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 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.

While the regulation has the potential to facilitate faster and more value-maximizing outcomes, the lack of statutory guidance and procedural safeguards could inadvertently undermine the IBC’s foundational objectives.

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.

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.

Narrow interpretation of the definition of ‘public servant’ is concerning due to its potential implications.

The author foresees several ramifications of the SC judgment in Ebix v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions.

[Abhishekh is a student at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.] As far as creditors and debtors of the Indian...

[Dushyant Kishan Kaul is a fourth-year student at Jindal Global Law School.] In the recently decided case of ArcelorMittal India Private...