India: Insolvency/Bankruptcy

In the recent case of Gloster Limited vs Gloster Cables Limited, the intersection between insolvency law and intellectual property rights was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it decided the jurisdictional scope of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The real estate sector in India has long been plagued by multiple structural problems, such as developers holding land through special purpose vehicles or subsidiaries while undertaking construction, marketing, and fund collection through a parent or associate entity.

The moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and its impact on arbitration proceedings have been a subject of debate and scrutiny over the years. On one hand, the object of IBC is “maximization of the assets” of the Corporate Debtor. In furtherance of the same, when a Corporate Debtor (“CD”) is considered a going concern and an insolvency petition is admitted against the CD, there is automatic imposition of moratorium on all proceedings against the CD.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal examines whether personal guarantors remain liable for corporate debt after a resolution plan is approved for the corporate guarantor, and whether such claims are barred by limitation.

The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in PM Copper Wire & Cables BHD v. Relicab Cable Manufacturing Ltd. (CP (IB) No. 63/AHM/2026, decided on 17th April 2026)...

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (“Amendment Act”) received Presidential assent on April 6, 2026, marking the most significant reform to India’s insolvency framework since the original enactment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’s (“IBC”) in 2016 (and has yet to become law). Over the last decade, the IBC has transformed India’s insolvency landscape by improving creditor recoveries, shifting control from defaulting promoters to creditors and creating a modern regulatory framework where none existed before.

The Supreme Court recently examined whether corporate guarantees executed during financial distress can constitute 'financial debt' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The case arose when SBI Consortium's claims as financial creditors were challenged on grounds including suspicious timing, non-disclosure in financial statements, and insufficient stamping.

The jurisprudence on protecting dissenting financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is rooted in a fundamental structural concern that a majoritarian framework...

The liquidation phase of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) imposes a structured regime upon secured creditors, requiring them to make timely and transparent elections regarding...