Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

From Justice Definitions Project


Introduction

Prior to the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016, the insolvency and winding up of companies in India were primarily governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and later by Companies Act, 2013. These legal frameworks included multiple overlapping laws such as The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA); The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

However, this system was widely criticized due to its inefficiencies and complex mechanisms. The absence of a unified framework resulted in significant delays in resolution or liquidation, often leading to the erosion of asset value and increased burden on creditors. Recognizing the need for reform, the Government of India introduced IBC, 2016. Unlike the earlier framework, which focused predominantly on liquidation, the IBC is resolution-oriented, aimed at ensuring speedy recovery, credit discipline and economic growth. The IBC introduced the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as a time-bound, creditor-driven mechanism to address financial distress in corporate entities.

Its primary objective is to maximize asset value and promote entrepreneurship by enabling the revival of viable businesses. By replacing previously fragmented and prolonged procedures, the IBC and CIRP ensure speedy redressal, reduce legal uncertainty and foster investor confidence in the Indian economy.

CIRP as defined in Legislation

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is defined under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 and is governed by specific provisions contained within its framework.

Legal Provisions related to CIRP

Chapter II[1] of the act lays down the procedural aspects of CIRP. It is initiated to resolve the financial stress of the corporate debtor in a time-bound and structured manner, covering Sections 6 to 32[2] and supplemented by the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

  • Initiation (Section 6-10, IBC 2016)[3]

CIRP may be initiated by a financial creditor, operational creditor or the corporate debtor itself upon occurrence of a default.

  • Moratorium (Section 14, IBC 2016)[4]

Once admitted, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) imposes a moratorium on all legal actions and asset transfers to ensure stability.

  • Claims and CoC Formation (Sections 15[5] & 21[6], IBC 2016; Regulation 6, CIRP Regulations 2016[7])

The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) issues a public announcement, verifies claims and constitutes the Committee of Creditors (CoC) comprising all financial creditors. The CoC exercises key decision-making powers throughout the process, like confirming the IRP as the RP or replacing them through a voting process (Section 22, IBC 2016)[8]

  • Resolution Plans (Sections 25[9] & 30[10], IBC 2016)

The RP prepares an information memorandum and invites and evaluates resolution plans, which must meet the requirements under Section 30(2), including payments to operational creditors and adherence to applicable laws.

The CoC approves a resolution plan with 66% voting share, followed by NCLT confirmation. Once confirmed, the plan becomes binding on all stakeholders. The entire CIRP must be completed within 180 days, extendable by 90 days and subject to an outer limit of 330 days, including time spent in litigation.

Minimum Default Value

Initially, the minimum threshold for default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was ₹1 lakh. However, following a government notification issued in March 2020, this threshold was increased to ₹1 crore.

Adjudication Authority under CIRP

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) serves as the Adjudicating Authority in such cases. It exercises territorial jurisdiction over the location of the registered office of the corporate person and is responsible for insolvency resolution and liquidation proceedings concerning corporate entities.[13]

Explanation:

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is like a specialized tribunal that handles cases related to companies. When a company is not able to pay its debts and someone wants to start the insolvency process, the case is filed in the NCLT.

The NCLT has power only in the area where the company’s registered office is located. So, if a company’s office is in Delhi, the Delhi bench of NCLT will look into the case. It looks after important issues like:

  • Starting the insolvency process
  • Approving or rejecting the resolution plan
  • Company-related disputes, mergers, or winding up

Once NCLT gives a decision, and if someone is not satisfied with it, they can appeal to a higher authority called NCLAT.

NCLAT reviews the decision and may uphold, repeal, or remand the order passed by NCLT.

Relevant Parties

Financial Creditor, Operational Creditor, Corporate Applicant, Committee of Creditors, IBBI, IU

Financial Creditor

As per Section 6[14] of IBC Act 2016, If a corporate debtor fails to pay its dues, the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) can be started by a financial creditor, an operational creditor, or even by the corporate debtor itself, as per the process laid down in the Chapter II of IBC Act 2016.

Any person to whom a financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred to is a Financial Creditor.

Section 7[15] of IBC act explains the Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor as in the event of a default, a financial creditor may start the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor using the procedure outlined in Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. This clause states that if a default has taken place, a financial creditor may apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Adjudicating Authority, either alone or in concert with other financial creditors. Evidence of the default, such as loan agreements, account statements, or any other required documentation, must be included with the application. The name of a suggested Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) may also be included, while this is not required.

Within 14 days after receiving the application, the NCLT must decide if it is complete. The NCLT will accept the application and start the CIRP if it is complete and all requirements are Within 14 days after receiving the application, the NCLT must decide if it is complete. The NCLT will accept the application and start the CIRP if it is complete and all requirements are met. The tribunal may, however, reject the application if it contains any errors, although it must give the applicant seven days to correct the errors. Formally, the CIRP starts on the day the application is accepted.

In Addition, it must be noted that as per the Code,

Banks, financial institutions, and other lenders are considered financial creditors, as is any individual to whom a financial debt is owed. The inability of the corporate debtor to pay back the financial debt by the due date is referred to as default. Notably, even one creditor has the authority to start the CIRP on their own in situations involving several financial creditors, such as consortium financing. Therefore, Section 7 is essential in allowing creditors to pursue bankruptcy resolution in a systematic and time-bound way.

Operational Creditor

Any person to whom an operational debt is owed and including any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred is known as an operational creditor.

Section 8[16] explains the procedure of insolvency resolution by operational creditor as:

First provide the corporate debtor with a demand notice or a copy of the invoice requesting payment in the event of a default. In addition to providing the debtor with a chance to contest the debt or make the required payments, this step acts as an official notification of the default. Then, the corporate debtor has ten days from the date of receipt of the demand notice to reply. Within this time frame, the debtor has two options: either pay back the amount demanded or disclose the existence of an ongoing dispute or proof that the debt has already been settled. The operational creditor may legally start CIRP by submitting an application under Section 9 of the Code if the corporate debtor does not reply within the allotted time or is unable to provide proof of a legitimate dispute or payment. In a nutshell, Section 8 is important because it guarantees a first assessment prior to the start of insolvency procedures. By shielding corporate borrowers from baseless accusations and giving them a fair chance to resolve conflicts or pay debts, it preserves the harmony between debtors' interests and creditors' rights.

Corporate Applicant

Corporate Applicant means  

  • corporate debtor
  • a member or partner of the corporate debtor who is authorized to make an application for the CIRP under its constitutional document  
  • an individual who is in charge of managing the operations and resources of the corporate debtor
  • a person who has the control and supervision over the financial affairs of the corporate debtor

Section 9[17] explains the procedure of insolvency resolution by Corporate applicant as:

The operational creditor may submit an application to the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to start CIRP if the corporate debtor does not reply to the demand notice within 10 days, does not pay the amount owed, or raises a legitimate disagreement. The recommended format is required for this application, and it should contain a copy of the invoice or demand notice sent to the corporate debtor, an affidavit confirming that no notice of dispute was received in response, and, if available, a certificate from a financial institution confirming that the payment has not been received. Additionally, the application should contain any other relevant documents or information supporting the claim. The operational creditor may also propose the name of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), which is optional but generally recommended to facilitate the initiation of the insolvency process.

In a nutshell, Section 9 ensures that operational creditors, after giving the debtor a fair opportunity to respond, can seek a time-bound resolution to recover their dues through the insolvency process. It also maintains safeguards against misuse by requiring proof of default and absence of genuine dispute.

Committee of Creditors (CoC)

As per Section 21[18] of the IBC, 2016, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) consists of all financial creditors of the corporate debtor. The CoC is the primary decision-making body in the CIRP.

It has the authority to:

  • Appoint or replace the Resolution Professional (RP)
  • Evaluate and approve resolution plans with 66% voting share
  • Decide key matters affecting the CIRP

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the CoC's commercial decisions are not subject to judicial review except on limited grounds[19]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) is the statutory regulator responsible for implementing the IBC.

Under Sections 188-196[20] of the IBC, the IBBI:

  • Frames regulations for CIRP, liquidation and professional standards
  • Registers and supervises Insolvency Professionals (IPs), Insolvency Professional Agencies (IPAs) and Information Utilities (IUs)
  • Monitors insolvency processes to ensure compliance.

IBBI plays a central role in maintaining transparency, integrity and accountability in India's insolvency ecosystem.

Information Utility (IU)

As per Sections 209-216[21] of the IBC, 2016, an Information Utility (IU) is an entity that collects, stores, authenticates and provides financial information such as:

  • Records of debts
  • Evidence of default
  • Security interests

IU-authenticated records hold evidentiary value during admission of CIRP applications and help establish default efficiently before NCLT. The IBBI (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017, govern their functioning.

India currently has one registered IU, regulated by IBBI: National e-Governance Services Ltd. (NeSL)

Procedure to file CIRP application

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specific documents must be submitted along with the application for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), depending on whether the applicant is a financial creditor, operational creditor, or corporate debtor. As per Section 7(3) of the Code read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, a financial creditor is required to submit a record of default from an information utility or any other evidence of default, along with the name of the proposed Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). In the case of an operational creditor, as per Section 9(3) and Rule 6, the application must include a copy of the invoice or demand notice, an affidavit stating that no dispute of the debt exists, and a certificate from a financial institution, or other proof confirming non-payment of the debt, such as records with an information utility. On the other hand, a corporate debtor, as per Section 10(3) and Rule 7, must submit information relating to its books of account, the name of the proposed IRP, and a special resolution passed by shareholders or a resolution passed by at least three-fourths of the total number of partners, approving the filing of the application. These documentation requirements ensure that the insolvency process is initiated with adequate proof, transparency, and internal consent, as applicable to the party initiating the process.

Interim Resolution Process and Stages- Pre Admission Process, Post Admission Process, Liquidation stage

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) begins with the pre-admission stage, where a financial or operational creditor, or the corporate debtor itself, files an application before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) upon proof of default under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.[22] This admission step appoints an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), if the application is complete and no dispute is found (in case of operational creditors).[23] The NCLT admits the application within 14 days, marking the start of CIRP.

In the post-admission stage, a moratorium is declared, and the IRP takes over management of the debtor’s affairs.[24] A public announcement is made to invite claims from creditors. Within 30 days, the IRP constitutes the Committee of Creditors (CoC),[25] which takes key decisions, including approval of a Resolution Professional (RP) and evaluation of resolution plans. The entire CIRP must be completed within 180 days, extendable by 90 days.[26]

If no resolution plan is approved within the time frame, the corporate debtor moves into the liquidation stage. In liquidation, a liquidator is appointed, assets are sold, and proceeds are distributed according to the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the Code.[27]

Clean Slate Doctrine

Introduction

The Clean Slate Doctrine is a fundamental legal tenet that is incorporated into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and is essential to the Indian corporate insolvency procedure. According to the doctrine, following a company's successful completion of the insolvency resolution procedure and when it is acquired by a new purchaser, the new owner shouldn't be responsible for any of the company's outstanding obligations, fines, or guarantees. In essence, this idea aims to provide the business with a "clean slate" or free from the burden of its previous financial issues.

Relevant Case Laws

In many significant decisions, the Indian Supreme Court has affirmed the Clean Slate Doctrine, reinforcing its pivotal function within the IBC framework, which is as follows:

  • Essar Steel India[28]: The Supreme Court held that upon approval of a Resolution Plan by the NCLT, all past claims stand extinguished, and no proceedings can continue on liabilities not covered in the plan.
  • Edelweiss ARC[29]: The Court ruled that government dues, including taxes, are also extinguished if not part of the approved plan.
  • Surya Exim (Gujarat High Court)[30]: Reaffirmed that tax demands issued after plan approval must be withdrawn if not accounted for in the Resolution Plan.

Recent Developments

Despite these rulings, GST authorities have recently issued notices to companies such as Tata Steel and B&B Global Enterprises, demanding payment of pre-resolution GST dues. Tax authorities argue that sovereign dues should survive the insolvency process unless explicitly waived, raising concerns about the consistency of the doctrine’s application.[31]

Comments

The revival objective of the IBC may be undermined if entities continue to face post-resolution liabilities. Such uncertainty discourages potential resolution applicants and affects the effectiveness of the insolvency framework. Greater clarity and coordination between insolvency professionals and tax authorities are essential to maintain the doctrine’s integrity.

Recent Trends and Statistics in CIRP

According to data published by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), the progress of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as of 31st March 2024 and for the financial year 2023-2024 is as follows:

Source: IBBI Annual Report 2023-2024 (Number, except as stated)


As of 31st March 2024, a total of 7,567 CIRP cases have been admitted, with 987 new cases in FY 2023-24. Out of these, 5,647 have been closed, including 947 resolutions, 1,070 withdrawals under Section 12A, and 2,476 liquidations, while 1,920 cases remain ongoing.

The average resolution time has risen to 849 days in 2023-24, well beyond the statutory limit. Total admitted claims stood at 10.46 lakh crore rupees, against which 3.36 lakh crore rupees were realised, reflecting an overall 32% recovery. Financial creditors recovered around 34% of their claims, while operational creditors recovered about 11%. Resolution outcomes continue to yield higher value than liquidation, with recoveries at 161% of liquidation value.

Slight differences and Nuances in the concept of CIRP and Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process

CIRP is applicable to all corporate debtors and can be initiated by financial creditors, operational creditors, or the corporate debtor itself. In contrast, PPIRP is exclusively available to Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and can only be initiated by the corporate debtor with prior approval from 66% of unrelated financial creditors.

In CIRP, once the application is admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is appointed, and control of the debtor's affairs passes to the IRP or Resolution Professional (RP). However, in PIRP, the existing management retains control of the business unless there is evidence of fraud or mismanagement. PIRP follows a debtor-in-possession model, unlike the creditor-in-control model of CIRP.

Another key difference is the timeline. CIRP must be completed within 180 to 330 days, whereas PIRP is designed to be faster, with a strict timeline of 90 days, extendable by 45 days. PIRP also requires a base resolution plan to be prepared before filing, making it more efficient and less disruptive than CIRP, which is a more public and formal process. Overall, while CIRP is suited for large and complex cases, PIRP offers a quicker and cost-effective solution for MSMEs willing to cooperate in resolving their financial distress.

Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process (CIIRP)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, has undergone several reforms to enhance its efficiency and address delays in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The latest reform through the IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 introduces a significant innovation: The Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process (CIIRP). This mechanism represents a shift towards a creditor-driven, out-of-court insolvency resolution model, designed to ensure faster decision-making, minimal judicial involvement, and greater stakeholder confidence.

Concept and Objectives of CIIRP

CIIRP allows financial creditors belonging to certain notified classes to initiate insolvency resolution of a distressed company without requiring prior court intervention. Unlike traditional CIRP or pre-packaged insolvency processes, CIIRP is envisioned as a time-bound, creditor-controlled, yet business-friendly mechanism. Its primary objectives are:

  • To expedite resolution of genuine business failures.
  • To reduce the burden on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
  • To safeguard business continuity with minimal disruption.
  • To improve creditor confidence through efficient processes.

Eligibility and Applicability

The initiation of CIIRP is optional and limited to specific cases:

  • Eligible Creditors: Only financial creditors belonging to classes notified by the Central Government (e.g., banks, financial institutions) can initiate CIIRP.
  • Debtor’s Default: A corporate debtor must have committed default as per Section 4 of the IBC.
  • Majority Approval: Creditors representing at least 51% in value of the notified class must approve initiation twice—once before and once after giving the debtor a chance to respond.
  • Cooling-Off Period: CIIRP cannot be initiated if the debtor has undergone insolvency proceedings, pre-pack, or CIIRP within the last three years.

Procedure and Initial Steps

The CIIRP process is carefully structured to balance creditor rights with debtor protections:

  • Notice to Corporate Debtor: The initiating creditor must notify the debtor and other creditors, allowing at least 30 days for the debtor to settle or respond.
  • Second Approval: If no satisfactory settlement occurred creditors again vote (≥51% approval required) to proceed.
  • Appointment of Resolution Professional (RP): A registered insolvency professional is appointed by the creditors, without judicial approval.
  • Public Announcement: The RP issues a statutory public announcement, which marks the official commencement date of CIIRP.

Role of the Resolution Professional (RP)

The Resolution Professional (RP) plays a pivotal role in ensuring compliance, transparency, and efficiency.

  • Their duties include collecting and verifying creditor claims.
  • Preparing the Information Memorandum and inviting resolution plans.
  • Supervising debtor management, attending board meetings, and vetoing resolutions contrary to insolvency objectives.
  • Safeguarding stakeholder interests, especially dissenting creditors and operational creditors.
  • Completing the resolution process within 150 days, extendable once by 45 days.
  • Applying for a moratorium, if necessary, to protect debtor’s assets and prevent legal actions.

Unlike in CIRP, management control remains with the corporate debtor’s board, but under RP’s oversight.

Expected Impact and Benefits

The introduction of CIIRP is expected to transform India’s insolvency landscape:

  • Faster Resolution: Strict 150-day timeline ensures efficiency.
  • Reduced Judicial Burden: Out-of-court initiation minimizes NCLT congestion.
  • Business Continuity: Management remains operational under RP’s oversight.
  • Creditor Confidence: Majority-backed decisions ensure fairness.
  • Global Alignment: Incorporation of cross-border and group insolvency norms makes the regime more investor-friendly.

Overall, CIIRP seeks to balance creditor empowerment with debtor protections, thereby strengthening India’s position as a business-friendly jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The proposed Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Resolution Process (CIIRP) under the IBC Amendment Bill, 2025, represents a bold step toward efficiency, accountability, and global best practices. By enabling creditors to initiate insolvency with minimal judicial delays, while still allowing debtor management to function, CIIRP promises to create a streamlined, cost-effective, and robust resolution mechanism. Its success will depend on effective implementation, cooperation among stakeholders, and continuous monitoring by regulatory authorities. If executed well, CIIRP could mark a turning point in India’s insolvency regime, enhancing both domestic confidence and global investor trust.

Significant Rulings and Developments: Real Estate Insolvency

Context and Need

Real Estate companies in India often face complex contingencies such as incomplete projects, multiple allottees (home buyers), land allotment issues and other regulatory obligations. The IBC framework and the IBBI have increasingly focused on addressing these sector-specific challenges. A key IBBI report titled "Reviving Real Estate" underscores that IBC provides a structured mechanism for resolving insolvency and reviving real estate projects.

Key Regulatory Developments

  • In November 2023, IBBI released a Discussion Paper on "Real Estate related proposals - CIRP & Liquidation" which identified major issues including, mandatory registration of projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA); separate bank accounts for each project; exclusion of certain homebuyer possessions from liquidation estates; and the need for separate resolution plans for each real estate project within a corporate debtor.
  • In February 2025 (effective 3 February 2025) amendments to the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 introduced, among other things, Reg. 4E which allows handing over possession of plots/apartments to home buyers (on request) during resolution if the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves (with at least 66% votes) and the home buyers have met contractual obligations.
  • An article in July 2025 highlights IBBI's "blueprint for transparent, inclusive" real estate insolvency[32]. It emphasizes proposals like inclusion of land authorities in CoC, better participation of home buyers/allotees and streamlining of hand over processes.

Notable Rulings and Indicators

  • In the sector of real estate and construction, a statement by the Government noted that as of March 2025, 204 insolvency cases had been resolved under IBC with lenders recovering 44.7% of their admitted claims; in many cases, the realisation exceeded fair value and liquidation value benchmarks.[33]
  • Legal rulings continue to clarify that regulatory obligations under RERA cannot be suspended simply because a corporate debtor is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). For instance, in 2025, a High Court held that penalties imposed by the state real estate regulator must still be borne by the debtor undergoing CIRP.

Implications and Insights

  • These developments reflect a shift from a one-size insolvency regime to a sector-sensitive regime for real estate wherein home buyers/allottees, land authorities, regulatory compliance and possession rights are given visibility.
  • The ability to hand over partially completed units (via Reg. 4E) signals recognition that value-preservation in real estate may depend on continuing operations/possession rather than liquidation alone.
  • However, recovery in many real estate cases continues to lag expectations (around 45% of admitted claims). This suggests that while the framework is evolving, enforcing resolution and maximizing value remains challenging.
  • The inclusion of land-authorities, allottees, and project-specific resolution plans may reduce structural delays in real estate CIRPs which historically suffered from regulatory/land disputes, non-completion risk, and multiple claim classes.

References

  1. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, ss. 6-32A.
  2. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, ss. 6-32. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2154
  3. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, ss. 6-10. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2154?view_type=search&col=123456789/1362
  4. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 14. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&sectionId=793&sectionno=14&orderno=17&orgactid=undefined
  5. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 15. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=18&orgactid=undefined
  6. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 21. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=24&orgactid=undefined
  7. ↑ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, pg 5, Chapter III, Reg 6 https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/legalframwork/2018/Apr/word%20copy%20updated%20upto%2001.04.2018%20CIRP%20Regulations%202018_2018-04-11%2016:12:10.pdf
  8. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 22. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=25&orgactid=undefined
  9. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 25. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=28&orgactid=undefined
  10. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 30. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=35&orgactid=undefined
  11. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 31. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=36&orgactid=undefined
  12. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part II, Chapter II, s. 12. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=14&orgactid=undefined
  13. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 60. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=82#:~:text=(1)%20The%20Adjudicating%20Authority%2C,proceeding%20of%20such%20corporate%20debtor.
  14. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 6, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&sectionId=785&sectionno=6&orderno=6&orgactid=undefined
  15. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 7, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=7&orgactid=undefined
  16. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 8, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=8&orgactid=undefined
  17. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 9. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&orderno=9&orgactid=undefined
  18. ↑ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 21. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_2_11_00055_201631_1517807328273&sectionId=800&sectionno=21&orderno=24&orgactid=undefined
  19. ↑ Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2019) 16 SCC 479.https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2019/11/essar-steel-india-limited-supreme-court-reinforces-primacy-of-creditors-committee-insolvency-resolution/
  20. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part IV, Chapter I & II, ss. 188-196. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2154
  21. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Part IV, Chapter V, ss. 209-216. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2154
  22. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ss. 7-10.
  23. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 9; Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd v Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd (2017) 1 SCC 353 (operational creditor dispute test), Available at, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166780307/
  24. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ss. 13-14.
  25. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, s. 21
  26. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2019; Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 16 SCC 479.
  27. ↑ The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ss. 33-53.
  28. ↑ Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531. https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2019/11/essar-steel-india-limited-supreme-court-reinforces-primacy-of-creditors-committee-insolvency-resolution/
  29. ↑ Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Ltd v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, AIR 2021 SCC 196. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30560910/
  30. ↑ Surya Exim Limited Through Director Bhawani Singh vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court), 2024. https://itatonline.org/digest/surya-exim-ltd-through-director-bhawani-singh-v-uoi-2024-161-taxmann-com-749-2025-475-itr-306-gujhc/
  31. ↑ N Sundaresha Subramanian & Nikita Periwal,"Taxmen defy 'clean slate' rule, hit insolvent firms with fresh demands", The Economic Times, April 12, 2025, available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/taxmen-defy-clean-slate-rule-hit-insolvent-firms-with-fresh-demands/articleshow/120216044.cms? (November 21, 2025)
  32. ↑ Abhay Shrotiya,"Streamlining Real Estate Insolvency: IBBI's Blueprint for Transparent Inclusive Resolutions" 25 SCC ONLINE Times Journal https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/09/streamlining-real-estate-insolvency-ibbis-blueprint-for-transparent-inclusive-resolutions/
  33. ↑ Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Quarterly Newsletter: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Progress and Updates (Real Estate and Construction Insolvency Data as of March 2025) (Government of India, 2025).
Retrieved from "https://jdc-definitions.wikibase.wiki/w/index.php?title=Corporate_Insolvency_Resolution_Process&oldid=9917"