Insolvency and Restructuring

Practice

Insolvency & Bankruptcy

The full Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code architecture — from pre-CIRP restructuring to NCLAT and Supreme Court appeals.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 redirected commercial debt in India through one policy choice: resolution as a going concern is the default; liquidation is the exception. Every Section 7 admission, every resolution plan, every Section 29A test, every clean-slate doctrine is a downstream consequence of that decision. The firm advises across the entire architecture — before, during, and after CIRP — for financial creditors, operational creditors, resolution applicants, promoters, personal guarantors, and appellate parties.

What the firm does in this practice

  1. Pre-CIRP restructuring and out-of-court workouts

    Advisory under the RBI Prudential Framework on Stressed Assets (June 2019), one-time settlement structuring, ARC sales, inter-creditor agreement negotiation, and resolution outside the Code where commercial recovery is better preserved by avoiding admission.

  2. Section 7 applications — financial creditor admissions

    Documentation of financial debt, default proof, Information Utility records, threshold compliance, replies to maintainability objections, and arguments before NCLT benches across the country. Banks, NBFCs, debenture trustees, and structured-finance counterparties.

  3. Section 9 applications — operational creditor admissions

    Demand notices, dispute analysis under Section 8, threshold testing, and admission strategy where the operational creditor seeks resolution. Equally, defending Section 9 admissions where a pre-existing dispute is on record.

  4. Resolution plan structuring and Section 29A eligibility

    Drafting plans that meet both Committee of Creditors voting threshold and judicial scrutiny under Section 31. Section 29A clearance analysis, related-party tracing, ineligibility cure structures, and resolution-applicant due diligence.

  5. Avoidance transactions

    Preferential, undervalued, fraudulent, and extortionate transactions under Sections 43–51. Filing-date vs admission-date analysis under the 2024 amendments. Both sides — resolution professional applications and respondent defences.

  6. Personal guarantor insolvency under Part III

    Section 95 applications, interim moratorium effect on guarantor liability, repayment-plan negotiation, discharge proceedings, and the recent Supreme Court trajectory on the personal guarantor framework.

  7. Group, real-estate, and cross-border insolvency

    Group CIRP under the 2026 amendments, real-estate allottee treatment as financial creditors, builder insolvency under the RERA-IBC interface, and cross-border recognition under the proposed Indian framework based on the UNCITRAL Model Law.

  8. NCLAT and Supreme Court appellate practice

    Section 61 appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and Section 62 civil appeals before the Supreme Court of India through the Advocate-on-Record system. Includes review and curative petitions where the threshold is met.

The view from the firm

Most counsel read the IBC as a litigation playbook. The firm reads it as a commercial-decision framework. Whether to file under Section 7, when to invoke avoidance, whether to bid as a resolution applicant, whether to settle pre-admission — each is a commercial decision before it is a legal one. The Code rewards parties that understand this and penalises parties that treat it as ordinary litigation.

The most common error in IBC matters is filing or moving too early or too late. A Section 7 admitted before negotiation leverage is exhausted forfeits commercial recovery; the same admission a quarter later, after the borrower has dissipated assets, recovers nothing. A resolution plan submitted without Section 29A clearance fails at the Committee of Creditors vote or, worse, at the Section 31 stage. Avoidance applications filed late under the pre-2024 framework lose. Personal guarantor proceedings filed in the wrong forum are returned at the threshold.

The firm’s IBC practice applies three tests to every matter. First, is this the right forum — given that the same default may be addressed under the Code, under SARFAESI, or out of court entirely. Second, is the timing right — given the avoidance look-back window, the limitation analysis, and the negotiation runway. Third, does the proposed outcome survive both Committee of Creditors voting and the Section 31 judicial review. A matter that fails any of the three is a matter the firm structures differently, even if the Code permits the original course.

Deeper references

This page is informational. It is not advertisement or solicitation. The firm does not offer free consultations or invite engagement through this page. For correspondence relating to a specific matter, Use of this site is subject to the Bar Council of India Rule 36 framework.