The Supreme Court of India ('Court') in UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024, has delivered a critical judgment clarifying the legal boundaries between a Deed of Undertaking and a Contract of Guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘Act’). The Court's decision underscores that mere commercial nomenclature and internal funding arrangements do not satisfy the rigorous legal requirements of a guarantee.

Factual Background

Location:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, examined two (2) important issues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The first concerned the parameters governing the admission of a real estate project into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), while the second related to the locus standi of a homebuyers’ association or society seeking to intervene or participate in insolvency proceedings against the developer.

Location:

r 1 //./ r 2 Capital Market 06 Dispute Resolution 11 Fintech 19 International Trade/ WTO 26 Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) 31 Restructuring and Insolvency 43 Sports and Gaming 51 White Collar Crime 03 Competition Law 09 Employment Law 17 Infrastructure and Energy 24 Media and entertainment 30 RBI & FEMA 41 RERA 48 Technology 55 r 3 SEBI CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE CONSOLIDATION OF FPI/DDP MASTER CIRCULAR (5 DECEMBER 2025) On 5 December 2025, SEBI released a consultation paper proposing a comprehensive consolidation and modernisation of the Master Circular governing Foreign Po

Location:

CASE BRIEF

Case Name: Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Limited & Anr vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd & Anr.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13785 of 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1327

Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice, K.V. Viswanathan

Date: 18 November 2025

1. FACTUAL MATRIX

Location:

Background

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 22nd December 2025, amended the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations (CIRP Regulations) to introduce sub-regulation 3A to existing regulation 38 (Amendment).

Location:

ARBITRATION

Date: 09 December, 2025

Case Name: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 14647 of 2025

Forum: Supreme Court

Location:

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.

Location:

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.

Location:

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).

Location:

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").

Location: