The Supreme Court in the matter of National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. ruled that the moratorium under IBC does not prohibit attachment of properties under the MPID Act³. The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was addressing a case stemming from the 2013 NSEL⁴ scam. In this, commodity exchange platform NSEL defaulted on ₹5,600 crores in payments to approximately 13,000 traders.

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 2 May 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in respect of the corporate insolvency resolution process of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (“BSPL”). In a very significant ruling, the apex court rejected the resolution plan of JSW Steel Ltd. (“JSW”) for BSPL and directed the liquidation of the corporate debtor, almost five years after the plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors and the NCLT and the Resolution Plan had been implemented.

Facts and Background

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

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”).

Introduction-

Set-off is simply put a reduction or discharge of a debt by setting against it a claim in favour of the debtor (or the person otherwise having to pay).

The applicability of the principle of set-off under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IB Code) is no longer res integra and the draconian view of the inapplicability of set-off under insolvency proceedings has not found Thankfully, judicial favour.

Introduction

On November 07, 2024, the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) in its judgment in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.,^[1] directed the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet”), bringing an end to the five-year long saga of efforts to revive the beleaguered airline.

On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).

India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (code), has revolutionised the country’s approach to insolvency, establishing a structured framework for resolving distressed assets while incorporating elements of inclusivity and accessibility. This legislation has become fundamental for businesses and financial institutions, especially as India further integrates into the global economy. The code’s protection of foreign creditors is particularly significant, as it ensures that foreign investors can confidently engage with the Indian economy without hindrance or undue trepidation.