India: Insolvency/Bankruptcy

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) seeks to facilitate the resolution of insolvency, maximise the value of a corporate debtor’s assets and balance the interests of stakeholders. A central aspect of this framework is the identification and preservation of assets available for resolution or liquidation. However, the position becomes more complex when a corporate debtor holds assets acquired using foreign contributions regulated under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (“FCRA”).

Ten years in, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has finally been amended to close gaps that case law had quietly opened up in it. The IBC Amendment Act, 2026, in force from 26 May 2026, does three things that matter to anyone advising creditors: it takes the discretion back out of admission, it widens the window for clawing back value that left a company before insolvency was formally declared, and it hands financial creditors a new route into a distressed company that doesn't need a Section 7 petition at all. This piece walks through each change and the litigation that made it necessary.

The NCLT, New Delhi (Special Bench) vide order dated 25.08.2026 in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs. Dr. Subash Chandra approved the repayment plan of INR 6.50 Crores submitted by the Personal Guarantor as against admitted claims of approximately INR 22,006.57 Crores.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (‘Amendment Act’), which amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’), received Presidential assent on April 6, 2026. Most amendments took effect on May 26, 2026. However, three significant mechanisms the accelerated admission deadline, creditor-initiated resolution, and group insolvency have been enacted but have not yet come into force and will take effect only upon the issuance of a commencement notification by the Central Government under the applicable provisions of the Code.

The September 2026 edition of Fox & Mandal's Dispute Resolution & ADR Newsletter analyses a trademark ruling protecting F&M’s legacy and goodwill; classification of unadjudicated breach of contract claims as constituting operational debt under IBC; test of attribution of mens rea in a corporate criminal prosecution; application of SARFAESI to loans acquired from NBFCs not covered by the Act; and other recent judgments of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

This Piece examines whether remediation, pollution-control, and restoration obligations of industrial corporate debtors survive, attach to assets, or extinguished during insolvency resolution under the IBC, and outlines a due-diligence framework for resolution applicants.

India’s tribunal system was conceived as a response to the limits of the ordinary judiciary: chronic arrears, increasing regulatory complexity and the need for specialised fora to adjudicate technical disputes. Over time, however, tribunals have ceased to be merely supplemental institutions and, in several sectors, have come to replace constitutional courts as the primary fora for administrative, corporate and economic adjudication.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was introduced as a path-breaking legislation to provide a time-bound and creditor-driven process for the resolution of corporate insolvency in India.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”), enacted in 2016, has been a landmark reform in India’s insolvency regime. It sought to streamline the process of resolving distressed companies, reduce delays, and protect creditor rights. Over time, however, some structural and procedural shortcomings have surfaced delays in resolution, fragmentation in group insolvencies, weak cross-border mechanisms, and skewed rights among stakeholders.