Corporate Law

The obligation to settle accounts between partners on dissolution is the step most often deferred and the most expensive to defer. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 9, 2026 in V. Sumitra Reddy and Another v. K. Ranganadha Reddy and Others, where a twenty five per cent share in land held by a firm dissolved in 1983 was held to attach to the value realised on sale rather than the value in 1983, is a reminder of what an unsettled account is worth after four decades. This

Background and Facts Where a firm dissolves and its land is sold decades later, does the outgoing partner take his share of the price realised or his share of the value the land had on the day of dissolution? The Supreme Court has held it is the former, and has added that a reconstituted firm has no right to use the dissolved firm's assets in the meantime. The judgment in V. Sumitra Reddy and Another v. K. Ranganadha Reddy and Others [Civil Appeal No. 8167 of 2017] is reporte

Background and Facts A contract that carves out excepted matters from arbitration raises an obvious question: who decides whether a given claim has been carved out. The Supreme Court has answered that the arbitral tribunal does, and that a writ court cannot settle the point in advance. The judgment in M/s GVV Constructions Private Limited v. Union of India and Others [Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7338 of 2026] is reported as 2026 INSC 976. So

Whether a lease arrangement produces financial debt decides who may file under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, who sits on the committee of creditors and where a claim ranks. Section 5(8)(d) answers the question by importing an accounting test into the statute, which means the characterisation is settled by the substance of the agreements rather than by what they are called. The NCLT Allahabad order of August 20, 2026 in Achhru Ram Jindal and Others v.

Background and Facts The National Company Law Tribunal at Allahabad has admitted a corporate debtor into insolvency on the footing that a pair of linked agreements over cloud storage capacity amounted to a financial lease, and so gave rise to financial debt. The order in Achhru Ram Jindal and Others v. M/s Zebyte Rental Planet Private Limited was passed on August 20, 2026 and has been reported this week. Twenty six individuals entered into two agreements. Under an Asset Sale

Background and Facts The Supreme Court has held that the release of a buyback escrow under the SEBI buyback framework creates no immunity from a separate inquiry into fraud, and has sent the Vedanta buyback matter back to the Securities Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The judgment in Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Vedanta Limited and Others is reported as 2026 INSC 978. Vedanta Limited's board resolved on November 26, 2013 to buy back equity shares. The

A secured creditor's priority over government dues is statutory, but it is not automatic. Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 confers priority only after the security interest has been registered, and a revenue department that has attached property can still defeat a lender that cannot produce the right record. The Bombay High Court's judgment of September 11, 2026 in Indian Overseas Bank v. S

Background and Facts The Delhi High Court has held that MSME registration obtained after a supply has been made confers no right to refer the resulting dispute to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, and that a supplier who abandons an arbitration cannot revive the same claims by registering later and starting again. The judgment in Shri Krishan Grit Co. v. Continental Engineering Corporation [ARB. A. (COMM) 30/2024 and I.A. 29603/2024] was reserved on August 1

Background and Facts The Bombay High Court has quashed a State auction at which a revenue official bought mortgaged land for one rupee, holding that secured creditor priority under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act is not displaced by an attachment never followed by a statutory proclamation. The judgment in Indian Overseas Bank v. State of Maharashtra and Others [Writ Petition No. 10120 of 2022 with Interim Application No. 427 of 2026] carries the neutral citation 2026:BHC-AS:3

Insolvency proceedings concerning the same corporate group routinely end up before different Benches of the National Company Law Tribunal. A corporate debtor is admitted where its registered office sits, while a creditor files against the personal guarantor wherever it finds a convenient forum. The Code prefers a single forum, and the NCLAT has now confirmed that the President's transfer power under Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is not confined by territorial limits. Thi

Background and Facts The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on September 11, 2026 held that the power of the President of the National Company Law Tribunal to transfer a case from one Bench to another is not confined by the territorial limits of those Benches. The ruling in Kamlesh Rani Singla v. Praveen Kumar Garg and Others [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 275 of 2026] is reported as 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 347. Laxmi Pipes Limited was admitted into the Corporate Insolve

Background and Facts The Securities and Exchange Board of India launched a pilot programme on September 10, 2026 under which corporate bonds are issued as digital tokens recorded on a distributed ledger. The initiative, announced at the Global Fintech Fest and styled Demat 2.0, is the first structured attempt to place Indian corporate debt on shared ledger infrastructure operated by market infrastructure institutions. Three issuers had come to market by launch. REC Limited is

Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is the gatekeeping provision of the resolution process. It disqualifies defined categories of persons from submitting a resolution plan, and it reaches beyond the applicant to anyone acting jointly or in concert with him and to his connected persons. Eligibility disputes are among the most common grounds on which approved plans are challenged, and the NCLAT has recently confirmed that the list is exhaustive: a practising

Background and Facts The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has held that a practising chartered accountant is not disqualified from submitting a resolution plan merely because of his professional status. The ruling in Vinay Gupta v. Oswal Minerals Limited and Satellite Cables Private Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1038 of 2026 with No. 1032 of 2024] is reported as 2026 LLBiz NCLAT 345. Satellite Cables Private Limited was admitted into the Corp

Background and Facts The Supreme Court on September 8, 2026 held that a prosecution against a company cannot be quashed merely because the chargesheet fails to name the natural person through whom the company is said to have acted. The judgment in Sanofi India Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation is reported as 2026 INSC 957. Sanofi India Limited supplied medicines to the Rare Materials Project of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre across 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2015-16. Th