not match liquidation value of the Corporate Debtor. The Supreme Court also held that Resolution Plan cannot be withdrawn under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs Swwapnil Bhingardevaya AIR 2020 SC 4381

The Supreme Court has held in Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs Swwapnil Bhingardevaya AIR 2020 SC 4381 that once the CoC has approved the Resolution Plan taking into account relevant factors, the Adjudicating Authority has to switch to hands off mode.

Kalpraj Dharamshi Vs Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 401

The Supreme Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi Vs Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. (2021) 10 SCC 401 held that principle of Section 14 of Limitation Act will be applicable on IBC proceedings. The Supreme Court also reiterated that commercial wisdom of the CoC is not to be interfered with excepting the limited scope as provided under Section 30 and 31 of IBC.

Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association Vs NBCC (India) Ltd & Ors (2022) 1 SCC 401

The Supreme Court in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association Vs NBCC (India) Ltd & Ors (2022) 1 SCC 401 held inter alia that if the Adjudicating Authority find certain shortcoming in the Resolution Plan within its scope of jurisdiction, the same has to be sent back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also held that dissenting Financial Creditors have to be paid in terms of money.

Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657

The Supreme Court has held in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657 that debts including the ones owed to Central Government, State Government or local authority, which does not form a part of the approved resolution plan, shall stand extinguished.

Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Ltd & Anr (2021) SCC Online SC 569

The Supreme Court in Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Ltd & Anr (2021) SCC Online SC 569 has held that under Indian Insolvency regime, a conscious choice has been made by the legislature to not confer any independent equity based jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority other than statutory requirements laid down under Section 30 (2) IBC.

Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited (2021) SCC Online 707

The Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited (2021) SCC Online 707 held that Resolution Plan cannot be modified or withdrawn after approval by Committee of Creditors.

Nagaitlang Dhar Vs Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ( 2022) 6 SCC 172

The Supreme Court in Nagaitlang Dhar Vs Panna Pragati Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ( 2022) 6 SCC 172 reiterated that “commercial wisdom” of CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention for ensuring completion of the processes within the timelines prescribed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund Vs. Deccan Marketeers (2023) 7 SCC 295

Supreme Court reiterates in SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund Vs. Deccan Marketeers (2023) 7 SCC 295 held that Resolution Plan after approval of NCLT can not be modified or altered.

Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Vs. Ravindra Loonkar, RP (Civil Appeal No. 1527 /2022 )

The Supreme Court in Ramkrishna Forgings Limited Vs. Ravindra Loonkar, RP (Civil Appeal No. 1527 /2022 ) held that the order of the NCLT to get fresh valuation done after approval of Resolution Plan by Committee of Creditors was not justified. The Supreme Court also emphasized the need for passing reasoned order.

Kalyani Transco Vs. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.  ( Civil Appeal  1808/2020)

The Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco Vs. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.  ( Civil Appeal  1808/2020) inter alia  held that  CoC does not become functus officio after approval of Resolution Plan. The CoC continues to exist till the Resolution Plan is implemented or an order of liquidation is passed under Section 33 IBC. 

Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 11746-11747 of 2024)

The Supreme Court  in Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 11746-11747 of 2024)  reiterated that IBC leaves no scope for judicial intervention to commercial decision taken by Committee of Creditors.  Supreme Court further observed that  predictability and finality are  essential to maintaining a robust insolvency regime. Judicial intervention  beyond the narrow statutory confines undermines both predictability and finality.

Independent Sugar Corporations Ltd. Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6071 /2023)

The Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporations Ltd. Vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6071 /2023) held that obtaining approval by Competition Commission of India prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors is mandatory in cases where there is provision for combination under the Resolution Plan. The objectives of the IBC and the Competition Act must necessarily be in harmony with one another. Expeditious resolution cannot come at the cost of disregarding statutory provisions.

AVOIDANCE TRANSACTIONS

Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Vs Axis Bank Ltd (2021 ) 2 SCC 799

The Supreme Court in Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Vs Axis Bank Ltd (2021 ) 2 SCC 799 held that mortgage transactions of the Corporate Debtor with lenders of its holding company Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) are preferential transaction under Section 43 of the IBC. The Supreme Court also held that disbursement against consideration of time value of money is essential element of Financial Debt.

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Vs 63Moon Technologies Ltd. (2025INSC421)

The Supreme Court held in Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Vs 63Moon Technologies Ltd. (2025INSC421)  that the Avoidance Applications under Chapter III and the Applications in respect of Fraudulent trading or Wrongful trading under Chapter VI, operate in different situations.

LIMITATION IN APPEAL

National Spot Exchange Ltd Vs. Mr. Anil Kohli ( 2021) 7 SCR 2024

The Supreme Court in National Spot Exchange Ltd Vs. Mr. Anil Kohli ( 2021) 7 SCR 2024 held that considering the statutory provisions which provide that delay beyond 15 days in preferring the appeal is uncondonable, the same cannot be condoned even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd ( 2022) 2 SCC 244

The Supreme Court in V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd ( 2022) 2 SCC 244 held that Limitation will start running from date or pronouncement of order by NCLT. The time taken in preparation of certified copy after making an application for certified copy has to be excluded.

Sanket Kumar Aggarwal & Anr Vs. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 748/2023 )

The Supreme Court in Sanket Kumar Aggarwal & Anr Vs. APG Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 748/2023 ) has held that the time taken in preparation of certified copies and the day on which order is pronounced has be excluded from computing period of limitation in an appeal from National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee ( 2025INSC639)  

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Banerjee ( 2025INSC639)  that time is of the essence in statutory appeals, and the prescribed limitation period must be strictly adhered to.

A. Rajendra Vs Gonugunta Madhusudan Rao  (2025 INSC 447)

The Supreme Court reiterated  in A. Rajendra Vs Gonugunta Madhusudan Rao  (2025 INSC 447) that litigant has to file its appeal under Section 61(2) within 30 days which can be extended up to a period of 15 days, and no more, upon showing sufficient cause.

CIRP

Alok Kaushik Vs Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan AIR (2021) SC 2216

The Supreme Court in Alok Kaushik Vs Bhuvaneshwari Ramanathan AIR (2021) SC 2216 held that the NCLT does not become functus officio if CIRP is set aside. NCLT has jurisdiction under Section 60 (5) to determine amount payable to the Registered Valuer even after CIRP has been set aside.

LIQUIDATION

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) SCC OnLine SC 467

The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Jain Vs Sundaresh Bhatt (2022) SCC OnLine SC 467 held that workmen’s/employees’ wages earned during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) will be part of CIRP Cost. The Supreme Court also held that all sums due to any workman or employee from the Provident Fund, Pension Fund and Gratuity Fund will be outside the ambit of Liquidation Estate under Section 36 (4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Moser Baer Karamchari Union vs Union of India and ORs (2023)5SCC720

In another constitutional challenge to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Supreme Court in Moser Baer Karamchari Union vs Union of India and ORs (2023)5SCC720 held that waterfall distribution to stakeholders under Section 53 is valid.

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd Vs. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. ( 2023)10SCC60

The Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd Vs. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. ( 2023)10SCC60 observed that the separate and distinct treatment of amounts payable to secured creditor on the one hand, and dues payable to the government on the other clearly signifies Parliament’s intention to treat the latter differently.

Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr ((2023)10SCC189)

The Supreme Court in Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr ((2023)10SCC189) has held that if the Liquidator does not want to accept the bid of the highest bidder he has to apply his mind to the relevant factors. Such application of mind must be visible or manifest in the rejection order itself. The Supreme Court has also held that the stage of ineligibility under Section 29A attaches when the resolution plan is submitted by the resolution applicant thus the disqualification applies in praesenti.

State Bank of India Vs. Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch  (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3187)

The Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch  (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3187) held that one of the key objectives of the IBC  is to ensure the survival of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, yet the same must not come at the cost of efficiency.  “Timely liquidation” should be preferred over an “endless resolution process”.

V. S. Palanivel Vs. P. Sriram, CS, Liquidator  (2024 ) 8 SCR 1263

The Supreme Court in V. S. Palanivel Vs. P. Sriram, CS, Liquidator  (2024 ) 8 SCR 1263 has held that  time lime  prescribed under Rule 12 of Schedule I of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 is mandatory in nature.

Shri Karshni Alloys Private Ltd. Vs. Ramakrishnan  Sadasivan  (Civil Appeals No. 3625-3628 of 2025) 

The Supreme Court held in Shri Karshni Alloys Private Ltd. Vs. Ramakrishnan  Sadasivan  (Civil Appeals No. 3625-3628 of 2025)  that forfeiture condition stipulated by the NCLT in its order  while granting extension of time cannot be equated with a forfeiture clause in a contract.

JURISDICTION OF NCLT

The Supreme Court in Embassy Property Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (2019) SCC Online SC 1542 held that wherever the Corporate Debtor has to exercise a right which falls outside the purview of the IBC ,especially in realm of public law, they cannot take a bypass and approach NCLT. The Supreme Court also held that NCLT and NCLAT has jurisdiction to enquire in allegation of fraud.

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs Amit Gupta (2020) 5 SCC 185

The Supreme Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs Amit Gupta (2020) 5 SCC 185 held that Resolution Professional can approach the NCLT for adjudication of disputes that are related to insolvency resolution process. However, the adjudication of such disputes that arise de hors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, the RP has to approach the relevant competent authority.

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Vishal Ghisulal Jain (2021) SCC Online SC 1113

The Supreme Court held in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Vishal Ghisulal Jain (2021) SCC Online SC 1113 that NCLT does not have jurisdiction over disputes which arises de hors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.

Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr (2024) SCC Online SC 122

The Supreme Court in Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr (2024) SCC Online SC 122 has held that NCLT has inherent power to recall an order. The Supreme Court also held that Form prescribed under Code to submit claims is directory in nature and what is necessary is that claim should be supported by proof.

S Rajendran Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors (2026INSC187)

The Supreme Court in S Rajendran Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors (2026INSC187) held that the jurisdiction of authorities under IBC cannot be expansively construed so as to trench upon fields that are founded in public law domain. Where the subject matter of the dispute pertains to the exercise of sovereign statutory power, particularly in relation to determination of legality of title, attachment, or confiscation and vesting thereof, the adjudicatory fora under the IBC must necessarily yield to the specialised mechanism created by such statute.

State Bank of India Vs Union of Bank of India & Ors.  ( 2026 INSC153)

The Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs Union of Bank of India & Ors.  ( 2026 INSC153) reiterated  that the jurisdiction of the NCLT and NCLAT is confined to matters that arise purely within the insolvency framework and does not extend to adjudicating the legality of sovereign actions.

Gloster Ltd. Vs. Gloster Cables Limited & Ors (2026INSC81)  

The Supreme Court held in Gloster Ltd. Vs. Gloster Cables Limited & Ors (2026INSC81)   that the NCLT does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on title of trademark under Section 60 (5) IBC  as it is not  “in relation to the insolvency proceedings”.

EXCLUSION OF CIRP

Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr (2022SCC OnLine SC 546)

The Supreme Court in Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Vs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr (2022SCC OnLine SC 546) has held that NCLT has inherent power to recall an order. The Supreme Court also held that Form prescribed under Code to submit claims is directory in nature and what is necessary is that claim should be supported by proof.

LIABILITY OF PERESONAL GUARANTOR

Lalit Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine 396 )

The Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine 396 ) held valid the notification dated 15.1.2019 issued by Central Government, whereby certain provisions were made applicable to the personal guarantors to corporate debtor.

Dilip B Jiwrajka vs. Union of India & Others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1530)

Three hundred and eighty four petitions had been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court held valid those provisions in Dilip B Jiwrajka vs. Union of India & Others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1530).

_________________________________________________________________