Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.SONAK, ADVAIT M.SETHNA
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
M.S. SONAK, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. We issue Rule in all these Petitions, given our order of 25 November 2025.
3. The learned Counsel state that substantially similar issues of law and facts arise in all these Petitions and therefore, they could be disposed of by a common judgment and order.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that the issue raised in these Petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India, (2021) 9 SCC 321. Therefore, by our order of 25 November 2025, we had posted these matters for final disposal at the admission stage. We had already directed the Petitioners to serve a fresh notice upon the Respondents along with the copy of this order.
5. Our order dated 25 November 2025 reads as follows:-
“1. Mr Shah and Ms Gogri, learned counsel for the Petiti
The court ruled that insolvency proceedings involving personal guarantors must be directed to the NCLT when a corporate debtor is undergoing resolution or liquidation, as clarified by the Supreme Cou....
The DRT has jurisdiction to entertain applications against personal guarantors and Section 60(1) of the IBC cannot be read to confer exclusive jurisdiction only on the NCLT.
The NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate insolvency petitions against personal guarantors even in the absence of pending CIRP against the corporate debtor, as per the provisions of the Insolvency and ....
The court ruled that the NCLAT erred in approving a settlement without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the collective nature of insolvency p....
This judgment clarifies that disputes involving the implementation of resolution plans under the IBC should be resolved by the specialized forums established under the Act.
The lease agreement, license agreement, and the allotment letter should be read as coterminous contracts. The termination of the license agreement and lease deed was found to be in accordance with th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article