Whatsapp
Understanding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and Liquidation Mechanisms under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Introduction
The Indian economy witnessed a transformative shift in 2016 when the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code received Presidential assent on May 28, 2016. [1] This landmark legislation fundamentally restructured how India addresses corporate distress, replacing a fragmented system of multiple laws with a unified, time-bound framework. Before the IBC’s enactment, creditors struggled through prolonged litigation across various forums, often recovering mere fractions of their dues after decades of legal battles. The Code emerged as a response to the mounting crisis of non-performing assets that threatened to destabilize India’s banking sector and stifle economic growth.
The genesis of the IBC lies in the need for early detection and resolution of financial stress. When companies face temporary liquidity challenges or structural problems, swift intervention can mean the difference between revival and liquidation. The Code recognizes this reality by prioritizing resolution over winding up, thereby preserving employment, protecting creditor interests, and maintaining economic value. This philosophical shift marks a departure from the debtor-in-possession model that previously dominated Indian insolvency law, where management retained control even during financial distress.
What distinguishes the IBC from preceding legislation is its emphasis on collective creditor action through the Committee of Creditors, strict timelines that prevent indefinite proceedings, and a hierarchy that places financial creditors at the forefront of decision-making. The Code operates on the principle that insolvency is not a moral failure but an economic reality that requires swift, commercially pragmatic solutions. By removing management from control during the resolution process and vesting authority in creditors, the IBC seeks to maximize asset value while providing a fresh start to honest entrepreneurs.
The Architecture of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process represents the cornerstone of the IBC’s approach to corporate distress. Unlike liquidation, which dismantles an enterprise, CIRP aims to revive and restructure it. This process can be initiated by financial creditors under Section 7, operational creditors under Section 9, or by the corporate debtor itself under Section 10 of the Code. Each route serves different stakeholders but converges into a unified procedure designed to balance competing interests while maintaining strict deadlines.
When a financial creditor detects a default, they may file an application before the National Company Law Tribunal, which serves as the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. The threshold for default has been set at rupees one lakh, though this amount underwent several revisions before settling at its current level. The application must demonstrate the existence of debt and default, accompanied by records from information utilities or other evidence establishing the default. Importantly, the initial admission stage does not require the Adjudicating Authority to conduct a detailed inquiry into disputed claims. The Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Private Limited versus Union of India clarified that the admission stage merely requires establishing a prima facie case of default, not an exhaustive adjudication of the debt. [2]
Upon admission of the application, the CIRP commences, triggering an automatic moratorium under Section 14 of the Code. This moratorium prohibits the institution or continuation of suits against the corporate debtor, enforcement of security interests, recovery of property, and any action that would diminish the debtor’s assets. The moratorium serves multiple purposes: it provides breathing space for the resolution process, prevents individual creditor actions that could destroy collective value, and ensures orderly proceedings. During this period, the corporate debtor’s management is displaced, and an Interim Resolution Professional assumes control.
The timeline for CIRP is strictly circumscribed. The Code mandates completion within one hundred and eighty days from the insolvency commencement date, extendable by ninety days with Committee of Creditors approval. Following the 2019 amendment, the outer limit stands at three hundred and thirty days, including time consumed in legal proceedings. This rigid timeline reflects the legislature’s intent to prevent the resolution process from degenerating into prolonged litigation that erodes enterprise value. However, critics have questioned whether such strict timelines allow adequate time for meaningful negotiations, particularly for complex corporate debtors with diverse stakeholders.
The Interim Resolution Professional, appointed by the Adjudicating Authority, performs critical functions during the initial phase. This professional must be licensed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and possesses specialized expertise in managing distressed enterprises. Their responsibilities include taking custody of debtor assets, collating creditor claims, constituting the Committee of Creditors, and managing operations as a going concern. The IRP walks a delicate tightrope, balancing the need to preserve value while accommodating creditor interests and maintaining operational continuity.
Once creditor claims are verified, the Committee of Creditors convenes in its first meeting. Financial creditors constitute this committee, wielding voting rights proportional to their debt. Operational creditors, despite being crucial stakeholders, do not enjoy voting rights but may attend meetings and make representations. This differential treatment sparked constitutional challenges, which the Supreme Court addressed in the Swiss Ribbons judgment. The Court held that the distinction between financial and operational creditors rests on intelligible differentia. Financial creditors assess credit risk and price it into their lending decisions, making them appropriate decision-makers for resolution plans. Operational creditors, conversely, evaluate commercial risk related to goods and services, not insolvency risk. [2]
The Committee of Creditors holds immense power during CIRP. They may replace the Interim Resolution Professional with a Resolution Professional of their choice, approve resolution process costs, and most critically, evaluate and vote on resolution plans. A resolution plan requires approval by at least sixty-six percent of voting shares. This supermajority threshold ensures that any approved plan enjoys substantial creditor support, reducing the likelihood of contentious implementation. The Committee’s commercial wisdom guides their decision-making, and courts generally refrain from substituting their judgment for that of creditors, except when plans violate statutory requirements.
Resolution plans submitted by prospective applicants must meet several mandatory criteria outlined in Section 30 of the Code. Plans must provide for payment of insolvency resolution process costs, repayment of operational creditors to the extent prescribed, and management of the corporate debtor’s affairs. Plans cannot contravene any law and must conform to conditions prescribed by regulations. Section 29A imposes eligibility restrictions, disqualifying certain persons from submitting resolution plans, including wilful defaulters, persons whose accounts have been classified as non-performing for over a year, and those convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited versus Satish Kumar Gupta crystallized several principles governing resolution plans. [3] The Court emphasized that the Committee of Creditors possesses commercial wisdom to determine plan viability and that courts should not interfere with these commercial decisions. However, the judgment also established that dissenting financial creditors and operational creditors cannot receive less than what they would receive under liquidation waterfall provisions. This “minimum liquidation value” benchmark ensures fairness while respecting creditor autonomy.
Fast Track Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
Recognizing that smaller entities require expedited procedures, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code introduced the Fast Track Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 55. This streamlined procedure applies to startups, small companies, and other categories notified by the Central Government. The Fast Track CIRP compresses timelines, requiring completion within ninety days from the insolvency commencement date, with a possible forty-five-day extension. This abbreviated timeline reflects the relatively simpler capital structures and stakeholder compositions of smaller enterprises.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India notified the Fast Track CIRP Regulations in 2017, establishing procedural modifications suited to smaller debtors. These regulations simplify documentation requirements, expedite claim verification, and streamline Committee of Creditors proceedings. The Fast Track process recognizes that small enterprises cannot bear prolonged resolution costs and that swift resolution preserves more value than extended proceedings. However, in practice, Fast Track CIRP has seen limited utilization, partly because many small debtors opt for voluntary liquidation rather than resolution attempts.
The eligibility criteria for Fast Track CIRP initially included companies with assets and turnover below specified thresholds. The objective was to provide a rapid exit mechanism for distressed small businesses while minimizing resolution costs. However, concerns about potential misuse and the need for sufficient time to attract resolution applicants have led to cautious implementation. The tension between speed and thoroughness remains an ongoing challenge in Fast Track proceedings.
The Liquidation Process under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016
When resolution fails or becomes infeasible, liquidation provides the terminal procedure for winding up corporate debtors. Section 33 of the IBC specifies circumstances triggering liquidation. These include situations where the Committee of Creditors resolves to liquidate with a seventy-five percent majority, where no resolution plan is received before the deadline, where the Adjudicating Authority rejects submitted plans as non-compliant, or where the approved resolution plan’s implementation fails. Liquidation represents the final recourse when revival proves impossible.
Upon ordering liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority appoints a liquidator, typically the Resolution Professional who conducted the preceding CIRP. The liquidation order triggers a fresh moratorium under Section 33, prohibiting institution or continuation of suits, transferring pending litigation to the Tribunal, and preventing creditor actions against the corporate debtor. This moratorium ensures orderly liquidation without individual creditor interference that could disrupt asset distribution.
The liquidator assumes extensive powers and responsibilities under Section 35 of the Code. These include taking custody of debtor assets, investigating the corporate debtor’s affairs, determining the liquidation estate, and selling assets to satisfy creditor claims. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has issued comprehensive Liquidation Process Regulations that prescribe detailed procedures for asset verification, valuation, sale, and distribution. [4] These regulations balance the need for transparent, competitive asset sales with practical considerations of maximizing realization.
Asset sales typically occur through public auctions to ensure transparency and competitive bidding. However, Regulation 33 of the Liquidation Process Regulations permits private sales after consultation with the stakeholders consultation committee in certain circumstances. [5] This flexibility recognizes that some assets may not attract adequate interest in auctions or may require specialized marketing efforts. The liquidator must exercise commercial judgment in selecting sale methods that maximize creditor recoveries.
The distribution of liquidation proceeds follows a strict waterfall outlined in Section 53 of the Code. This priority hierarchy reflects policy choices about which claims merit preferential treatment. Insolvency resolution process costs and liquidation costs receive first priority, recognizing that these expenses make the entire process possible. Workmen’s dues for two years preceding liquidation rank next, protecting employee interests. Secured creditors follow, subject to certain limitations, then workmen’s dues beyond the two-year period, wages and unpaid dues to employees, financial debts owed to unsecured creditors, and finally government dues. Equity shareholders occupy the last position, receiving distributions only after all other claims are satisfied.
This waterfall mechanism sparked considerable litigation, particularly regarding the treatment of operational creditors and government dues. The Essar Steel judgment clarified that operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors cannot receive less in a resolution plan than they would receive under the liquidation waterfall. [3] This principle ensures that resolution plans provide genuine value to all stakeholders rather than merely facilitating asset transfers at distressed prices.
Key Institutional Players in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Framework
The successful implementation of the IBC depends on several institutional actors performing specialized roles. The National Company Law Tribunal serves as the Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons, exercising jurisdiction over admission of insolvency applications, approval of resolution plans, and liquidation orders. The NCLT’s role is supervisory and facilitative rather than adjudicatory in the traditional sense. The Tribunal does not substitute its commercial judgment for that of creditors but ensures procedural compliance and statutory adherence.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India functions as the regulator overseeing the entire insolvency ecosystem. Established under Section 188 of the Code, IBBI registers and regulates insolvency professionals, insolvency professional agencies, and information utilities. The Board issues regulations prescribing detailed procedures for resolution and liquidation, maintains ethical standards, and enforces disciplinary action against erring professionals. IBBI’s regulatory oversight ensures professionalism and accountability in insolvency proceedings.
Insolvency professionals constitute the operational backbone of the IBC framework. These licensed individuals serve as Interim Resolution Professionals, Resolution Professionals, or Liquidators, managing corporate debtors during insolvency proceedings. Their professional competence directly impacts outcomes, as they must balance competing stakeholder interests while maximizing asset value. The Code imposes significant responsibilities on insolvency professionals, coupled with potential liability for negligence or misconduct. This accountability mechanism ensures that professionals exercise due care and maintain high ethical standards.
Information utilities represent an innovative institution introduced by the IBC. These entities maintain electronic databases of financial information, creating an authenticated record of debts and defaults. When operational, information utilities will streamline the admission process by providing reliable evidence of defaults, reducing litigation over debt validity. However, the operationalization of information utilities has progressed slowly, and creditors continue relying on traditional documentation for proving defaults.
Critical Jurisprudence Shaping Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Implementation
The interpretation and application of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provisions have generated substantial litigation, producing landmark judgments that clarify the Code’s operation. The Swiss Ribbons case validated the IBC’s constitutional foundations, rejecting challenges to provisions differentiating between financial and operational creditors. [2] The Supreme Court held that such classification rests on intelligible differentia and bears rational nexus to the Code’s objectives. This judgment provided crucial legal certainty, enabling stakeholders to proceed with confidence in the IBC’s validity.
The Essar Steel judgment addressed contentious issues regarding resolution plan distribution and creditor rights. [3] The Court ruled that the Committee of Creditors cannot arbitrarily decide differential treatment among similarly situated creditors without objective criteria. Dissenting financial creditors must receive at least as much as they would under liquidation, and operational creditors cannot be denied their legitimate dues. This judgment imposed fairness constraints on Committee decisions while respecting their commercial wisdom.
In Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited versus Satish Kumar Gupta, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 29A’s eligibility restrictions. [6] The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, holding that ineligibility provisions aim to exclude undesirable elements from acquiring distressed assets through resolution plans. Connected persons of ineligible entities also face disqualification, preventing circumvention through proxy bidders. This strict interpretation ensures that the resolution process maintains integrity and prevents misuse by defaulters.
Challenges and Evolving Jurisprudence
Despite its transformative impact, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code faces implementation challenges. The strict timelines, while preventing delays, sometimes prove insufficient for complex corporate debtors with extensive operations. Balancing speed with thoroughness remains an ongoing tension. The treatment of homebuyers as financial creditors following amendments has introduced complications in real estate CIRP, where thousands of individual homebuyers may join the Committee of Creditors, complicating decision-making.
The interface between the IBC and other laws generates jurisdictional conflicts. The Code includes Section 238, declaring IBC provisions to override inconsistent laws. However, courts continue grappling with situations where multiple legal frameworks intersect. The relationship between criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and CIRP moratorium exemplifies such complexities. Courts have held that criminal proceedings continue despite moratorium, though recovery actions face restrictions.
The COVID-19 pandemic tested the IBC’s resilience, prompting temporary amendments that raised minimum default thresholds and suspended fresh insolvency proceedings. These measures reflected pragmatic recognition that pandemic-induced distress differed from conventional insolvency. However, they also sparked debates about the Code’s flexibility and whether permanent modifications might be necessary to address systemic economic shocks.
Conclusion
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code represents a paradigm shift in India’s approach to corporate distress, introducing time-bound procedures, creditor control, and institutional mechanisms for efficient resolution. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process prioritizes revival over liquidation, seeking to preserve economic value and employment. When resolution fails, the liquidation framework provides an orderly winding-up mechanism that balances competing interests through a statutory priority waterfall.
Judicial interpretation has strengthened the IBC’s foundations while addressing implementation challenges. The Supreme Court’s judgments in Swiss Ribbons and Essar Steel established crucial principles that guide stakeholders and tribunals. The Code’s emphasis on commercial wisdom, strict timelines, and creditor primacy marks a fundamental departure from previous insolvency regimes that often favored debtors and enabled indefinite litigation.
Looking forward, the IBC’s success depends on continued refinement addressing practical challenges while maintaining its core philosophy. Strengthening institutional capacity, operationalizing information utilities, and developing specialized expertise among insolvency professionals remain critical priorities. The Code has undeniably transformed India’s insolvency landscape, providing a robust framework for addressing corporate distress. As the ecosystem matures, the IBC promises to contribute significantly to India’s ease of doing business while protecting creditor interests and facilitating entrepreneurship.
References
[1] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016), India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2154
[2] Swiss Ribbons Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 17, https://ibclaw.in/landmark-judgment-of-apex-court-in-the-matter-of-swiss-ribbons-pvt-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-under-ibc/
[3] Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 531, https://ibclaw.in/summary-of-landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-in-committee-of-creditors-of-essar-steel-india-limited-vs-satish-kumar-gupta-ors-under-ibc/
[4] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, https://ibclaw.in/ibbi-liquidation-process-regulations/
[5] Regulation 33, IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, Mode of Sale, https://ibclaw.in/liquidation-process-regulation-33-of-ibbi-liquidation-process-regulations-2016-mode-of-sale/
[6] Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others, (2018) 10 SCC 1, https://www.prashantkanha.com/insolvency-landmark-judgments-of-2019/
[7] PRS Legislative Research, “Five Years of IBC: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in Numbers” (2021), https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/five-years-of-ibc-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-in-numbers
[8] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Official Website, https://ibbi.gov.in/en
[9] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, https://ibclaw.in/ibbi-cirp-regulations/
