It bears no further reiteration that a proceeding under Sections 241–242 cannot be stifled by the commencement of CIRP or the approval of a resolution plan.

The 2025 amendment is an attempt to draw a line in the murky sand between resolution and liquidation. Ideal value maximization lies not in how fast we close a company, but in how effectively we give it a chance to recover while it still can.

The 2025 amendment to Section 33 marks a significant and pragmatic shift in India’s insolvency regime by providing a structured "second life" for CIRP. However, its success hinges on fiduciary responsibility of creditors, and effective institutional capacity to implement the provision faithfully.

Section 32A of the IBC represents a regressive step in the evolution of corporate criminal liability in India.

Codifying project-wise CIRP and strengthening buyer-side safeguards will be crucial to realize the judgment’s protective intent.

The contradiction between moratorium theory and interest accrual practice represents more than a technical legal gap. With the IBC Amendment Bill 2025 currently pending before the Parliament, the opportunity for meaningful reform arises.

It is time for tax laws to stop dragging MSMEs back into the quicksand if insolvency is supposed to provide them with a new beginning.

The IBC amendment marks a significant step in India’s insolvency law. By introducing CIIRP, Parliament has signaled a shift towards even greater creditor empowerment and flexibility. CIIRP’s shorter timelines and creditor-led design mirror global best practices (akin to pre-packaged restructurings), potentially speeding up resolutions and preserving value.

The ‘nil’ payment paradox, starkly illustrated in the case of Vadraj Cement Limited, is more than just a procedural flaw; it is a fundamental breach of the very promise made by IBC upon its enactment, which is the revival of businesses and equitable treatment of all the stakeholders. 

The NCLAT’s ruling, though doctrinally clear, exposes a structural vulnerability: the potential for disguised preferences routed through third parties. India’s insolvency regime must evolve beyond formalism.

IBC gets very few opportunities to realize its true objectives, that of revival of financially distressed entities and their continuity as a going concern. In order to prevent the IBC from turning into a debt-recovery tool, it is essential to re-evaluate the Bill in light of the principles upon which the IBC is premised.

The need of the hour is a legislative and administrative framework that balances conflicting objectives. India's dual objectives of preventing financial misconduct and creating an insolvency regime that is investment-friendly can only be fully supported by such an integrated approach.

The IBBI has realized the value of market-driven resolution which it has effectively pivoted towards. The timing of the notification of these amendments must also be appreciated. India is notoriously a slow insolvency jurisdiction, and such perceptions can seriously damage credit availability in markets.

The pre-pack insolvency framework was crafted with the best of intentions. It aimed to protect MSMEs from the procedural weight of CIRP while ensuring that their businesses could be salvaged quickly and quietly. But in practice, it remains a tool too complex, too exclusive, and too disconnected from how MSMEs actually function.

[ Apeksha is a student at National University of Study and Research in Law. ] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016  ( IBC ) was...

The proposal, if accepted, will provide a fillip to exploring mediation in other aspects of insolvency. While insolvency mediation is an intricate issue, proactive proposals will facilitate stakeholder dialogue and aid in resolving inconsistencies.

The IBBI’s 2025 amendments significantly improve India’s insolvency framework by making it more aligned with global best practices.

Although the Supreme Court of India’s decision has garnered significant criticism, it is not without its merits. It emphasizes how the integrity of the insolvency process must remain sacred. The IBC transcends the role of a simple debt recovery mechanism; it is a framework rooted in legal principles and the equitable treatment of all stakeholders involved.

In this article, the author identifies two major challenges revealed by the impugned judgments: lack of a statutory time limit to implement resolution plans and imprecise role of monitoring committees in ensuring implementation of resolution plans.

The reverse CIRP model remains judicially constructed and lacks a statutory base. The reforms provide structure and direction but require legislative harmonization to fully stabilize the process.

While the BPSL-JSW is already forming into a landmark precedent in the IBC landscape, it risks creating a precedent, which undermines the revival aspect of IBC and has the possibility of deterring future CIRP proceedings.

A regulatory shift is needed. ‘Super-priority utility claims’ would introduce vital services protection, and balance would be maintained through a tiered debt resolution system. A non-retroactivity clause can protect resolution applicants from post settlement litigation. Moreover, a strategically funded PCLF would guard against unforeseen claims and improve CIRP performance.

As the IBC framework continues to evolve, successful distressed M&A will require specialized expertise, innovative structuring, and careful navigation of the unique legal complexities that characterize acquisitions under CIRP.

The peculiar scenario of the demise of the PG presents various challenges and opportunities for the legislature.