Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

spot_img

Domestic Violence BNS Section 85 vs DV Act Explained

Understand how domestic violence BNS Section 85 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 work differently — and together — to protect you.
HomePolicy & RegulationInsolvency & BankruptcyNCLAT Stays NCLT Kolkata CIRP Order Against Vikram Solar; Directs ₹91.98 Lakh...

NCLAT Stays NCLT Kolkata CIRP Order Against Vikram Solar; Directs ₹91.98 Lakh Deposit

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on June 25, 2026 stayed insolvency proceedings against Vikram Solar Limited and directed the company to deposit the entire admitted operational debt of ₹91.98 lakh. The underlying NCLT Kolkata-I Bench order (dated June 12, 2026, available June 18) had admitted an IBC Section 9 petition by operational creditor Isitva Steels Pvt Ltd over an alleged ₹9.44 crore dispute, triggering CIRP and appointing IRP Tripti Agarwal. The stay hearing is listed for June 29, 2026. The case is closely watched given Vikram Solar’s position as a listed solar module manufacturer under India’s ALMM regime.

Key Details

  • Regulator: NCLAT / NCLT Kolkata-I
  • Date: June 25, 2026
  • Document / Order No.: Not specified in source
  • Parties: Vikram Solar Limited (Corporate Debtor),Isitva Steels Pvt Ltd (Operational Creditor),Tripti Agarwal (IRP),Sameer Nagpal (Suspended Director / Appellant)
  • Industry Impact: Solar Energy / Renewable Energy Manufacturing (ALMM-listed companies)
  • Effective Date: 2026-06-25
  • Source Type: Judicial / Tribunal Order

Why It Matters

Vikram Solar is a listed solar module manufacturer included under India’s Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (ALMM) regime, making its insolvency status a matter of broader sectoral concern. NCLAT’s interim stay halts CIRP temporarily, preserving Vikram Solar’s operational continuity while the tribunal examines the validity of the NCLT Kolkata-I admission order. The ₹91.98 lakh deposit condition signals the appellate tribunal’s attempt to balance creditor protection against potential disruption to a significant domestic solar manufacturer.