This piece argues that the manner in which Section 240C has been drafted is more than just an ordinary administrative delegation and can lead to the delegation of the essential legislative function.

This article argues that insolvency law must respond to trademark title disputes through contractual structuring within the resolution plan.

The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill of 2026 introduced a structural change. It resulted in a decrease in the required approval from 90% to 75% for fast track mergers based on member and creditor votes. This is meant to streamline corporate restructuring, but it also causes worry about protecting minority shareholders.

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

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.

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.

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 amendments position Section 233 at the core of India’s intra-group restructuring landscape. However, the unchanged 90 % threshold which is anchored in a bygone ownership model, hinders the workability of the fast-track mergers.

Abstentions should neither be automatically counted nor entirely disregarded within the CoC. A conditional inclusion model, which allows initial inclusion but limits the influence of repeated or strategic abstention, offers the most balanced reform under the IBC.

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.

The decision clarifies that even if there is an assumption that the award is beyond what was intended in the agreement, it would not invalidate the enforceability of the award passed by the tribunal on the ground of public policy exception.

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

The Jindal Polyfilms case marks a turning point. For years, Section 245 sat dormant, an ambitious provision without infrastructure. Now, India has a live opportunity to reimagine it.

A new, principle-grounded taxonomy is needed to maneuver through the new territory by logically incorporating the claims of digital assets into the hierarchy of Section 53 of the code.

This article argues that the interpretation of the NCLT Mumbai Bench ruling, providing an indefinite extension for the realization of assets by a secured creditor, is contradictory to the settled stance taken by various other NCLT Benches. The decision undermines the entire edifice of IBC itself, which is the timely resolution of the proceedings.

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.

The Shashoua judgment represents a watershed moment in the evolution of Section 48 public policy jurisprudence, particularly in its application to complex shareholders dispute arbitration. The court’s sophisticated analysis validates contractual deadlock resolution mechanisms while maintaining necessary boundaries between arbitral authority and statutory regulation.

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.

This blog examines the introduced amendments and analyses how they will accelerate corporate restructuring and create a more predictable environment for foreign and domestic investors. The blog further identifies the potential challenges and considerations that need to be addressed for the amendments to be beneficial for India’s market economy.

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.

The Bill's establishment of group insolvency and cross-border insolvency frameworks is significant as it illustrates India's evolution as a sophisticated player in the global insolvency sector.

India lacks a formal mechanism to address cross-border insolvency and restructuring. In practice, resolution of such matter’s hinges on ad hoc court-to-court cooperation or the recognition of foreign judgments under the Civil Procedure Code 1908.

IBC’s objectives of focusing on time-bound resolution and asset maximization must be reconciled with the DPDP Act’s mandate to respect informational self-determination.