In a significant decision with far-reaching consequences for the financial and insolvency ecosystem, the Kerala High Court (“High Court”) in J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala adjudicated upon the levy of stamp duty on assignment agreements executed under Section 5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).

The Supreme Court of India’s (“Supreme Court”) decision in the case of Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited1 and connected appeals raises some serious legal issues. We understand from the public domain that parties are considering filing review and curative petitions. Without expressing any views on the judgement, set out below is a summary of the key findings and directions of the Supreme Court.

1 2 Capital Market 9 Dispute Resolution 14 Fintech 19 Media and Entertainment 24 RERA 27 Sports and Gaming 39 White Collar Crime 03 Competition Law 11 Employment Law 17 International Trade/ WTO 19 MCA 25 Restructuring and Insolvency 34 Technology 40 3 EXTENSION OF TIMELINE FOR FORMULATION OF IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS PERTAINING TO SEBI CIRCULAR ON “SAFER PARTICIPATION OF RETAIL INVESTORS IN ALGORITHMIC TRADING”1 Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) issued a circular “Safer participation of retail investors in algorithmic trading” dated February 04, 2025, which aimed at ensuring safer

This is the story of the first Indian insolvency proceeding to be granted recognition by the Singapore Court under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”). This recognition, besides facilitating the challenging cross-border asset recovery, has also opened the doors for deeper insolvency cooperation between India and Singapore.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Private Limited¹ (with connected appeals) (collectively “Appeals”) clarified the scope of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

On April 16, 2025, a 3 (three) judge bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Shitanshu Bipin Vora vs. Shree Hari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. held that clauses of unilateral interest in invoices without a formal agreement, cannot inflate claims of operational debt to meet the threshold of INR 1,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees one crore) under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Introduction

The Supreme Court's recent judgement in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.^[1] has reignited the debate in respect of the timing for Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) approval for resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

A recent judgment by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has once again brought to light one of the many vulnerabilities in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code). The judgment primarily deals with the termination of a lease during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the effect of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on leasehold properties.

Introduction-