I. INTRODUCTION 

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.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India released the Report of the Committee on Framing Guidelines for Insolvency Proceedings in the Real Estate Sector, pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors., (December 12, 2025). The Court emphasized the need to prioritise project completion and protect homebuyer interests, consistent with broader constitutional principles, including the right to shelter under Article 21.

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

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.

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 legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.

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 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.