This piece aims to examine the practical consequences of leaving the concept of “treatment” undefined and proposes reforms that may help give substantive effect to the protection contemplated under Regulation 38A.

The real question is not whether homebuyers belong within the IBC. It is why insolvency law has become the institution through which failures of real estate regulation are increasingly corrected, and how long a regulator can keep failing before the statute quietly covering for it is mistaken for the solution.

The IBBI has, in the deferred commencement window, a rare opportunity to get this right before a single CIIRP is filed.

The nil valuation of contingent claims under the IBC is operationally convenient, judicially endorsed, and now sits atop a firm statutory footing after the 2026 Amendment, but it remains unjustified in its current form.

Real systemic growth occurs when fairness is not compromised to achieve commercial speed.

PPIRP’s record of sixteen admissions in four years is not a marketing problem, and the 2026 Act’s improvements do not resolve it.

The reference in Surana presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm the underlying philosophy of personal insolvency law.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Alpha Corp has been widely read as a homebuyer-protective ruling; that reading is accurate as far as it goes.

The effectiveness of CIIRP post-Amendment will ultimately depend upon preventing disruptive pre-insolvency enforcement that frustrates restructuring efforts.

The IBC was never meant to be a code of private enforcement. It is a statute of public restructuring, where creditor control is legitimate because it is bound by statute and under adjudicatory supervision. CIIRP diminishes the first moment of that supervision and must therefore heighten the requirements of notice and objection rights.

We must acknowledge that the 2026 Amendment is a correction that was much-needed, even if implemented through a blunt approach.

Subhkam should never have been transplanted: SAST and IBC pursue divergent objectives, the SAT order was non-precedential by direct Supreme Court fiat, and the positive-control reading under-includes the negative-control defaulter-promoters Parliament meant to capture.

The piece examines NCLAT's May 2026 dismissal of Vedanta's challenge to Adani Enterprises' INR 14,535 crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates, where a bid gap of over INR 3,000 crore was left on the table due to the Process Note's bar on post-challenge modifications.

The conclusion in Brilliant Metals is, therefore, salvageable, even if its reasoning is not.

This article critically analyses the recent legislative amendments and the proposed regulatory changes, with a particular focus on their implications for the recovery of liabilities from personal guarantors of corporate debtors.

Creditors and practitioners should take heed - when in doubt, draft guarantees clearly. Otherwise, as the ruling reflects, informal promises of support will not give creditors the “financial debt” status that they may seek under the Code.

This blog delves into the trusteeship decision, which enunciates that incomplete and informal restructuring discussions cannot be relied upon to hinder the statutory trigger of insolvency once debt and default are established.

The growing use of reverse CIRP and the acknowledgment received by the IBBI and MCA highlight that the traditional insolvency mechanism is ill-suited to address the challenges of real estate insolvency.

The central question raised by Draft Part Z is not whether it improves India’s cross-border insolvency framework. It plainly does. The more difficult question is whether its limited reach is an unavoidable feature of cross-border insolvency or a boundary consciously drawn by the legislature.

The author suggests that Section 32A protection should only be granted conditional to due diligence safeguards including cross-verification with the ED.

Court did not adequately discuss the provisions of the IBC to determine whether the spectrum license can be considered an asset and can be treated under the IBC.

The judgment of the Supreme Court has provided doctrinal clarity on the vexed issue of the treatment of spectrum under the IBC, but this clarity has come at a considerable cost.

The proposed Section 28A of the Bill is a practical step toward resolving the long-standing problem of fragmented enforcement of third-party security and directly addresses the deadlock seen in Vistra ITCL.

The Supreme Court has indicated that its increased role in addressing fraud in insolvency will be more grounded in market logic than in corrective justice.