A 2 (two) judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in State Bank of India and Ors. vs. Doha Bank Q.P.S.C.

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Ujaas Energy Limited vs. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited1 held that while claims not forming part of an approved resolution plan stand extinguished, a limited right to raise the defence of a set off in respect of such claim may still survive, depending on the terms of the resolution plan and in the facts and circumstances of each case.

In Roseland Buildtech Private Limited vs.

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

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.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) recently notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 19, 2025 and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 26, 2025 (collectively referred as “Amendment Regulations”), amending certain key provisions under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”).

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.

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”).

In a landmark judgment in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd and Anr., the Singapore High Court (“Singapore HC”) has, for the very first time, recognised a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) initiated under the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) as a ‘foreign main proceeding’ under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) by a 2:1 majority in Independent Sugar Corporation Limited v Girish Sriram Juneja and Ors1, has held that in case of resolution plans proposing a combination (i.e., a merger or amalgamation of the entities) of a corporate debtor, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) must first grant the necessary approval before such Resolution Plan is placed before the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) for it