Restructuring and Insolvency Archives

Split Decision and Shared Losses: Testing the Insolvency Framework for Personal Guarantors

The personal insolvency regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is an underdeveloped but critical part of India’s insolvency framework. In contrast to the insolvency resolution and liquidation process for corporate debtors which has generated a substantial body of jurisprudence, the provisions governing the personal insolvency resolution process (“PIRP”), which, to date, have only been notified for personal guarantors of corporate debtors, remain relatively untested. This is, however, now changing as the growing volume of insolvency cases involving personal guarantors in the last few years has brought to light several fault lines in the conduct and implementation of the PIRP. A recent judgment of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLT”) in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Dr. Subhash Chandra, pronounced on August 25, 2026 (“Judgement”), brings many of these challenges into focus. The Judgment, which also represents a rare instance where the NCLT was unable to come to a conclusive decision (owing to differing opinions among the members of the bench), has now been referred to a five-judge bench of the NCLT, whose decision is awaited. This note analyzes the key issues arising from the Judgement and examines their broader implications for the evolving personal guarantor insolvency regime in India.

Treatment of Spectrum Usage Rights in Insolvency: The Supreme Court’s Decision in State Bank of India v. Union of India

Insights & Updates | April 15, 2026 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Restructuring and Insolvency

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is intended to be sector agnostic and to provide a uniform framework for corporate insolvency resolution and liquidation for diverse businesses regardless of their industry sector. Nevertheless, there are challenges under the IBC framework for companies operating in certain industries, owing in large part to the nature of their value generating assets and the sector specific regulations governing their industry. One such sector is the telecom industry where the treatment of spectrum usage rights/licenses in case of a telecom service provider’s (“TSP”) insolvency was the subject of the Supreme Court’s (“SC” or the “Court”) recent decision in State Bank of India v. Union of India. After examining the interplay between the IBC and the telecom regulations governing spectrum allocation to TSPs, the Court held that spectrum usage rights allocated to TSPs and reflected in their balance sheets as an intangible ‘asset’ did not constitute assets of the TSP for purposes of the IBC and, therefore, could not be subjected to IBC proceedings. The Court’s decision has far reaching implications for the interface between the IBC and the constitutional framework governing natural resources, the treatment of intangible assets in insolvency, and the principles guiding the interaction between overlapping statutory regimes. This note analyzes the SC’s decision and its implications for stakeholders.

IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025: Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process

Insights & Updates | November 28, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

One of the innovations proposed in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (the “Bill”) is a new resolution framework that is intended to serve as an alternative to the conventional corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Termed as the creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process (“CIIRP”), this process is designed as a largely out-of-court mechanism, but with the National Company Law Tribunal playing a supervisory role at key stages, including in case of a dispute, for grant of a moratorium and approval of a resolution plan. Another distinguishing feature of the CIIRP is that the corporate debtor continues to remain in control of the business (subject to certain checks and balances), in contrast to the CIRP where control is ceded to the resolution professional. This note analyzes the CIIRP framework as proposed in the Bill. For our analysis of other provisions of the Bill, please refer to our note here.

India’s Company Law Tribunals at a Crossroads: Jurisdictional Overlaps, Forum Shopping and the Way Forward

Insights & Updates | October 1, 2025 | Practice Area: Litigation and Arbitration, Regulatory, Restructuring and Insolvency

The establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) represented a pivotal moment in India’s corporate litigation landscape. These statutory tribunals were conceived as part of a broader project to modernise the adjudication of corporate disputes in India by relevant domain experts. However, nearly a decade after their operationalisation, the functioning of the NCLT and NCLAT has exposed a growing tension. The statutory architecture of the NCLT and NCLAT rests on exclusive jurisdiction-conferring clauses such as Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the “Companies Act”), and Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “IBC”). These provisions expressly bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters where these tribunals are empowered to adjudicate. Appellate mechanisms under both the above statutes envisage a streamlined appeal mechanism from the NCLT to the NCLAT, and ultimately to the Supreme Court of India.
While in theory, this framework appears robust, in practice, however, these tribunals have become increasingly enmeshed in jurisdictional conflicts with civil courts, arbitral tribunals, sectoral regulators, and specialised adjudicatory bodies. As a result, the corporate litigation regime in India is characterised by procedural inconsistency, overlapping authority, leading to the tactical use of forum shopping by litigants.
In this note, we investigate these conflicts through a focused examination of four key domains that fall within the remit of the NCLT and the NCLAT: (i) corporate insolvency; (ii) corporate restructuring; (iii) shareholder governance and remedies; and (iv) auditor fraud and misconduct. The ambiguities in these areas have enabled litigants to exploit institutional gaps, undermining efficiency, delaying resolution and producing conflicting outcomes. To address these concerns, we propose certain legislative and procedural reforms aimed at restoring the exclusivity and institutional integrity that the framework was originally designed to achieve.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025

Insights & Updates | September 15, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (“Bill”) proposes the single biggest overhaul to the existing insolvency framework in India since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) came into effect in December 2016. The Bill attempts to address various challenges that have arisen with the Code’s implementation and to clarify ambiguities and unintended consequences that have resulted from certain judicial decisions. These changes include amendments to streamline the corporate insolvency resolution process, changes to provide for supervision of the liquidation process by the committee of creditors, clarifications on treatment of security interests in liquidation and changes to the framework for preferential, undervalued, fraudulent, and extortionate credit transactions. In addition, the Bill introduces new concepts such as the creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process, which provides an alternative process to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code and enabling provisions for the Government to frame rules on group insolvency and cross border insolvency. These proposed amendments collectively aim to restore the Code’s core principles of clarity, speed, and commercial certainty, while adapting to the evolving requirements of creditors, insolvency professionals, and the broader financial ecosystem. The Bill, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 12, 2025, has now been referred to a select committee of the Parliament for its consideration.
This note decodes the key amendments proposed by the Bill.

The Cape Town Convention: Its Application and Benefits in India

Insights & Updates | July 2, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, International Trade, Litigation and Arbitration, Projects; Infrastructure and Energy, Restructuring and Insolvency

S&R Associates and Stewarts are pleased to present their co-authored note on the Cape Town Convention.
India’s new Cape Town Convention act enforces global rules for aircraft financing, boosting investor confidence and lowering leasing costs. It streamlines repossession in insolvencies and aligns India’s aviation laws with international standards, encouraging growth and efficiency. The reform is set to attract foreign lessors and benefit passengers with better service and pricing.
This note discusses the implications and expected benefits of the Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act 2025, which gives legal effect from May 1, 2025 to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (known as the “Cape Town Convention” and referred to here as the “CTC” or the “Convention”) and the Protocol to the Convention on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (the “Protocol”), which were adopted on December 16, 2001 in Cape Town, South Africa.
The Convention entered into force on April 1, 2004 and is applied to different sectors through individual protocols, one of which is the Protocol, which entered into force on March 1, 2006.

RBI Eases Investments by FPIs in Corporate Debt Securities

Insights & Updates | May 22, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, General Corporate, Investment Funds, Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity, Restructuring and Insolvency, Tax

The Reserve Bank of India recently issued a circular onInvestments by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities through the General Route(“RBI Circular”) on May 08, 2025, to withdraw short term investment limits and concentration limits, applicable on investments by FPI in corporate debt securities under the general route. This note highlights the changes to the regulatory framework brought about by the RBI Circular that are intended to provide greater flexibility and ease of investments for FPIs investing in corporate debt securities in India under the general route.

‘Prior’ CCI Approval of Resolution Plans: A Case for a Legislative Amendment

Insights & Updates | April 28, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Competition/Antitrust, General Corporate, Mergers and Acquisitions, Regulatory, Restructuring and Insolvency

The recent judgment of the Supreme Courtin Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. has reignited the debate on whether the approval of the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) must precede the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) approval in the insolvency process. This note critiques the Court’s strict interpretation of the proviso to Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and supports the dissenting opinion, arguing for a liberal interpretation of the proviso to Section 31(4). The note proposes a legislative amendment to the proviso, proposing that CCI approval be requiredprior to approval of the adjudicating authority(i.e., the NCLT) instead ofprior to CoC approval, to better balance regulatory compliance with efficiency of the insolvency process.

CIRP Amendment Regulations 2025: Streamlining Resolution Processes and Protecting Homebuyer Interests

Insights & Updates | February 25, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Real Estate, Restructuring and Insolvency

As of December 2024, insolvencies in the real estate sector accounted for approximately 22% of admitted cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), making it second only to the manufacturing sector that accounted for 37% of admitted cases. The high volume of insolvencies in the real estate sector, the imperative to protect homebuyer interests and specific challenges faced by this sector have resulted in several amendments focused specifically on the insolvency process for real estate projects. Recently, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (“2025 Amendments”) amending certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”), which once again have a special focus on the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of real estate developers. This note discusses the 2025 Amendments and their likely impact on streamlining the resolution process and protecting homebuyer interests.

From Rescue to Ruin: The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Jet Airways and the Future of Airline Insolvencies

Insights & Updates | November 21, 2024 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited, bringing an end to the five-year-long saga of efforts to revive the distressed airline. Two years after the airline entered the corporate insolvency resolution process, the National Company Law Tribunal, in June 2021, approved the resolution plan submitted by the Jalan Fritsch Consortium, the successful resolution applicant. However, various challenges arose with implementation of the resolution plan, which led the successful resolution applicant to seek multiple extensions and concessions from the adjudicating authority. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the March 2024 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and used its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the airline’s liquidation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is significant as it underscores the importance of implementing resolution plans within agreed upon timelines and identifies certain gaps and shortcomings in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as far as implementation of resolution plans are concerned. This note analyzes the judgment to discuss its implications for the implementation of resolution plans as well as specific challenges in the context of insolvencies in the aviation industry.