News Bulletin Details
- Home
- News Bulletin Details
Oct 14 2026
IBC Laws Today | Commercial & Dispute Resolution
Overview
The 14 October 2026 edition of IBC Laws Today—Commercial & Dispute Resolution summarises recent judicial and tribunal decisions concerning insolvency, debt recovery, SARFAESI proceedings, real-estate regulation and cheque-dishonour cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The edition covers decisions from several High Courts, NCLT benches, DRTs, DRATs and a state Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Major issues include the extinguishment of statutory claims under an approved resolution plan, penalties for unregistered real-estate projects, validity of possession and auction proceedings, treatment of delayed homebuyer claims and the evidentiary requirements governing cheque-dishonour complaints.
Details
Newsletter Information
Newsletter: IBC Laws Today—Commercial & Dispute Resolution
Edition date: 14 October 2026
Publisher: IBC Laws
Primary coverage: Insolvency, SARFAESI, debt recovery, RERA, banking disputes and the Negotiable Instruments Act
Forums covered: High Courts, NCLT, DRT, DRAT and Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Insolvency and CIRP Developments
SREI Equipment Finance GST demand: The Calcutta High Court reportedly set aside an IGST demand, interest and penalty relating to the 2021–22 financial year. It held that GST dues not claimed during the corporate insolvency resolution process stood extinguished following approval of the resolution plan.
Homebuyers’ ₹54 lakh claim: The NCLT Chandigarh Bench directed the resolution professional to reconsider a claim filed by homebuyers. The Bench observed that delay alone could not defeat the claim, although the applicants were required to prove that payments made to group entities had been transferred to or accounted for by the corporate debtor.
Resolution professional’s remuneration: The NCLT Mumbai Bench held that the minimum fee prescribed under Schedule II for a corporate insolvency resolution process is not mandatory in every case.
Fee during Form G stay: The tribunal fixed the resolution professional’s remuneration at 20% of the Schedule II monthly fee for the period during which the Form G process remained stayed.
Other CIRP costs: The NCLT allowed the full professional fee for the period preceding the stay, together with actual expenses incurred during the insolvency process.
Real Estate Regulation
Unregistered shop allotments: The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal upheld a ₹1 lakh penalty relating to advertisements and allotments of shops made in 2018.
RERA violation: The tribunal found that marketing and allotting units in an unregistered project violated Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.
Appeal outcome: The Housing Board’s challenge to the penalty was dismissed.
SARFAESI Possession and Auction Matters
Effect of a guarantor’s death: DRT-II Chennai upheld a possession order issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It held that the guarantor’s death after the proceedings had begun did not invalidate the possession process.
Indian Bank auction: DRT Patna set aside a 2021 SARFAESI auction after finding that the bank had not established proper service of important notices, compliance with the prescribed 30-day sale period or a valid valuation.
Refund to auction purchaser: The tribunal directed that the purchaser’s money be refunded with interest.
Mortgage and HUF claim: DRAT Chennai upheld the mortgage of a secured property and rejected the appellant’s assertion that she held a one-sixth share in it as Hindu Undivided Family property.
Individual ownership: The appellate tribunal relied on bank records showing that the property belonged individually to the appellant’s father.
Negotiable Instruments Act Decisions
Sanjay Pant v. Rama Nand Vishwakarma: The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a Section 138 complaint involving a cheque issued in the name of a business concern is not maintainable unless the complainant establishes a connection with that concern as proprietor or proves that he is the payee or holder in due course.
Power-of-attorney evidence: Although dismissal solely because a power-of-attorney holder gave evidence was considered erroneous, the acquittal was sustained because maintainability had not been established.
Court and citation: Himachal Pradesh High Court, (2026) ibclaw.in 5953 HC.
Brijmohan Agrawal and Another v. Tanveer Singh Sikh: The Chhattisgarh High Court held that once an accused raises a probable defence rebutting the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must prove the legally enforceable debt as a matter of fact.
Acquittal appeal: The Court declined to interfere where the appellate acquittal was based on a detailed and non-perverse assessment of the evidence.
Court and citation: Chhattisgarh High Court, (2026) ibclaw.in 5940 HC.
Ganesh v. K.R. Puttaswamy: The Karnataka High Court held that a cheque issued towards a time-barred debt can revive enforceability to the extent of the cheque amount under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.
Section 138 liability: Such a cheque may support a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Service of notice: An objection concerning non-service failed because the legal notice, postal receipts and acknowledgement demonstrated delivery at the correct address.
Court and citation: Karnataka High Court, (2026) ibclaw.in 5686 HC.
High Court Decisions on SARFAESI
Canara Bank v. Additional District Magistrate and Others: The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate acting under Section 14 cannot adjudicate disputes between the parties.
Limited scrutiny: The authority must confine its review to statutory requirements, including the existence of the mortgage and compliance with Sections 13(2) and 13(4).
Court and citation: Madhya Pradesh High Court, (2026) ibclaw.in 6116 HC.
Syed Mohammad Gufran Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Others: The Patna High Court held that it would not ordinarily entertain a writ petition against SARFAESI recovery measures when an effective statutory remedy was available.
One-time settlement: The Court declined to direct acceptance of a particular one-time-settlement proposal where no enforceable right to that settlement had been demonstrated.
Court and citation: Patna High Court, (2026) ibclaw.in 5963 HC.
DRAT Decisions
Standard Chartered Bank v. Mehtab Motors and Trading Co. and Others: DRAT Delhi held that Section 13(3-A) requires the reasons for rejecting a borrower’s representation to be communicated properly.
Authorisation requirement: A reply sent through counsel did not demonstrate that it had been authorised by the authorised officer.
Possession restraint: Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement justified restraint against taking physical possession, and the appeal was dismissed.
Tribunal and citation: DRAT Delhi, (2026) ibclaw.in 381 DRAT.
DRT Siliguri
Kohinoor Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bank of India: DRT Siliguri held that an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable where the defendant had already participated in the proceedings and filed a written statement.
Contested pleadings: The final judgment had considered the defendant’s pleadings despite subsequent ex parte orders concerning an additional written statement.
Delay condonation: Condonation of delay was also refused because the underlying recall application was itself not maintainable.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 804 DRT.
DRT Mumbai
Sukhvinder Singh Samra v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Another: DRT Mumbai held that a separate challenge to a subsequent SARFAESI sale, introduced after 45 days, was barred by limitation under Section 17(1).
Subsequent sale notice: A later sale conducted after 15 days’ notice under the second proviso to Rule 9(1) could not be set aside without proof of statutory violation, fraud, collusion or prejudice.
Right of redemption: Redemption could not be claimed after publication of the sale notice.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 810 DRT.
DRT Chennai
A.H. Ahamed Shakir v. Authorized Officer and Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank: The tribunal held that a voluntary auction participant who failed to pay the additional amount required under the sale terms could not later challenge the notice or seek a refund on vague allegations of encumbrances.
Forfeiture: Forfeiture of the 10% deposit was upheld under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 789 DRT.
Solar Designs Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another: The tribunal upheld the sale notice and auction because the subsequent possession notice had not been challenged within the limitation period and no illegality was established in the valuation, redemption opportunity, publication, affixture or auction process.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 758 DRT.
R. Narayanan v. Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India: The tribunal rejected a guarantor’s sale challenge because a necessary party had not been joined and the bank proved compliance with CERSAI registration, NPA classification, notice requirements, valuation and auction procedures.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 760 DRT.
Poovai Amman Agency and Others v. City Union Bank Ltd. and Another: The tribunal held that an order under Section 14 is administrative and may be interfered with only when Section 14(1) has not been followed.
Affidavit compliance: Because the secured creditor’s affidavit contained the required particulars, the Magistrate’s possession order was affirmed.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 785 DRT.
Challani Ranka Jewellery and Others v. Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank: The tribunal held that contempt proceedings require clear, conscious and wilful disobedience of a specific and unambiguous order.
Indirect challenge prohibited: Borrowers could not use a contempt application to challenge later SARFAESI measures or obtain new interim relief.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 766 DRT.
DRT Ernakulam
Varghese C.P. v. Authorized Officer, Canara Bank and Others: DRT Ernakulam held that the agricultural-land exemption under Section 31(i) was unavailable because the applicant had not proved that the secured asset was agricultural land when the security interest was created.
Additional findings: The applicant had not established that he was an agriculturist dependent on the property for his livelihood and had not challenged the possession measures within the prescribed period.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 778 DRT.
Additional Access
Complete decisions: Full judgments and detailed case analyses are available through the links provided in the original IBC Laws newsletter.
Mobile application: Readers may access further judgments, legal updates and research material through the IBC Laws application available for Apple and Android devices.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this News Bulletin is for informational purposes only. The Learning Centre does not facilitate or provide recordings, additional data, access, or any other related information concerning the events/resources listed.
