logo
Parliamentary panel to recommend fresh set of changes to insolvency code

Parliamentary panel to recommend fresh set of changes to insolvency code

Mint3 days ago

New Delhi: India's insolvency regime is set for further reform as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance will likely recommend a set of measures aimed at speeding up decisions and boosting creditor recoveries under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), two people familiar with the matter said. The suggestions will follow the committee's ongoing review of the Code.
The review comes amid growing demands for speeding up debt resolution and improving recovery rates, and legal complexities exposed by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Bhushan Power & Steel resolution case.
Read this | House panel to scan IBC functioning after SC's Bhushan order
The House panel, led by lawmaker Bhartruhari Mahtab, met last week with officials from the ministry of corporate affairs and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), along with executives of three state-run banks, to assess the performance of the Code since its rollout in 2016.
In the meeting, officials told the panel that the IBC has become the principal recovery mechanism for banks and financial institutions, accounting for nearly half of all debt recoveries, and has also helped reduce borrowing costs for distressed companies, one of the persons quoted above said. However, the process continues to suffer from persistent delays and subpar recovery rates in many cases, often due to protracted litigation among stakeholders.
So far, creditors have realised ₹3.89 trillion from approved debt resolution plans and ₹9,330 crore from liquidated companies, according to data from the IBBI. Another ₹1 trillion was realised from cases settled directly between creditors and companies.
The committee is expected to meet more stakeholders, including insolvency professionals and industry representatives, before finalising its report, one of the people cited above said. Among the concerns raised in last week's meetings were the challenges faced by homebuyers in ongoing insolvency cases, the person added.
Queries emailed on Monday to the ministry, the Parliamentary committee and IBBI seeking comments for the story remained unanswered at the time of publication.
Experts say that resolving these bottlenecks will require strengthening the judicial infrastructure supporting IBC.
'To improve the IBC process, we need faster court decisions. This can be done by increasing the number of judges, reducing adjournments, and using better technology for case tracking. The process should stick to strict timelines to avoid long delays that reduce the value of assets," said Ritesh Kumar Adatiya, director, NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd.
Court ruling questions IBC operations
The Supreme Court last month rejected the five-year-old resolution plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL), citing jurisdictional issues and violations of IBC provisions. The ₹19,700 crore successful bid by JSW Steel Ltd was overturned, and the court ordered the liquidation of the company. It later granted JSW time to file a review petition.
In a landmark ruling, the apex court held that bankruptcy tribunals do not have powers of judicial review over statutory authorities such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It also struck down an earlier National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order that had insulated BPSL's assets from ED attachment, saying the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Read this | Mint Explainer: The Supreme Court's Bhushan Power ruling that has stunned India's insolvency ecosystem
That decision, along with other recent Supreme Court rulings on the priority of statutory dues and the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) clearance requirements for certain resolution plans, has introduced new legal complexities not originally anticipated in the Code.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is now working on a draft amendment bill to clarify some of these ambiguities and streamline the process. The bill is expected to be tabled in Parliament later this year.
Despite the recent judicial setbacks, the Code has a strong foundation and remains robust in ensuring debt resolution, though some glitches persist in areas where the law remains unclear, said the second person cited earlier.
NPV Insolvency Professionals' Adatiya added that outcomes under IBC can improve significantly if resolution plans are filed earlier and by credible applicants. 'Proper background checks, faster approvals, and fewer legal hurdles after plans are approved can go a long way in protecting lenders' interests," he said.
Also read | A series of court orders changed bankruptcy rules. Now, the govt is amending the law
'IBC has helped change the credit culture in India," he added. 'But to improve outcomes, we need quicker resolution, stronger checks on resolution applicants, and better coordination between regulators, courts, and professionals. This will boost confidence and improve returns for creditors."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'If there has been a crime, why wasn't it punished,' asks Jagdeep Dhankhar on Justice Yashwant Varma issue
'If there has been a crime, why wasn't it punished,' asks Jagdeep Dhankhar on Justice Yashwant Varma issue

The Hindu

time43 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

'If there has been a crime, why wasn't it punished,' asks Jagdeep Dhankhar on Justice Yashwant Varma issue

Is a parliamentary motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma the answer, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar asked a gathering of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, in Chandigarh on Friday (June 6, 2025) adding that 'if there has been a crime, why wasn't it punished?' Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday (June 4, 2025) said the government would bring out a resolution in Parliament in the monsoon session for impeachment motion against Justice Varma. Justice Varma was subject of a probe by a Supreme Court-appointed panel after a fire incident at his Delhi residence led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Mr. Dhankhar said the government of the day was handicapped because of a three-decade-old judicial order that did not allow it to register a First Information Report (FIR) without permission from the judiciary. The Vice-President said, 'So I pose a question to myself, in deep pain, worried, concerned, in anguish — why was that permission not given? That was the minimum that could have been done on the earliest occasion.' He also questioned why even after the Supreme Court probe, Justice Varma has not been punished. 'I have raised the issue. Ultimately, if a motion is brought to remove a judge, is that the answer? If there has been a crime, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy — the rule of law, why wasn't it punished? We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not even been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed.' The permission should have been granted soon after the cash was discovered and if not then it should have come up at least when the Supreme Court-appointed panel filed its report considering the 'compulsive, expedient situation'. The cash haul, Mr. Dhankhar said, was 'obviously tainted, unaccounted, illegal and unexplained' and the system must move to find out 'whose money it is.' He further asked, 'Has the money influenced the judiciary in judicial work? All these issues are agitating not only the minds of lawyers but also people on the street. But let the lid be blown off the can of worms. Let these skeletons in the cupboards come out. Why was there no FIR? Why has there been no investigation at all?' The gap between 'may be true' and 'must be true', the Vice-President said, is very thin. 'But this thin distance has to be negotiated by evidence of unimpeachable veracity. So, I put innocence at a very high level. I am not aware of who is guilty. But one thing is for sure — a crime of great enormity, shaking the foundations of the judiciary and democracy, has taken place. I hope it will be addressed,' he said.

Elon Musk vs Donald Trump feud: What's at stake here?
Elon Musk vs Donald Trump feud: What's at stake here?

Mint

timean hour ago

  • Mint

Elon Musk vs Donald Trump feud: What's at stake here?

Elon Musk and Donald Trump are undoubtedly two of the most followed and heard people across the globe, but now they have turned their megaphones on each other, paving the way for one big controversy. Their disagreement on government policies is taking a new shape, which started with the criticism of the massive tax and domestic policy bill, which Musk had termed as a "disgusting abomination." Regarding the voting on the bill, Elon Musk has received support from only three House Republicans, including Reps. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R., Ohio), who previously voted against the bill. Meanwhile, Trump cannot afford to lose more than three votes, as doing so could jeopardize the future of his "big, beautiful bill". For Elon Musk, the numerous government contracts that his company, SpaceX, has amassed over recent times, including the $15.2 billion in contracts from NASA, and the $5.8 billion from the Department of Defense, could be at stake. Donald Trump has already floated the idea of fiddling with Musk's business dealings with the federal government. This could significantly impact SpaceX's future, as government contracts form a fundamental part of the company. Then comes the trickier aspects, which include the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation on Musk, which is related to the initial purchase of stakes in Twitter, which went on to later become X. An SEC investigation's furthering could mean a new headache for Musk, who already is knee-deep in government contracts, espcially with his other companies like Tesla and SpaceX. Although SpaceX has relatively fewer government contracts, there are numerous federal policies that directly affect its finances, including a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicle buyers that allows Tesla and other automakers to raise prices. Meanwhile, in an interesting development, a letter from JPMorgan to clients, which was sent out Thursday, estimates the loss of the EV tax credit could cost Tesla $1.2 billion a year, and the loss of regulatory credit sales could hit them by another $2 billion.

Delhi HC grants relief to CLAT-PG candidates, asks to declare results soon
Delhi HC grants relief to CLAT-PG candidates, asks to declare results soon

Business Standard

timean hour ago

  • Business Standard

Delhi HC grants relief to CLAT-PG candidates, asks to declare results soon

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to CLAT-PG candidates over alleged discrepancies in the answer key and directed the consortium of NLUs to declare results soon. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's decision came over the plea of students in relation to a couple of answers in the key. The court, however, rejected the objection with respect to the declared answer to a third question, and asked the consortium of national law universities (NLUs) to accordingly award marks to the candidates. The court passed the order while deciding three pleas seeking rectification of errors in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. The bench's verdict highlighted the issue of a high fee of Rs 1,000 charged by the consortium per question for raising the objection to the provisional answer key, observing there ought to be a "fine balance" between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions. While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations, the fees sought by the consortium "appeared to be excessive and disproportionate" but the consortium's concern that it was required to keep frivolous individuals and coaching institutes at bay also did not appear to be "fanciful or imaginative", it added. The bench, however, expected the consortium to take heed of its observations and take appropriate steps to "avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations". "It may be advisable for the consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (retd) for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it," the bench said. The court ruled on the correctness of the answers in the answer key after considering each question and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the consortium. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country. CLAT PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong. On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a "consistent adjudication". The top court passed the direction on the transfer petitions of the consortium.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store