Govt proposes IBC overhaul, shift of power from courtrooms to boardrooms
The Bill outlines a creditor-led, largely out-of-court insolvency process for quick rescue, faster tribunal timelines, a new framework for group insolvencies and cross-border bankruptcies, and clearer rules on the priority of government dues. It also marks a big departure from the current regime by allowing management of bankrupt companies to continue running day-to-day operations under the watch of a resolution professional.
At present, insolvency cases that are meant to be admitted within 14 days take an average 434 days, eroding value for lenders and shareholders.
'The proposed amendments aim to reduce delays, maximise value for all stakeholders, and improve governance," Sitharaman said in a statement tabled along with the Bill.
The Bill empowers rule maker Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to roll out a creditor-led insolvency resolution regime, under which most of the negotiations involving creditors, existing shareholders and new investors will happen out of court. A final corporate rescue plan will be placed before the tribunal for its seal of approval.
The eligibility thresholds will be notified once the Bill is passed. Select financial institutions can initiate insolvency outside court, while bankrupt businesses can continue to manage their affairs with oversight from a resolution professional who would attend board meetings and would have veto powers. This is a big departure from the current regime under which defaulting businesses lose management control as soon as they are admitted into insolvency.
NCLT will approve the final resolution plan in the creditor-led resolution scheme in the same way as the existing framework.
Moving the needle
The Bill comes as a game changer for the insolvency framework, said Anoop Rawat, national practice head for insolvency and restructuring at law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
'The proposed amendments introduce more certainty to admission of cases in NCLT and seek to settle the confusion on the status of statutory dues," said Rawat. 'As per the amendments proposed, statutory dues such as taxes, fees and penalties in the case of insolvent companies will rank below the dues owed to secured creditors who have contractual security interests, in the waterfall mechanism."
This seeks to clear the confusion arising from a Supreme Court ruling in 2022 in a dispute between Gujarat state tax authorities and Rainbow Papers Ltd. that the state is a secured creditor under the Gujarat VAT Act.
That ruling suggested that a security interest on the assets of a company can be created by mere operation of a statute. The Bill clarifies that security interest can exist only where there is a right or claim to a property based on an agreement by two or more parties, not merely by operation of any law.
Also, as per the proposed amendments, NCLT has to decide on applications for initiation of insolvency resolution within 14 days and record reasons if delayed, explained Rawat.
The proposed amendments say bankruptcy petitions by the financial creditors should be admitted if a default exists and no other grounds shall be considered for deciding on such an application.
Besides, once an application is admitted, the resolution professional with approval of 90% of the committee of creditors (CoC) can file for withdrawal with NCLT, and no withdrawal is permissible after admission till the constitution of the CoC, explained Rawat.
The changes are expected to reduce timelines for admitting applications related to financial debt, a government official said on condition of not being named.
Group insolvencies
The official added that a new chapter empowering the central government to create rules for coordinated or consolidated insolvency proceedings for group companies to align with international best practices has been included in the Bill.
Currently, the IBC handles each company's insolvency separately, even when group firms fail together—leading to duplicated work, higher costs, and lower recovery values.
Cross-border insolvencies
The existing cross-border insolvency framework under IBC is limited to bilateral agreements, often resulting in delays and inefficiencies. To address these challenges, a new section is proposed, empowering the Central government to prescribe rules for managing cross-border insolvency cases and to designate a dedicated NCLT Bench for handling such proceedings. This is expected to ensure a more streamlined and predictable process, the government official cited earlier said.
'By letting banks tackle group insolvencies in one go, chase assets overseas through cross-border provisions, and close deals faster with pre-packs for bigger corporates, the Bill shifts the game from courtroom marathons to boardroom negotiations," said Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Govt raises Maritime Development Fund to ₹70,000 cr to spur shipbuilding
The Centre is significantly scaling up its proposed Maritime Development Fund (MDF) to ₹70,000 crore, 2.8 times the allocation announced in the February Budget, to boost shipbuilding, ship repair, ancillary industries, expansion of shipping tonnage, and port-linked infrastructure, according to a report by The Economic Times. The revised corpus has reportedly already secured clearance from the expenditure finance committee (EFC), chaired by the finance ministry's expenditure secretary, with Cabinet approval expected shortly. MDF blended finance model The MDF will operate on a blended finance model: 49 per cent concessional capital from the government, including contributions from state-owned major ports, and 51 per cent commercial capital from multilateral and bilateral lenders as well as sovereign funds. When announced in February, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the fund would provide long-term, low-cost capital across the maritime value chain. By 2030, it is projected to generate ₹1.3–1.5 trillion in direct and indirect investment and create up to 1.1 million jobs. Massive investment needed by 2047 Government estimates peg India's maritime sector investment requirement between $885 billion and $940 billion by 2047, The Economic Times report said. This includes: $388 billion to expand shipping tonnage $260 billion for green vessels $224 billion for next-generation ports $18 billion to position India as a global shipbuilding and repair hub $8.82 billion to raise coastal and inland shipping's share $1.65 billion to boost cruise tourism India is targeting a top-10 global ranking in shipbuilding by 2030 and a top-five position by 2047, competing with South Korea, Japan, and China — the latter recently completing a $16-billion merger of two state-owned shipyards to cement its lead in global ship construction. Legislative push The monsoon session of Parliament, which concluded on August 12, saw the passage of four major legislations — the Merchant Shipping Bill, Coastal Shipping Bill, Carriage of Goods Bill, and Bills of Lading Bill — alongside the Lok Sabha's clearance of the Indian Ports Bill, replacing the 117-year-old Indian Ports Act, 1908. The EFC has also endorsed a revamped 'Ship Building Financial Assistance' scheme, a credit note mechanism for shipbreaking in Indian yards, the development of shipbuilding clusters, and infrastructure status for large ships, aligning with Budget announcements. Assistance levels are proposed at 15 per cent for standard vessels up to ₹100 crore, 20 per cent for advanced or specialised ships above ₹100 crore, and 25 per cent for green ships. Infrastructure status will apply to vessels costing ₹100 crore and above. Focus on Northeast In July, the government announced ₹5,000 crore in initiatives to strengthen waterways and maritime connectivity in the Northeast. These include ₹1,000 crore in inland waterway projects, with ₹300 crore completed and the rest due by 2025, new cargo terminals, heritage restoration, tourist jetties worth ₹299 crore, and 85 community jetties.


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Rahul Gandhi skips Independence Day event at Red Fort; ‘lover of Pakistan', says BJP
The BJP on Friday slammed Opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge for 'skipping' Independence Day celebrations at Red Fort in Delhi, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi hoisted the national flag and addressed the nation, calling their absence 'shameful behaviour.' Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge (right) (ANI file) Taking to X, BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla stated, 'Congress spokesperson in TV debate with me just now confirmed that 'LoP' Rahul Gandhi skipped 15th August Program at Red Fort. This was a national celebration but sadly Lover of Pakistan Rahul Gandhi – in Modi virodh does Desh & Sena Virodh! Shameful behaviour. Is this Sanvidhan and Sena ka Samman?' Rahul Gandhi, meanwhile, observed Independence Day at Indira Bhavan in Delhi, joining Congress workers and senior leaders for a flag-hoisting ceremony. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge unfurled the national flag at the event, which was attended by party functionaries from across the capital. Both Congress leaders extended heartfelt greetings to citizens on the occasion of India's 79th Independence Day, paying tribute to the country's freedom fighters. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge urged people to honour the legacy of the national movement by continuing the struggle for constitutional rights, social justice, economic empowerment, and national unity. Congress MP and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said that independence is a commitment to building a nation founded on truth, equality, and brotherhood. He said, 'Heartfelt Independence Day greetings to all countrymen. This freedom, achieved through the sacrifices of great freedom fighters, is a resolve to build an India where justice rests on the foundation of truth and equality, and every heart is filled with respect and brotherhood. It is the duty of all of us to protect the pride and honor of this precious heritage. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!' Rahul Gandhi's Red Fort seating controversy last year Last year, a controversy erupted when Rahul Gandhi was seated in the back rows during the Independence Day programme at the Red Fort. The Opposition criticised this as an insult to the people, while the government argued that seating arrangements were adjusted to accommodate Olympians attending the event. Gandhi, who enjoys the status of a Cabinet minister, was placed in the fifth or penultimate row of the VIP section when Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered his speech. As per protocol, the Leader of Opposition is usually seated in the front row during ceremonial events alongside senior ministers. This marked the first Independence Day programme since Modi took office in 2014 in which the Lok Sabha had a designated LoP. Officials involved in the seating arrangements, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained that some front-row VIP seats were allocated to Olympic medal winners, necessitating Gandhi's placement further back. Defence ministry officials, responsible for the arrangements, confirmed that the LoP was moved to the last few rows to accommodate the athletes.


The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Dismiss debate on EC functioning as ‘hoo-haa', then hail India as ‘robust democracy'
The EC is meant to be an autonomous constitutional body. In June 1949, the Constituent Assembly deliberated on its role and the need to keep it outside the executive's purview. It appointed a committee to deal with what were called Fundamental Rights. That committee recommended that elections to the legislature be regarded as a fundamental right and treated accordingly. Dismissing the intense public debate on the independence and functioning of the EC as 'hoo-ha', while simultaneously hailing India as a 'robust democracy,' reflects a clear ignorance of the very definition of democracy and the critical role the EC plays in preserving and sustaining it. Retired entrepreneur Jaithirth Rao concluded his treatise on the Election Commission of India thus: 'The hoo-ha about the Election Commission, about electoral rolls, and about EVMs suggests that irksome comic relief remains a part of the loud debates of our robust democracy. Perhaps we can also try to find other topics for loud debates.' The House, while recognising the fundamental importance of elections, wanted them to be provided for in another part of the Constitution rather than in the chapter dealing with Fundamental Rights. It affirmed—without any dissent—that in the interest of the purity and freedom of elections to legislative bodies, it was of the utmost importance to free them from any interference by the executive of the day. Accordingly, elections were removed from the category of Fundamental Rights and placed in a separate part containing Article 289, which transferred the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and of all elections to Parliament and the state legislatures to a body outside the executive, to be called the Election Commission. In the final draft of the Constitution, this provision became Article 324. Also read: Not 'One Election', India needs a just election. Step one is an impartial EC Making the EC subservient to the Centre The Supreme Court drew on these deliberations while delivering its judgment in W.P. (Civil) No. 104 of 2015 on 2 March 2023: 'Keeping in view the importance of maintaining the neutrality and independence of the office of the Election Commission to hold free and fair election which is a sine qua non for upholding the democracy as enshrined in our Constitution, it becomes imperative to shield the appointment of Election Commissioners and to be insulated from the executive interference. 'We declare that the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be made on the recommendations made by a three-member Committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and in case no Leader of Opposition is available, the Leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength and the Chief Justice of India…' The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 does the very opposite, making the EC subservient to the whims of the Prime Minister and Home Minister of the day, thereby endangering the very purpose for which the Commission was constituted. The results are clear: the EC has virtually become an extension of the North and South Block on Delhi's Raisina Hill. This bids farewell to free and fair elections in the 'world's largest democracy.' Evidence of this erosion came in the form of a letter to the EC by the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) of former senior civil servants on 11 April 2024: 'The ECI has made no efforts to assuage doubts in the minds of the thinking public and political parties about the integrity of EVMs and the need to use VVPATs effectively to ensure accuracy in the recording of votes. Nor has the ECI been particularly effective in enforcing the Model Code of Conduct to check its misuse, especially by the party in power… In the current elections as well, infractions of the Model Code of Conduct by no less a personage than the Prime Minister have not been acted upon by the ECI even after these were brought to its notice… In spite of the enormous powers vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, the ECI, in recent years, has exhibited a strange diffidence, especially in dealing with actions that impact the conduct of free and fair elections.' Also read: Listen to Rahul Gandhi. Fake voters should appall you, whichever party you support The shadow of doubt over 2024 elections Such an indictment by a group of former officials—who have direct knowledge and experience in conducting, monitoring, and supervising elections over the years—clearly indicates the decay and degeneration that has set into the EC. And this is not without reason. In August 2024, the Independent Panel for Monitoring Indian Elections (IPMIE) summed up the conduct and integrity of the 2024 parliamentary election thus: 1. Electoral procedure and alleged infractions in vote counting: The absence of adequate cross-verification between EVMs and VVPATs—the insistence on non-counting of VVPATs by design—may have facilitated large-scale, spurious injections of votes during each of the seven phases of voting. 2. Voting registration and allegations of voter exclusion and suppression: State-led voter suppression measures were reported from Gujarat (where hundreds of Muslim fishermen were reportedly struck off from voter rolls), Uttar Pradesh (where dozens of voters in Muslim- concentration villages were reportedly physically assaulted and restrained from voting by policemen), Jammu & Kashmir (where policemen detained party workers and activists unlawfully) and Assam, where around 100,000 residents had in the past been designated as 'doubtful voters' by the ECI. 3. Party financing and abuse of state agencies to deny level playing field: Data relating to electoral bonds appeared to confirm the ruling party's near-monopoly over political financing. 4. Sectarian rhetoric and media coverage: Throughout the election period, the BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, engaged in sectarian rhetoric on a hitherto unprecedented scale. At least 287 instances of hate speeches (including 61 by Modi) have been documented. The BJP's core narrative demonised Muslims (who were referred to as 'infiltrators' and 'jihadis', among other dehumanising terms). 5. Electoral authority: The ECI appeared largely to act like an arm of the government, refusing to take decisive action against violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and of electoral laws by ruling party members. The ECI's conduct throughout the election process reflected a systematic abdication of its constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections. Efforts by opposition parties, election watch bodies and citizens groups to address the many concerns to EC, went unheeded. 6. Lack of electoral redress: The performance of India's higher judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court (SC), during the 2024 General Elections to remedy various electoral integrity related grievances was weak and inadequate. Also read: Election Commission can't be a kingdom within a kingdom; it needs central oversight: KM Munshi Undoing of India's electoral democracy To make the EVM system auditable and voter-verifiable, the Supreme Court ordered the introduction of VVPATs in 2013. But in defiance of this order, in February 2018 Chief Election Commissioner OP Rawat directed state chief electoral officers to verify VVPAT slips in only one randomly selected polling station per assembly constituency. This pathetically low 0.3 per cent sample size defeated the very purpose of installing VVPATs in all EVMs — tantamount to non-implementation of the Supreme Court's order. Through bluff, bluster, and false affidavits filed in the Supreme Court, the EC has reduced VVPATs to meaningless bioscopes. Experts say this deliberate denial of verifiability and auditability has facilitated the spurious injection of votes in various constituencies by inflating vote percentages across multiple polling phases. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as in the Haryana and Maharashtra assembly polls, there were astounding mismatches or spikes — ranging from 7 per cent to 12 per cent — between the number of votes recorded immediately after polling and the figures released before counting. These anomalies, now the subject of raging controversy, have been compounded by the EC's failure to provide Form 17C—the ultimate proof of votes polled—to all candidates or their agents. This has triggered the suspicion of a 'stolen mandate'. Adding to this is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, which looks like a 'panic attack' on the EC that bypassed established training, drafting, and procedural safeguards. The electoral roll revision has no basis in law and was 'invented in haste' to pursue an agenda of disenfranchising millions of voters. The Supreme Court has observed that 'SIR of Bihar's electoral rolls is a contest between Article 324, which empowers the EC to control elections, and the constitutional right of adult suffrage enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution.' All of this reflects the arrogant and dismal functioning of the EC and its failure to ensure the integrity and fairness of elections, its raison d'être. By its commissions and omissions, the EC has landed itself in a whirlwind and is now facing an existential crisis. This could well be the undoing of India's electoral democracy. M.G. Devasahayam is a retired IAS officer and chairman of People-First. He also served in the Indian Army. He is the author of Emergency and Neo-Emergency: Who will defend Democracy? Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)