India: Insolvency/Bankruptcy

The September 2026 edition of Fox & Mandal's Dispute Resolution & ADR Newsletter analyses a trademark ruling protecting F&M’s legacy and goodwill; classification of unadjudicated breach of contract claims as constituting operational debt under IBC; test of attribution of mens rea in a corporate criminal prosecution; application of SARFAESI to loans acquired from NBFCs not covered by the Act; and other recent judgments of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

This Piece examines whether remediation, pollution-control, and restoration obligations of industrial corporate debtors survive, attach to assets, or extinguished during insolvency resolution under the IBC, and outlines a due-diligence framework for resolution applicants.

Insolvency and arbitration have traditionally occupied separate spaces: one collective and court-supervised, the other private and consent-based. That separation is breaking down. Across Asia, distressed companies are parties to ongoing arbitral proceedings, arbitral awards are being pursued against insolvent entities, and restructuring moratoria are colliding with arbitral proceedings in ways that neither the law of insolvency nor the law of arbitration has cleanly resolved.

In a significant ruling dated May 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reinforced the legal principle that a corporate debtor’s subsidiaries may not always be treated as legally distinct entities during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Court’s reasoning was anchored not only in established doctrine but also in a pointed evaluation of the conduct of a statutory authority that failed to engage with the CIRP process in any meaningful way.

The Bombay High Court recently addressed a critical question regarding the temporal application of Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which removed the interim moratorium protection for personal guarantors of corporate debtors. The ruling clarifies whether this amendment applies only to fresh applications filed after its enactment or extends to insolvency proceedings that were already pending when the law changed. This decision has significant implications for creditors seeking to pursue p

The NCLAT, Principal Bench through its judgment dated 03.08.2026 in the matter of Ammeet Kumar Agarwal vs. Ssarvi Resolution Services LLP, Resolution Professional of Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd., affirmed the order of the NCLT, Mumbai directing the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor to jointly and severally restore funds to the Corporate Debtor’s account withdrawn during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

India's new Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Rules, 2026 mark a watershed moment in aviation finance, finally operationalizing the Cape Town Convention through a technology-driven framework...

The Supreme Court, in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam (2026 INSC 410) ('Anjani Technoplast'), has set aside the admission of a Section 7 petition filed by a decree holder against a solvent and functioning company. A Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. held that a decree holder who has the full machinery of civil execution available to him cannot invoke the insolvency jurisdiction as a substitute for execution proceedings.

A recent ruling by the National Company Law Tribunal examines whether standard project finance safeguards—including escrow controls, reserved matters, and monitoring rights—transform debenture holders into related parties, thereby disqualifying them from participating in the Committee of Creditors.