Chapter – 2

S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.

1. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. Constitutionality of Contradiction between IBC and Maharashtra 2.24
ICICI Bank the Code Relief Act. SC held - Central law prevails over
State law.

Chapter – 3
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Pioneer Urban Land Flat buyers are Allottees under Real Estate Project/ home 3.5, 3.27
and Infrastructure Financial Creditor buyers are Financial Creditors u/s 5(7), and
Limited & Anr. v. Union hence they can initiate CIRP against the
of India & Ors. builder under IBC
Nikhil Mehta & Sons 3.40
(HUF) & Ors. v. AMR
Infrastructures Ltd.,
Manish Kumar &Ors. Writ petition SC passed an interim order to maintain 3.5
Vs. Union of India Challenging the the status quo of the pending applications till
2. &anr.’ threshold for filing the matter is decided by it. Thereby, the IBC
insolvency application amendment shall hold and continue to be in
by the home buyers force as at present.
Phoenix Arc Private The definition describes a commutative 3.28
Limited Vs. Spade relationship between relationship, meaning that X can be a related
3. Financial Services Financial Creditor & party of Y, if either X is related to Y, or Y is
Limited & Ors Corporate Debtor related to X. The definition of ‘related party’
under the IBC is significantly broad.
Macquarie Bank Demand Notice 1. Section 9(3)(c) of IBC is directory and not 3.39
Limited v. Shilpi Cable mandatory [copy of certificate from
Technologies Ltd. financial institution confirming non-
4. payment of unpaid operational debt by
CD]
2. Demand notice to CD under section 8 can
be sent by lawyer on behalf of OC.
Radius Infratel Pvt. Ltd. Appeal by CD Once NCLT has initiated CIRP, CD cannot file 3.40
5. … Appellant v. Union appeal, shareholder or director can, if not
Bank of India barred by limitation.
6. Surendra Trading Time frame for Time period prescribed for accepting or 3.41
Company v. Juggilal ascertaining existence rejecting application (of 14 days) by NCLT is
Kamlapat Jute Mills of default directory and not mandatory.
Company Limited and
Others
7. M/s. Subasri Realty Management of After appointment of RP and declaration of 3.41
Private Limited v. Mr. Affairs of CD by RP moratorium, BOD stands suspended, but that
N. Subramanian & does not amount to suspension of MD/ any
Anr., directors/ officers/ employees of Corporate
Debtor (CD). To ensure that CD remains a
going concern, all directors/ employees are
required to function and to assist RP who
manages the affairs of CD during the
moratorium.
8. Arcelormittal India Pvt. Time limit for CIRP The time limit prescribed for completion of 3.41
Ltd. v. Satish Kumar CIRP of 270 days (i.e. 180 days plus 90 days) is
Gupta & Ors. mandatory, and not directory
9. Committee of Role of COC in CIRP Emphasize on primacy of the commercial 3.41
Creditors of Essar Steel wisdom of COC in CIRP, deciding whether to
India Limited v. Satish rehabilitate the CD or not by accepting a
Kumar Gupta & ors. particular resolution plan. Further, to assess
the “feasibility and viability” of the resolution
plan before approving it.

Chapter – 4
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Arun Kumar Jagatramka. section 29A Ineligibility during the resolution process 4.3
Vs. Jindal Steel and Power and liquidation
Ltd. & Anr
2. Brilliant Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Resolution Plan Insolvency Proceedings can be withdrawn 4.7
Mr. S. Rajagopal & Ors. even after invitation of Resolution Plan.
3. Ghanshyam Mishra vs Resolution Plan all the dues including the statutory dues 4.11
EARC & Ors owed to the Central Government, any
State Government or any local authority,
if not part of the resolution plan, shall
stand extinguished and no proceedings in
respect of such dues could be continued
4. Binani Industries Limited v. Resolution Plan Specified underlying principles that a 4.16
Bank of Baroda & Anr. resolution plan should comply with.
5. Vijay Kumar Jain v. Resolution Plan Suspended Board of directors of 4.17
Standard Chartered Bank Corporate Debtor are entitled to receive
and others proposed Resolution Plan along with
notice of the meeting.
6. Lalit Mishra & Others v. Resolution Plan A personal guarantor has no right to step 4.17
Sharon Bio Medicine into the shoes of a creditor against the CD
Limited & Others in case of a resolution plan under IBC,
especially when personal guarantors are
also promoters.
7. Committee of Creditors of Resolution Plan Committee of Creditors to have ultimate 4.18
Essar Steel (India) Limited say in approval of resolution plan
v. Satish Kumar Gupta &
Ors.
8. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Constitutional Validity SC upheld the constitutional validity of a 4.18
Anr. v. Union of India of IBC number of provisions of IBC, including
Section 12A, 21, 24, 29A & 53.

Chapter – 5
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Acquisition of Bhushan Section 29A - Section 29A mandating that a person 5.7
Steel Ltd. by Tata Steel Ltd. Persons not Eligible convicted for any offence punishable with
to be Resolution imprisonment for 2 years or more is ineligible
Applicant for submitting a resolution plan, cannot be
equated with provision of the U.K Act of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months, or a fine, or both.
2. Y. Shivram Prasad & Ors. v. Section 230 - Application u/s 230 of Companies Act, 2013 5.11
S. Dhanapal & Ors Compromise and can be filed even after the liquidation order
arrangement passed under IBC.
3. Edelweiss Asset Resolution Plan Resolution applicant proposed a resolution 5.12
Reconstruction Company plan to sell the company after 2 years, NCLT
Ltd. v. Bharati Defence and rejected as it is practically extending the CIRP
Infrastructure Ltd. for 2 years in the name of a resolution plan,
hence NCLT ordered liquidation.

Chapter – 6
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Sanjay Kumar Ruia v. Fast Track CIRP NCLT had no jurisdiction to proceed with the 6.19
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & CIRP beyond the period of 270 days and it
Anr. cannot exercise its power under Section 55,
and convert the CIRP into a Fast Track CIRP

Chapter – 7
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Liquidation Primary focus of IBC is to ensure revival & 7.1
Anr. Vs. Union of India & continuation of CD by protecting from its
Ors. own management and from a corporate
death by liquidation.
2. Vedikat Nut Crafts Pvt. Ltd. Resolution Plan & COC cannot seek liquidation of the CD 7.3
Liquidation without seeking extension of time of 90
days, without inviting expression of interest
by the prospective resolution plan
applicant, when balance period of 180 days
is still available.
3. Small Industries Resolution Plan NCLT rejected the Resolution plan, as it was 7.3
Development Bank of India subject to extinguishment of all claims
v. Tirupati Jute Industries against the CD, exemption of all taxes/ dues
Limited by the Government/local authorities, and
closure of all proceedings pending against
the CD relating to such dues.
4. S. Muthuraju Vs. Taking charge as A group / mob of unknown persons hurled 7.5
Commissioner of Police liquidator threats with weapons and did not allow the
and Another liquidator to enter the premise of CD and
carry out his functions. The Hon’ble NCLT
directed the Superintendent of Police to
give adequate police protection to the
liquidator to enable him to perform his
duties.
5. Punjab National Bank Vs. Appointment of After the liquidation order, the CoC has no 7.5
Mr. Kiran Shah, Liquidator liquidator role to play and that they are simply
of ORG Informatics Ltd claimants, whose matters are to be
determined by the liquidator and hence
cannot move an application for his removal.
6. Devendra Padamchand Replacement of RP Apart from COC, the NCLT is also 7.5
Jain v. State Bank of India empowered to remove the RP, if it is not
satisfied with the functioning of RP.
7. Precision Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Liquidation Estate Dues in respect to Provident Fund/ Pension 7.8
Employees Provident Fund Fund/Gratuity Fund are not part of the
Organisation liquidation estate
8. Prasad Gempex v. Star Claim of Creditor It is open to a person to file a suit or an 7.9
Agro Marine Exports Pvt. application against the CD after expiry of
Ltd. & Ors. moratorium
9. Sharad Sanghi v. Ms. Resolution Plan & COC has power to change its opinion in 7.17
Vandana Garg & Ors. Liquidation favour of Resolution Plan to make it a
success
10. S. C. Sekaran v. Amit Gupta Liquidation Liquidator is supposed to keep the CD as a 7.18
& Ors. ‘going concern’ even during the period of
liquidation and can take steps under Section
230 of the Companies Act, 2013
11. Corporation Bank v. Amtek Liquidation Promoters knowingly contravened the 7.18
Auto Ltd. & Ors. terms of resolution plan. NCLT held that
Resolution Applicant was not capable of
implementation of resolution plan and
allowed application for reinstatement of
COC and to exclude, from the CIRP period,
the time from the date of submission of
other Resolution plan upto the date of
receipt of the order.

Chapter – 8
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Nippei Toyoma India Voluntary liquidation Voluntary liquidation proceedings under 8.16
Private limited IBC

Chapter – 9
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. M/s. Fortune Plastech v/s. Adjudicating Authority Application filed u/s 9 was dismissed 9.1
M/s. Avni Energy Solutions for Corporate Persons because petition was filed with wrong
Private Limited Bench as per jurisdiction. (CD was
registered in Andhra Pradesh, so the case
was to be filed at NCLT, Hyderabad Bench
rather than NCLT, Bengaluru Bench)
2. State Bank of India v/s. D.S Adjudicating Authority 1. If CIRP of CD has been initiated before 9.1
Rajendra Kumar for Corporate Persons NCLT, then insolvency resolution
process of personal guarantor of the
CD can be initiated before same NCLT
Bench instead of DRT.
2. Order of moratorium is applicable
only to the proceedings against CD
and the personal guarantor but not
applicable for filing application for
initiating CIRP against the guarantor
or personal guarantor.
3. Sanjeev Shriya v/s. State Adjudicating Authority Two parallel proceeding against the CD 9.2
Bank of India for Corporate Persons and personal guarantor cannot go
simultaneously in two different
jurisdictions.
4. Steel Konnect (India) Appeals and Appellate Upon commencement of CIRP, Board of 9.2
Private Limited v/s. Hero Authority Directors or officer of the CD or its
Fincorp Ltd. authorized representative can maintain
an appeal on behalf of CD.
5. Uttam Galva Steels Limited Appeals and Appellate HC directed to withdraw the petition with 9.3
v/s. Union of India Authority the liberty to petitioners to prefer appeal
under Section 61 of the Code, as IRP was
not appointed.
6. M/s. Unigreen Global Ineligibility to make NCLT rejected an application filed u/s 10 9.5
Private Limited v. Punjab application for CIRP on the ground of suppression of facts.
National Bank and others NCLAT held that Section 11 prescribes
conditions making an applicant
ineligible/disqualified to make an
application for CIRP. Hence, the applicant
is not required to disclose any fact which
is unrelated or beyond the requirements
of the Code or NCLT Rules, 2016 and thus
non-disclosure of such facts cannot be
termed as suppression of facts by a
corporate debtor.

Chapter – 10
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Constitutional Validity of Constitutional Validity of the 10.4
UOI Securitisation Act Securitisation Act was upheld
2. Pandurang Ganpati Banks under SARFAESI  Co-operative banks under the State 10.7
Chaugule vs Vishwasrao Act legislation and multi-State co-
Patil Murgud Sahakari operative banks are ‘banks’ under
Bank Limited section 2(1)(c) of SARFESI Act,2002.
 It is permissible for the Parliament to
issue notification for amending the
SARFAESI Act.
3. Canara Bank v. Sri IBC prevails over When two proceedings are initiated, one 10.50
Chandramoulishvar Spg. SARFAESI under IBC and the other under SARFAESI
Mills (P) Ltd., Act, 2002, then the proceeding under IBC
shall prevail.

Chapter – 11
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Mathew Philip v. Dissolution of Contingencies for dissolution of company: 11.12
Malayalam Plantation Ltd. Company 1) When company has been completely
wound-up.
2) When the court is of the opinion that
liquidator cannot proceed with
winding-up of company for want of
funds and assets.
3) When the court is of the opinion that
liquidators cannot proceed with the
winding-up for any other reason.
 2. Indiabulls Housing Finance Liquidation & CIRP once winding up of CD has been ordered 11.14
Ltd. v. Shree Ram Urban by the High Court and the same has been
Infrastructure Ltd. initiated, then question of initiation of
CIRP against the CD did not arise.
3. Amar Remedies Limited Liquidation & CIRP CD filed application under section 10 for 11.15
CIRP, where Liquidation order was
already made against the CD. NCLT fined
the CD for this default.

Chapter – 12
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Cross Border This is the first case touching the realm of 12.27
State Bank of India & Anr. Insolvency cross border insolvency in India. Jet
Airways (India) Limited was subjected to
parallel insolvency proceedings in India as
well as in Netherlands.

Chapter – 17
S.N. Case Law Topic Decision Pg No.
1. IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Lanco Occupation, employability NCLT Hyderabad Bench held that an 17.5
Infratech Ltd and restrictions (under Insolvency Professional must refrain from
Code of Conduct for Ips) accepting too many assignments, if he is
unable to devote adequate time to each
of his assignments as per Clause 22,
Schedule I of the Code of Conduct for
Insolvency Professionals.
2. Alchemist Asset Competent authority to The correct authority to file complaint or 17.9
Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. file complaint against IPs to investigate against Insolvency
Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. Professionals is IBBI, and not police station
3. Dhinal Shah (Appellant) v. Competent authority to The correct authority to act against any 17.9
Bharati Defence act against defaults of RPs resolution professional (RP) for dereliction
Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. of duty is IBBI, and not NCLT.

Note: There are no specific case laws in Chapter - 1, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 18.