India: Insolvency/Bankruptcy

The Bombay High Court has restrained Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited (“Defendant No. 1”) from using the mark HAMON, holding that John Cockerill Hamon SA (the “Plaintiff”) had made out a strong prima facie case that it is the proprietor of the HAMON trade marks in India, and that Defendant No. 1’s use of the marks — traceable to a now-expired “Brand Usage Right” granted following a cross-border insolvency-driven transfer of the Hamon group’s global IP portfolio — amounted to infringement and passing off. The Order was passed by Justice Arif S. Doctor on 6th July 2026, allowing the Plaintiff’s Interim Application seeking to restrain Defendant No. 1 from using “HAMON COOLING” and “HCS HAMON COOLING” as trade marks and as part of its corporate name.

A Delhi High Court ruling examines whether a judgment-holder can withdraw court-deposited award money after the debtor's insolvency resolution plan is approved. The case explores the intersection of arbitration enforcement rights and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's clean-slate doctrine, revealing how a creditor's failure to file a claim during insolvency proceedings can result in forfeiture of seemingly secured funds.

A May 2026 ruling has clarified that corporate guarantees backed by security qualify as 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. This article analyses the legal reasoning, its implications for resolution applicants, financial creditors, and corporate groups, and the broader impact on insolvency restructuring and credit markets in India.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was introduced as a path-breaking legislation to provide a time-bound and creditor-driven process for the resolution of corporate insolvency in India.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”), enacted in 2016, has been a landmark reform in India’s insolvency regime. It sought to streamline the process of resolving distressed companies, reduce delays, and protect creditor rights. Over time, however, some structural and procedural shortcomings have surfaced delays in resolution, fragmentation in group insolvencies, weak cross-border mechanisms, and skewed rights among stakeholders.

One of the defining features of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") is the moratorium under Section 14, which comes into effect upon admission of an application for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) for corporate persons. The moratorium serves as a statutory calm period, protecting the corporate debtor from enforcement actions while enabling the resolution professional to preserve the debtor's assets and maximise value.

The Supreme Court, in Tejas J. Shah & Amisha T. Shah & Ors. v. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. L stutd. (Now Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd.) & Ors. (2026 INSC 746) ('Tejas J. Shah v. Mantri Technologies'), has held that a moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') against a corporate debtor cannot be read to freeze consumer proceedings against its promoters, directors, or associated entities who are not themselves undergoing CIRP.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has witnessed extensive stakeholder participation and disputes over control of Corporate Debtors, particularly regarding Committee of Creditors membership and resolution plan submissions. This analysis examines how unscrupulous stakeholders exploit legislative gaps between Section 29A's ineligibility criteria and Section 30(5)'s voting provisions, allowing them to manipulate the insolvency resolution process through strategic debt acquisition and conflict-of-interest

The Supreme Court, in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr. (2026 INSC 717) (‘Tata Steel v. Varsha’), has held that an Operational Creditor cannot revive its full, uncrystallized sub-judice claim through a pending court or arbitration proceeding, once that claim has been admitted at a quantified value of Re. 1 in an approved Resolution Plan. Participating in the insolvency process by lodging a claim before the Resolution Professional does not preserve the creditor's right to separately pursue the full claim through the pending suit or arbitration after the Plan is approved.