News Bulletin Details
- Home
- News Bulletin Details
Oct 27 2026
IBC Laws Today | Banking & Debt Recovery
Overview
The October 27, 2026 edition of the IBC Laws Today Banking & Debt Recovery Newsletter summarises important judicial developments relating to debt settlement, SARFAESI enforcement, recovery proceedings and cheque-dishonour cases.
The featured decisions address the Supreme Court’s power to facilitate settlement of an assigned debt, the evidentiary requirements for proving service of a SARFAESI demand notice, challenges to secured-asset sales and the restricted scope of criminal revision against concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The newsletter also highlights a Supreme Court ruling concerning withdrawal of a Committee of Creditors-approved resolution plan.
Details
Publication Information
Newsletter: IBC Laws Today | Banking & Debt Recovery.
Date: October 27, 2026.
Coverage: SARFAESI proceedings, DRT and debt-recovery matters, the Negotiable Instruments Act and insolvency-resolution developments.
Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. v. State Bank of India and Another
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Citation: Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. v. State Bank of India and Anr., (2026) ibclaw.in 765 SC.
Complete justice: The Supreme Court indicated that, in the exercise of its power to do complete justice and having regard to the peculiar facts of a case, it may direct a debtor to pay an additional amount to the assignee in full and final settlement of an assigned debt.
Questions kept open: A settlement direction need not conclusively determine separate legal questions relating to the classification of the account as a non-performing asset or the validity of the debt assignment.
Effect on pending proceedings: Upon completion of the settlement, proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts legislation may be disposed of.
Default protection: The parties may be granted liberty to revive the pending insolvency or recovery proceedings if the debtor fails to comply with the settlement terms.
Significance: The ruling illustrates how the Court may facilitate a case-specific settlement without deciding every disputed legal issue, while preserving enforcement remedies in the event of non-payment.
V. Vijay Kumar and Another v. Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Another
Forum: Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai.
Citation: V. Vijay Kumar and Anr. v. Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Anr., (2026) ibclaw.in 826 DRT.
Service of demand notice: The Tribunal held that service of a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act may be established when the bank produces material demonstrating personal delivery after the postal communication was returned.
Returned postal article: The mere return of the notice sent by post does not, by itself, establish that service was legally defective when another valid method of delivery is proved.
Challenge to secured-asset sale: A sale conducted under Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, cannot be set aside merely on unsupported allegations of undervaluation, procedural irregularity or non-compliance.
Evidence of compliance: In this matter, the bank demonstrated the issuance of statutory notices, publication and affixture of the sale notice, procurement of a valuation and written extension of time for payment of the remaining sale consideration.
Significance: The decision emphasises that a borrower challenging an enforcement sale must provide specific and substantiated material rather than relying on general allegations.
Beena Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Court: High Court of Jharkhand.
Citation: Beena Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 5978 HC.
Legal provision: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dealing with dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds or other specified reasons.
Restricted revisional jurisdiction: In a criminal revision challenging concurrent findings of conviction, the High Court’s interference is generally limited to a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
Evidence not ordinarily reconsidered: Revisional jurisdiction does not permit a routine re-appreciation of the entire evidence merely because another interpretation may be possible.
Exception: Reconsideration may be justified where the findings are perverse, unsupported by the record or affected by a material error of law.
Outcome: The High Court found no legally sustainable basis to interfere with the concurrent findings affirming the conviction under Section 138.
Case Highlight: Withdrawal of an Approved Resolution Plan
Supreme Court ruling: The newsletter reports that once the Committee of Creditors approves a resolution plan and the plan is placed before the National Company Law Tribunal for approval, the Committee cannot subsequently withdraw the plan or the underlying corporate insolvency resolution application.
Commercial finality: The ruling reinforces the binding character and procedural finality of a resolution plan after approval by the Committee of Creditors and submission to the adjudicating authority.
Practical relevance: Creditors must undertake appropriate commercial and legal evaluation before approving a plan because their ability to reverse the decision becomes restricted at a later stage.
Daily Case-Law Digest
Update date: October 26, 2026.
Coverage: The daily digest provides concise summaries of significant judgments and emerging principles across insolvency, corporate law, banking, RERA and arbitration.
Source note: These summaries present the legal principles highlighted in the IBC Laws newsletter. Readers requiring authoritative guidance should consult the complete judgments, statutory provisions and appropriate professional advice.
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.
