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”).

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-

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”).

Case Title: Ganesh Ramkisan Rajale v. Panchtatwa Milk Industries Private Limited

Facts of the Case

Case:Bahadur Ram Mallah (Ex-Director, Uniworth Textiles Limited) Versus Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr

Facts of the Case

ICICI Bank and IFCI Ltd. had sanctioned loan facilities to Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (“UTL”), a company part of the larger Uniworth Group. These loan accounts eventually turned non-performing, and both banks assigned their respective debts to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (“ARC”) — ICICI's on 31.03.2004 and IFCI’s on 12.01.2007.

Case: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Facts of the Case

Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) advanced ₹17,53,00,000 to B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) between April 2021 and September 14, 2022, for the supply of coal. However, the Corporate Debtor supplied coal worth only ₹8,45,34,053, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹9,07,65,947.

What you need to know