Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has issued the Insolvency Professionals to act as IRPs, RPs, Liquidators and Bankruptcy Trustees (Recommendation) (Second) Guidelines, 2025, which will govern appointments for the period January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has released two notable discussion papers, namely, Minimum Shareholding Requirements for Directors and Partners of IPEs dated November 17, 2025, and Standardised Templates for Beneficial Ownership and Section 32A Affidavits dated November 6, 2025. Together, these papers propose substantive reforms intended to enhance governance discipline within Insolvency Professional Entities (IPEs) and improve the quality, uniformity, and reliability of disclosures in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The insolvency framework governing real estate projects in India has undergone a significant transformation with the recognition of “Reverse CIRP”, a judicial innovation designed to protect homebuyers’ interests while ensuring completion of stalled real estate projects. This mechanism was recently endorsed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the Satish Chander Verma v. Grand Reality Private Limited[1] ("Grand Reality Case").
The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. inter alia held that ‘speculative investors’ cannot be permitted to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and has laid down certain key principles and criteria for determining who a ‘speculative investor’ would be.
Brief facts
In a landmark judgment in the matter of Mansi Brar Fernandes vs Shubha Sharma and others delivered in September 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the constitutional right to shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
When WeWork faced turmoil globally, leading its U.S. parent company to file for bankruptcy protection in 2023, few expected its Indian affiliate to become a case study in strength and discipline. Once seen as a symbol of the “new economy,” WeWork’s downfall illustrated the dangers of excessive growth, inflated valuations, and weak governance where the promise of change often exceeded execution. In this context, WeWork India operated under a brand license and was supported by the Embassy Group, taking a different route.
The recent NCLT Kochi Bench judgment in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in the case of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. vs. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd.1, held that entries in a company’s balance sheet acknowledging outstanding borrowings constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”), even if the creditor is not specifically named within the balance sheet.