October served a set of reminders that Indian corporate law is getting stricter about the basics: who can start a case, when they must start it, and whether they have actually done what the statute requires.
The IBC Amendment: Debt and Default Must Both Be Established
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act, 2026 has clarified that the National Company Law Tribunal must be satisfied of both debt and default before admitting an insolvency application. The amendment removes ambiguity that had produced earlier litigation over whether one element could be presumed from the other. Creditors and resolution professionals must ensure both elements are independently established in the materials filed. The amendment also introduced a Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process, allowing out-of-court insolvency initiation without the automatic moratorium that normally follows NCLT admission, and a cross-border insolvency framework drawn from the UNCITRAL Model Law, which has not yet come into force.
Allahabad High Court: 831 Days Is Not a Delay You Can Explain Away
The Allahabad High Court in October dismissed an application to condone an 831-day delay in filing an appeal against an arbitral award. Parties cannot treat appellate rights as something to activate when convenient after nearly three years of inaction. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes strict timelines for challenges to arbitral awards precisely because the point of arbitration is speed and finality. For businesses considering a challenge to an arbitral award, the window is short and courts will not extend it generously.
Delhi High Court: NDPS, Quantities Slightly Above Commercial Limits
The Delhi High Court held that the rigorous bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 should not be applied mechanically where the quantity seized is only slightly above the commercial threshold. The ruling signals a more calibrated approach to bail in NDPS matters at the commercial-limit boundary.
Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action Against Tata Chemicals
The Supreme Court stayed coercive action against Tata Chemicals in a dispute involving environmental damage related to a marine sanctuary, preserving the status quo while the merits are heard. The case is part of a broader pattern of courts examining corporate liability for environmental damage adjacent to protected areas.
What October's Corporate Cases Have in Common
None of October's major corporate rulings, with the exception of the Yes Bank AT-1 judgment covered on this issue's cover, turned on dramatic facts. They turned on process: when you file, what you put in the filing, whether you have the authority the statute requires, and whether you have met your timelines. Procedure is not a formality.