Lenders Law

The Supreme Court of India has, in a recent decision in Gloster Limited vs. Gloster Cables Limited & Ors. , delivered an important clarification on the limits of insolvency jurisdiction , particularly where intellectual property ownership disputes intersect with the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The ruling is significant for lenders, resolution applicants and insolvency professionals, as it reinforces that insolvency forums are not substitutes for civil courts in adjudicating complex title disputes. Background:  The dispute arose in the CIRP of Fort Gloster Industries Limited , where competing claims were raised over the ownership of the trademark “Gloster” . The successful resolution applicant asserted that the trademark was a corporate debtor asset , capable of being transferred under an approved resolution plan. Another party (who was assigned the rights over the trademark vide an assignment agreement, and was also an associate company of t...

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) enables operational creditors to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under Section 9 upon occurrence of a default. While the statutory framework remains unchanged, recent admission-stage practices—particularly at the Delhi Bench of the NCLT—signal a clear shift toward enhanced procedural and bona fide scrutiny . 1. Affidavit Affirming Absence of Collusion: A recurring direction from the Tribunal is the filing of a specific affidavit affirming that the Section 9 petition is not collusive . This affidavit typically requires the applicant to declare that: The petition is not filed in coordination with the corporate debtor, its promoters, directors, or related parties; The insolvency process is not being triggered to achieve an indirect or strategic objective, including management change, regulatory arbitrage, or shielding the corporate debtor from other proceedings. This concern is no longer theoretical. In  Hyt...

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) places a heavy responsibility on the Resolution Professional (RP) to ensure that only eligible Resolution Applicants (RAs) —and their connected persons —participate in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). With the recent IBBI Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/88/2025 dated 18 November 2025 , the scope, depth, and documentation requirements for such due diligence have become even more critical. The RP must directed to place a detailed note on section 29A compliance before the CoC when resolution plans are considered and ensure that deliberations and observations of the CoC are properly recorded in the minutes. This post distils the framework I personally follow as a legal practitioner, incorporating including digital tools like Tofler , ZaubaCorp , public-domain searches, SEBI jurisprudence on “persons acting in concert,” and a printable checklist. Understanding Section 29A and Who It Covers: Section 29A extends ineligibility not only t...

IBBI Valuation Framework – Current vs Proposed The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has released a Discussion Paper on Strengthening the Valuation Process under the IBC . The IBBI's proposed overhaul of valuation standards under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeks to eliminate inconsistencies, enhance transparency, and reduce subjectivity in valuation outcomes. Key reforms include introducing a unified valuation standard, redefining the appointment structure of valuers, and expanding valuation scope to intangible and synergy values. These reforms aim to strengthen market confidence, improve CoC decision-making, and bring valuation practices closer to global norms. However, proportionality remains essential—larger insolvencies require deeper analytical structures, while MSMEs should not be burdened with disproportionate compliance costs. Stakeholder feedback remains critical to fine-tuning these reforms. This blog analyses the changes suggested in the...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court’s ruling in  EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.   (2025) clarifies that preference shares—however structured—remains part of a company's share capital, and cannot be regarded as "debt". Even if classified as “financial liability” under Ind AS 32, legal character under the Companies Act still governs enforceability. A cautionary tale for investors and creditors relying on redeemable or “put option” structures to secure repayment.  The Case in Brief In EPC Constructions (supra), the appellant had over ₹400 crores in receivables for project work. The appellant/ former operational creditor agreed to convert its dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS)—redeemable in three years. When the respondent/ debtor failed to redeem, the appellant (then in liquidation), through its liquidator, filed a Section 7 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), claiming default on redemption. Both ...

  In the recent ruling of Home Kraft Avenues vs Jayesh Sanghrajka and Anr . [1] , the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has held that the creditor will be treated as “secured” during corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) despite the charge being unregistered under Section 77 of Companies Act 2013. In this article, the author has tried to analyse the said ruling. Provisions relied upon by NCLAT: The Hon’ble NCLAT relied upon the language stipulated in Section 77(3) of Companies Act 2013, reproduced as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no charge created by a company shall be taken into account by the ‘liquidator’ or any other creditor unless it is duly registered under subsection (1) and a certificate of registration of such charge is given by the Registrar under sub-section (2).” Considering the aforementioned, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal observed that the said section casts an obligation only upon “l...

  In Jaypee Kensingon Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association vs. NBCC (India) Limited [1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in case a resolution plan requires modification, the Adjudicating Authority must send back the resolution plan to committee of creditors (CoC) to consider the modifications, so as to afford an opportunity to resolution applicant to modify the plan, and CoC may then re-consider the plan and vote upon same. Similar understanding reflects even from the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd vs. Satish Kumar Gupta [2] , wherein it had affirmed this power to remand back. Now, recently, in Bank of Maharashtra vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. [3] , the primary issue that arose for consideration before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) was whether CoC can review its decision of approving the resolution plan. Facts of the case: a) The dissenting financial creditor filed an appeal before N...