Latest IBC Case Laws July 2025: Key NCLAT Rulings Explained

1.Kavindra Kumar & Ors. v. M/s Desein Private Limited

 Citation: (2025) ibclaw.in 319 NCLAT; Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1272 of 2023; NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi; Judgment by Ashok Bhushan J. (Chairperson).​

 Ratio: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that operational creditors including individual employees cannot aggregate their separate unpaid salary claims to meet the Rs 1 crore minimum default threshold under Section 4 IBC for filing a joint Section 9 application since each operational creditor must independently satisfy the threshold unlike financial creditors expressly permitted joint petitions under Section 7. Twelve ex-employees of Desein Pvt Ltd filed joint Section 9 claiming Rs 2.89 crore aggregate dues with individual claims below Rs 1 crore following failed joint demand notice under Section 8 which company disputed citing pre-existing disputes Section 10A bar and individual notice requirement. NCLT rejected application following NCLAT precedents in Sadashiv Nomaya Nayak and Suresh Narayan Singh holding Form 5 note permitting “joint capacity by one duly authorised” only facilitates authorised representative filing procedure without diluting statutory threshold for distinct employment debts. NCLAT upheld distinguishing operational creditors’ individual Section 8 notice obligation from financial creditors’ joint filing scheme noting trade unions represent collective interests per JK Jute Mill (2019) 11 SCC 322 but individual employees remain separate creditors requiring individual threshold compliance. Joint Section 9 application dismissed; each employee must file separately meeting Rs 1 crore threshold individually.

 2. Home Kraft Avenues v. Jayesh Sanghrajka, RP of Ornate Spaces R/t Ltd. & Ors.

 Citation: Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 756/2023; NCLAT Principal Bench, New Delhi; Judgment by Justice Yogesh Khanna, Member (Judicial) & Mr. Arun Baroka, Member (Technical); Dated: 14.02.2025.​

 Ratio: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that a lender qualifies as a secured financial creditor under IBC when a written loan agreement creates a security interest over identified flats through executed Agreement for Sale and Power of Attorney held in escrow for release upon default even if the charge remains unregistered under Section 77 of Companies Act 2013. Non-registration under Section 77 does not extinguish security rights during CIRP because IBC definitions in Sections 3(4), 3(30), 3(31), 3(33), 3(34) recognize contractual liens claims and encumbrances over specific property as security interests without requiring ROC filing and Section 77(3) binds only liquidators during liquidation not Resolution Professionals during CIRP. Home Kraft Avenues advanced Rs 11 crore loan on 29 October 2015 repayable within 29 months secured by four 19th20th floor flats (1901, 1902, 1904, 2001) via AFSPOA in escrow plus four lower floor flats towards 18% interest. Corporate Debtor defaulted triggering CIRP admission on 29 June 2020. RP admitted interest flats as homebuyer claim but classified principal Rs 11 crore as unsecured citing unregistered charge. NCLT upheld rejection. NCLAT reversed following Canara Bank v S Rajendran and distinguished liquidation (Section 52 opt-out requiring registered charge) from CIRP (RP controls all assets under Sections 18, 25). Section 77(4) preserves repayment obligations. NCLT direction for Section 66 proceedings without RP application or hearing set aside as violative of natural justice. Appellant declared secured financial creditor for Rs 11 crore principal. RP directed to reclassify claim accordingly.​

3. JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd.

 Citation: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2017; NCLAT, New Delhi (S.J. Mukhopadhaya J., Chairperson & Balvinder Singh, Member (T)); Dated: 12.09.2017.

 Ratio: The National Company Law Tribunal held that the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code filed by the JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha a workmen association was not maintainable. The Tribunal considered various facts and documents related to claims of operational debt for workers wages salaries bonus provident fund and gratuity across different workmen. In the impugned order the Tribunal taking into consideration different facts including the documents whereby Appellant in respect of claim operational debt due on various Heads of workers like payment wages salaries bonus provident fund gratuity in respect of different workmen held that the application preferred by the Appellant under Section 9 is not maintainable. The NCLAT upheld this view and affirmed that a trade union does not qualify as an operational creditor since it renders no direct services to the corporate debtor and individual workmen must file separately with distinct claims and defaults. The appeal was dismissed with liberty for individual workmen to pursue claims if debt and default exist.