INTRODUCTION
In the fast-evolving field of corporate law, staying updated with recent judicial developments is essential, not just for practicing professionals, but especially for law students and young lawyers aspiring to build a career in this domain.
Over the past year, tribunals like the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) have delivered several landmark rulings that have significantly shaped how companies operate, raise capital, manage disputes, and navigate insolvency proceedings. These decisions have clarified the interpretation of key provisions under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), while also reinforcing principles of transparency, financial prudence, and stakeholder protection.
This blog highlights recent and significant company law cases that have not only clarified grey areas in the Companies Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), but also set important precedents on issues like cross-border insolvency, treatment of hybrid instruments like CCDs, rights of financial vs. operational creditors, and procedural rigour in liquidation.
- L&T Finance Limited v. Tikona Infinet Private Limited
CITATION : C.P. (IB)/802(MB)2024
FACTS
Petitioner: L&T Finance Ltd., a financial creditor.
Respondent: Tikona Infinet Pvt Ltd., a broadband services provider.
L&T Finance moved NCLT Mumbai under Section 7 IBC, alleging Tikona defaulted on coupon payments totaling ₹116.01 crore due on its Series E Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs), payable in August 2024.
KEY JUDGEMENT
On May 1, 2025, the NCLT Mumbai Bench admitted the petition. It stated that CCDs, even those meant to convert into equity, can be treated as financial debt if they carry an absolute obligation to pay coupons, regardless of principal redemption clauses. The Tribunal appointed Dhiren Shantilal Shah as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and invited creditors to submit claims by May 15. On May 10, 2025, Tikona and L&T Finance reached an amicable settlement. Tikona agreed to clear the ₹116 crore dues and applied to withdraw the insolvency petition.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
- De facto enforcement of CCD obligations under IBC.
- NCLT can admit Section 7 petitions where default is unequivocal, even on convertible instruments.
- Timely coupon servicing is non-negotiable—non‑payment could trigger CIRP even without repayment default.
- Canara Bank v. ARS Energy Pvt Ltd.
CITATION: 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 1062
FACTS
Petitioner: Canara Bank, acting as Financial Creditor under Section 7, IBC.
Respondent: ARS Energy Pvt Ltd.
Debt of around ₹110.57 crore, classified as Non‑Performing Asset (NPA), under RBI norms.ARS Energy claimed refuge under force majeure, citing coal price volatility and COVID‑19-related disruptions, and argued that ongoing restructuring discussions should defer insolvency proceedings.
KEY JUDGEMENT
It was decided on February 14, 2025, before the Chennai bench. The NCLT rejected ARS Energy’s force majeure defence, stating such events do not excuse contractual default obligations in insolvency proceedings. Following precedents like Innoventive Industries v. ICICI Bank and Energy Watchdog v. CERC, the Tribunal held that default under Section 7 is established through documentary proof like loan agreement, demand notice, acknowledgment of debt, and RBI’s NPA classification. The petition was admitted, an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and the statutory moratorium was imposed.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
- Disruptions like COVID‑19 and commodity shocks cannot delay debt repayment under Section 7.
- NCLT reaffirmed the reliance on formal loan documents, demand notices, and RBI classification to establish default.
- Clarifies that NPAs, notwithstanding external factors, can attract prompt action under the IBC.
- Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Liquidator CA Rajeev Bansal v. Mr. Pankaj Tandon
CITATION: IA No. 1308/2022 in CP(IB) No. 97/Chd/Hry/2018, NCLT Chandigarh Bench (Court‑I)
FACTS
- Petitioner/Liquidator: CA Rajeev Bansal in his capacity as Liquidator of Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd.
- Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Tandon, former Director of the Corporate Debtor.
The Liquidator filed criminal complaints against the Respondent under Section 35(1)(k), but without prior approval from the Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee (SCC) as required by Section 33(5) IBC and Regulation 31A of the IBBI Liquidation Regulations. Urgency relating to asset preservation was cited.
KEY JUDGEMENT
The NCLT rejected the Liquidator’s plea for retrospective approval, holding that:
- Section 33(5) combined with Regulation 31A mandates prior consultation with the SCC before initiating any major legal proceedings.
- Post-facto approval risks undermining transparency, accountability, and fiscal prudence during liquidation.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
- Mandated SCC Consultation and approval.
- Ensures liquidators adhere strictly to IBC safeguards, protecting stakeholder interests.
- Affirms that retrospective approvals are not permissible under Section 33(5)/Regulation 31A.
- Validates trust in structured oversight during company liquidation.
- Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. (IREDA) v. Waaree Energies Ltd. & Anr.
CITATION: 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 765 (NCLAT Principal Bench, 6 December 2024)
FACTS
- Petitioner: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. (IREDA) held secured CCDs, subscribed via a Debenture Subscription Agreement
- Respondent: Waaree Energies Ltd.
Upon Waaree’s default, IREDA applied for CIRP under Section 7 IBC, claiming the CCDs were in financial debt. Waaree challenged this, asserting CCD holders are equity participants, not financial creditors.
KEY JUDGEMENT
NCLAT ruled in favor of IREDA, confirming that secured CCD holders are financial creditors, not equity holders. The Tribunal emphasized that IREDA’s CCDs included a redemption clause and interest of 24% p.a. on default, representing the “time value of money” and fitting within Section 5(8)(c) of the IBC. It distinguished from earlier rulings (e.g., IFCI Ltd. and Shubham Corporation), stating those cases had automatic conversion without redemption obligations, unlike the Waaree case.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
- This judgment clarifies CCD treatment under IBC, structured CCDs with enforceable redemption and interest qualify as financial debt.
- Contractual return obligations form key criteria for creditor classification.
- Encourages precise drafting of CCD agreements to anticipate insolvency scenarios.
- Strengthens hybrid instrument jurisprudence and emphasizes substance over nomenclature in insolvency law.
- State Bank of India v. Leo Meridian Infrastructure Projects & Hotels Ltd.
CITATION: 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 1125 (NCLT Hyderabad Bench, Order dated 26 February 2025)
FACTS
- Petitioner (Financial Creditor): State Bank of India (SBI), acting under Section 7 of the IBC.
- Respondent (Corporate Debtor): Leo Meridian Infrastructure Projects & Hotels Ltd., operator of Leonia Resorts, Hyderabad.
SBI sought CIRP after the company defaulted on significant bank loans and was admitted under Section 7 in April 2019. A resolution plan by Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt Ltd (JEPL), valued at ₹237 crore, plus an additional ₹90 crore for working capital and renovation, was approved unanimously by secured creditors
KEY JUDGEMENT
On 26 February 2025, the NCLT Hyderabad Bench granted approval for JEPL’s ₹237 crore resolution plan, effectively concluding the CIRP. The Tribunal confirmed compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC, covering CIRP costs, operational creditors’ dues, and equitable treatment of stakeholders.
All crystallised and unclaimed liabilities existing on the order date were legally extinguished upon plan execution. However, if JEPL failed to fulfill payment obligations within the stipulated timeline, all sums paid would be forfeited.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
- This case demonstrates IBC’s capacity to revive viable entities through well-structured resolution plans.
- Reinforces the requirement for resolution plans to cover statutory payments and uphold fairness.
- Confirms the extinguishing of prior liabilities once a plan is sanctioned and executed.
- Offers assurance to investors and creditors that distressed companies can be turnaround targets under a legally sound framework.
CONCLUSION
As corporate law evolves, these pivotal NCLT and NCLAT judgments are essential touchstones for any corporate law enthusiast. These landmark rulings underscore the dynamic and impactful role of corporate law in India’s evolving business environment. From clarifying the treatment of hybrid instruments like CCDs, enforcing diligent stakeholder oversight during liquidation, upholding robust creditor safeguards, to championing corporate rescue through viable resolution plans, these cases reflect the spirit and intent of the IBC.
As India braces itself for increasingly complex challenges,from cross-border insolvency and ESG accountability to fintech disruptions and innovative capital structures this curated collection equips you with both doctrinal confidence and real-world insight. For students, professionals, or anyone curious about corporate jurisprudence, these cases are not just legal milestones, they are the building blocks of a modern, practice-oriented understanding of company law in India.
