Worldwide: Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

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.

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 (“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.

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 Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling addressing the growing threat of AI-generated fabricated legal precedents in judicial proceedings. In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., the Court established a zero-tolerance policy toward hallucinated case law, setting aside tribunal orders that relied on non-existent judgments while establishing comprehensive guidelines for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession.

The 2026 IBC amendments have fundamentally altered the dynamics of personal guarantor insolvency proceedings by eliminating automatic interim stays. What was once a powerful tool for promoters to halt recovery actions through a simple filing now requires substantive judicial scrutiny, shifting the balance of power back toward creditors and forcing lenders to reassess their enforcement strategies across multiple forums.