ARTICLE
1 April 2026

IBC Updates - April 2026

HS
Hammurabi & Solomon

Contributor

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners, established in 2001 by Dr. Manoj Kumar, ranks among India’s top 15 law firms, offering a client-focused, solutions-driven approach across law, policy, and regulation. With over 16 leading partners and offices in key Indian cities, the firm provides comprehensive legal services, seamlessly guiding clients through the complexities of the Indian legal landscape. Known for quality and innovative problem-solving, H&S Partners is committed to client satisfaction through prompt, tailored counsel and deep sector expertise, impacting both national and international legal frameworks.

A Decree Holder seeks to execute an arbitral award of ₹385 crore through attachment and sale of properties, while Judgment Debtors argue they are undergoing Personal Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC, 2016. The central question is whether execution proceedings can continue when the statutory moratorium has expired but insolvency proceedings remain active, and whether this would grant preferential treatment disrupting the proposed repayment plan.
India Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Hammurabi & Solomon are most popular:
  • within Insurance, Intellectual Property and Environment topic(s)
  • with Finance and Tax Executives
  • in India

NOTABLE JUDGMENTS APRIL 2026

The Decree Holder, Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd., initiated execution proceedings seeking attachment and sale of multiple immovable properties and garnishee directions to recover an arbitral award of approximately ₹385 crore against the Judgment Debtors. A list of properties proposed for attachment was placed on record. The Judgment Debtors opposed the application, contending that they were undergoing a Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) under the IBC, 2016, and that permitting execution would remove the properties from the insolvency process, disrupt the proposed repayment plan, and grant the Decree Holder a preferential position over other creditors. It was further argued that the decretal amount had already been accounted for in the proposed repayment plan and that parallel execution would create inconsistency with proceedings before the Hon’ble NCLT. The Decree Holder countered that the moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC had already ceased upon expiry of the statutory period and therefore there was no legal bar to continuation of recovery proceedings.

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More