New Delhi (ABC Live): Today, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs released a PIB press note on 10 years of IBC in India. The release is dated 28 May 2026. Moreover, it presents the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as a major reform in India’s insolvency system.
In addition, the PIB note says the Code changed credit markets, company conduct and investor confidence. According to the release, IBC has moved beyond a simple legal reform. Instead, it has become an institutional change in India’s credit economy.
However, an anniversary note cannot be read only as celebration. It must also be read as a balance sheet. Therefore, this report tests the official claims against IBC’s real goals. Those goals are speed, value, revival, fairness, cost control and process integrity.
The PIB text reviewed for this report carries the same official framing and figures. Therefore, ABC Live uses it as the base document for this critical analysis.
Why India Needed IBC
Before this reform, India had a slow debt and insolvency system. Cases moved through many laws and forums. As a result, companies often lost value before creditors recovered money.
Meanwhile, banks suffered as bad loans remained tied up in lengthy proceedings. Workers also suffered because failing firms could not restart quickly. Moreover, promoters often retained control even after serious default.
Therefore, the Code was not meant to be just another recovery law. Instead, it aimed to change India’s default culture. More importantly, it shifted the system from promoter control to creditor-led resolution.
A New Deal Between Business and Accountability
IBC created a new deal. A business could fail. However, failure could not remain stuck in endless court cases.
Creditors could recover value. Yet recovery was not the only goal. At the same time, viable firms had to be saved wherever possible.
Promoters also received a clear message. They could build companies and take business risks. Nevertheless, they could not keep control forever after serious default.
Therefore, IBC changed more than procedure. It changed the power balance between debtors, creditors and failing companies.
Why Insolvency Affects Everyone
Insolvency does not affect banks alone. Workers, MSME suppliers, homebuyers and investors also suffer when a company fails.
Therefore, a good insolvency law must protect value. It must also save viable firms. Finally, it must allow a clean exit when revival fails.
This is why 10 years of IBC require a balanced review. The Code has delivered real gains. However, it now needs a deeper audit.
What the PIB Release Says
Official Data in the PIB Release
To begin with, the PIB release gives strong official data. As of March 2026, 1,419 cases had yielded resolution plans. Through these plans, creditors realised over ₹4 lakh crore.
In addition, realisation stood at 95% of fair value and 167% of liquidation value. Therefore, the official picture shows that resolution has often produced better value than distress sale.
Further, 8,987 cases had been admitted. Of them, 7,102 cases had been closed. The release treats 4,099 companies as rescued. However, 3,003 cases ended in liquidation.
Besides this, more than 30,000 pre-admission matters were settled. These matters involved nearly ₹14 lakh crore. Consequently, the data shows that IBC has had a major impact even before formal admission.
Why These Numbers Need Testing
Clearly, these numbers show real gains. However, they do not tell the full story.
A fair review must ask deeper questions. Did the Code give fast resolution? Did it save value? Moreover, did it revive companies and avoid misuse as a shortcut to recovery?
Therefore, ABC Live reads the PIB note as a starting point, not as the final verdict. In short, the data proves progress. At the same time, it also invites scrutiny.
Moreover, the figures must be read with care. On one hand, they show that IBC changed debtor behaviour. On the other hand, they also show that the Code creates strong pressure even before formal admission.
Therefore, the same data proves both success and risk. In other words, IBC has improved credit discipline. However, it may also invite recovery-style use.
Why ABC Live Is Publishing This Report Now
IBC Is Now Part of India’s Growth Story
As a result, IBC is now part of India’s economic system. India needs strong banks, deeper credit markets and faster business exits.
Therefore, insolvency law is not a narrow legal subject. Instead, it is now part of India’s growth story.
Moreover, the reform debate is active. PRS notes that the IBC Amendment Bill, 2025 aims to address delay and legal issues. According to PRS, CIRPs that ended in resolution plans took an average of 602 days. The legal limit is 330 days. In addition, about 78% of ongoing CIRPs had crossed 270 days.
The Second Decade Needs Delivery
In broad terms, the first decade built the framework. However, the second decade must test delivery.
The law must now become faster. In addition, it must become cheaper. Most importantly, it must remain focused on real resolution.
Otherwise, IBC may retain strong legal design but lose economic force. Therefore, the next phase must focus on institutions, not only statutes.
IBC’s Main Objectives
Resolution, Not Mere Recovery
At its core, IBC is meant for insolvency resolution. It is not a simple debt recovery law.
Therefore, courts and tribunals must separate real insolvency from pressure-based recovery. Otherwise, creditors may use the IBC as a quicker threat rather than a genuine resolution process.
This distinction is important because IBC creates serious legal pressure. Once a case is admitted, control shifts away from the existing management. Consequently, many debtors settle before admission.
That may improve repayment culture. However, it may also encourage creditors to use the IBC as a tool of pressure.
Value Maximisation
A running business is often worth more than broken assets. Hence, the Code aims to save value before it disappears.
This goal matters because delay destroys value. Moreover, delay weakens bidder interest. As a result, creditors may receive less even when the process ends in a plan.
Therefore, speed and value must be read together. Without speed, value maximisation becomes weak.
Revival of Viable Companies
Resolution is the first choice. If a company can survive, the process should help save it.
However, liquidation should come only when revival is not possible. Therefore, the law must preserve going-concern value wherever possible.
At the same time, revival cannot be judged only by closure numbers. A company may exit the process. Yet that does not always mean it has returned to healthy business.
Time-Bound Process
Importantly, the Code promised speed. Yet delay remains a major problem.
Delay reduces value. Moreover, it raises cost. As a result, bidder interest also weakens.
Therefore, time discipline is not just a procedural goal. It is a core economic goal.
Credit Discipline
IBC has changed debtor behaviour. Many cases now settle before admission.
Nevertheless, this pressure must not become coercion. Otherwise, IBC may drift away from its true purpose.
Therefore, deterrence is useful only when it supports real resolution. It becomes risky when it becomes only a recovery threat.
Stakeholder Balance
A fair process must balance many interests. These include banks, suppliers, workers, MSMEs and homebuyers.
In practice, financial creditors still hold the strongest position. Therefore, smaller creditors need careful protection.
Moreover, stakeholder balance matters for the wider economy. If small suppliers suffer heavy losses, distress can spread through the supply chain.
Orderly Liquidation
Where revival fails, liquidation gives a legal exit. Still, liquidation should remain the last option.
A liquidation-heavy system may close cases. Yet it may not save enterprise value. Therefore, liquidation numbers need careful reading.
Cross-Verified Data Dashboard
Official PIB Data
| Indicator | PIB Figure | Critical Reading |
|---|---|---|
| CIRP cases admitted | 8,987 | Shows wide use of IBC |
| Cases closed | 7,102 | Shows major process movement |
| Resolution plans | 1,419 | Formal revival remains limited |
| Creditor realisation | Over ₹4 lakh crore | Strong recovery figure |
| Realisation against fair value | 95% | Positive, but needs context |
| Realisation against liquidation value | 167% | Shows better value than distress sale |
| Pre-admission settlements | Over 30,000 cases | Shows deterrent effect |
| Amount in settlements | Nearly ₹14 lakh crore | Shows recovery pressure |
| Liquidation cases | 3,003 | High liquidation remains a concern |
| Companies treated as rescued | 4,099 | Broad official category |
PRS Adds Context
The PIB release gives the official picture. However, PRS adds a key check.
As of June 2025, PRS recorded 8,492 admitted CIRP cases. It also recorded 1,258 approved plans and 2,824 liquidation orders.
Moreover, PRS said resolved cases recovered about 33% of admitted claims and 171% of liquidation value. Therefore, recovery appears strong on one benchmark and modest on another.
This comparison is important because it changes the reader’s understanding of success. Against liquidation value, IBC appears highly effective. However, against admitted claims, the recovery picture becomes more modest.
Therefore, both figures must appear together in any serious public-interest analysis. In addition, the PRS timeline data shows that delay remains a central weakness.
Recovery Benchmarks Matter
| Benchmark | What It Shows | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Liquidation value | Resolution beats distress sale | Positive sign |
| Fair value | Some business value is saved | Needs case review |
| Admitted claims | Creditors still take haircuts | Shows recovery limits |
Why the “Rescue” Claim Needs Care
The PIB release treats many closures as rescue. This includes plans, withdrawals, settlements, appeals and reviews.
However, every closure is not a real business revival. A settlement may show pressure. A withdrawal may show payment. Yet neither always proves that the company became healthy.
Therefore, ABC Live should treat the “58% rescued” figure with care. It is useful. Still, it needs explanation.
In addition, the word “rescued” should not be read too widely. Some companies may genuinely return to business. Others may exit the process through withdrawal, settlement or appeal.
Hence, the official figure is useful. Nevertheless, it still needs explanation.
Ground 1: IBC Changed Credit Discipline
Debtor Behaviour Changed
The Code changed the fear of default. Earlier, many debtors could delay repayment for years.
After IBC, serious default can lead to loss of control. As a result, creditors gained stronger leverage.
This change has value. It made borrowers take default more seriously. In addition, it provided lenders with a credible legal avenue.
As a result, IBC changed the negotiating table. Earlier, debtors often had more time and more procedural space. After IBC, creditors gained a stronger legal route.
Therefore, repayment behaviour improved. However, stronger creditor power also needs safeguards.
Pre-Admission Settlements Show Pressure
The PIB release records over 30,000 pre-admission settlements. These matters involved nearly ₹14 lakh crore.
This shows the Code’s deterrent effect. It also shows a shift in debtor-creditor conduct.
However, deterrence must be used with care. A strong law can improve discipline. Yet the same law can become a tool of pressure.
The Risk Behind This Success
This success has two sides. On one side, it improves repayment culture. On the other side, it may invite pressure-based filings.
Therefore, IBC must separate true insolvency from recovery disputes.
Moreover, NCLT must remain alert at the admission stage. Otherwise, the threat of insolvency may become stronger than the need for real insolvency resolution.
Critical Finding
IBC made default costly. However, it must not become a backdoor recovery court.
Ground 2: IBC as a Recovery Shortcut
Why Creditors Use IBC Pressure
Some creditors use IBC as a shortcut for recovery. Even filing for insolvency can put pressure on a debtor.
Once admission looks possible, the debtor faces serious risk. The company may face moratorium, public stigma and loss of control.
As a result, many cases settle before CIRP begins. This may improve payment discipline. However, it may also turn IBC into a tool of threat.
This is one of the most important risks in IBC’s first decade. On the positive side, pre-admission settlement reduces litigation and improves repayment discipline. However, on the negative side, it may turn insolvency filing into a bargaining tool.
Therefore, tribunals must protect the boundary between insolvency and recovery.
Pre-Admission Settlement Data
| Data Point | Figure | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-admission settlements | Over 30,000 | Creditors use IBC pressure |
| Amount involved | Nearly ₹14 lakh crore | Shows huge pressure |
| Formal resolution plans | 1,419 | True CIRP revival is smaller |
| Resolution realisation | Over ₹4 lakh crore | Strong, but lower than settlement value |
Recovery Pressure vs Real Insolvency
The data shows strong pre-admission impact. However, it also raises a concern.
IBC may sometimes work as a recovery shortcut. That is not its real purpose.
ABC Live has also examined this concern in its analysis of cases of IBC recovery misuse. That analysis supports the same warning.
Therefore, IBC’s deterrent power should not turn the Code into a coercive route for recovery.
Judicial Warning Against Misuse
The Supreme Court’s Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. principle is important. It protects debtors where a real pre-existing dispute exists.
Therefore, insolvency law should not become a tool of pressure in ordinary disputes.
Moreover, the Mobilox principle remains relevant because it protects the line between debt dispute and insolvency. If a real dispute exists, IBC should not be used to force payment.
Critical Finding
Pre-admission settlement shows success. However, the same success can become misuse if not controlled.
Ground 3: Recovery Improved, But Haircuts Remain
Recovery Through Plans
According to the PIB release, creditors realised over ₹4 lakh crore through resolution plans. The release also records realisation at 95% of fair value and 167% of liquidation value.
Together, these figures show clear gains in recovery.
Why Benchmarks Matter
PRS records recoveries of about 33% of admitted claims and 171% of liquidation value.
Therefore, the same result appears different across tests.
Against liquidation value, the Code looks strong. Against admitted claims, creditors still take large haircuts.
Therefore, recovery must be explained honestly. The Code has performed better than the old system. However, it has not removed creditor losses.
Why Haircuts Stay High
Many companies enter IBC too late. In addition, assets lose value during litigation.
Operations also weaken. As a result, bidders may offer less.
This is why early action matters. If a firm enters IBC after economic damage, recovery will remain limited.
In addition, delay and weak assets reduce bidder interest. As a result, recovery may appear strong relative to liquidation value but weak relative to total claims.
Critical Finding
IBC performs well against liquidation value. However, large haircuts remain a real concern.
Ground 4: Delay Weakens IBC
Statutory Timeline
IBC promised a time-bound process. The aim was simple: avoid delay and save value.
Nevertheless, actual timelines remain far longer than the law intended.
PRS records show that CIRPs ending in plans took an average of 602 days. The legal limit is 330 days. In addition, about 78% of ongoing CIRPs had crossed 270 days.
How Delay Destroys Value
Delay is not a technical problem alone. It directly affects value. As time passes, machinery may lose value. Meanwhile, contracts may collapse, and workers may leave.
Consequently, the final resolution plan may offer less. Therefore, delay reform is not just about speed. It is also about better recovery, better revival and better market trust.
| Delay Impact | Result |
|---|---|
| Asset value falls | Creditors recover less |
| Employees leave | Revival becomes hard |
| Litigation cost rises | Process becomes costly |
| Bidders offer less | Resolution value falls |
| NCLT backlog grows | Trust weakens |
NCLT Capacity
NCLT capacity is central to the Code’s future. The tribunal handles admissions, moratoriums, plan approvals, and liquidations.
Therefore, even a strong law will fail if the tribunal remains overburdened.
Delay also creates another problem. It can increase process cost. Moreover, it can weaken trust in the process.
Critical Finding
IBC is faster than the old system. However, it is still slower than its own promise.
Ground 5: High Cost of the IBC Process
Main Cost Heads
The IBC process is not cheap. Costs include RP fees, legal fees, valuation costs and audit costs.
They also include public notices, data rooms, security, CoC meetings and litigation.
In large cases, these costs may be justified. However, small firms may not have enough value left to bear them.
Why Cost Hurts Small Firms
These costs may be fine in large cases. However, they hurt smaller firms and MSMEs.
If process cost eats value, creditors gain less. Workers and small suppliers may also suffer.
Therefore, cost control is part of value maximisation. It is not a side issue.
Cost also affects fairness. Large creditors may absorb legal and process expenses. However, smaller creditors, workers and MSME suppliers may suffer more when costs rise.
Therefore, cost discipline is part of stakeholder protection. Moreover, cost and delay move together.
Delay and Cost Are Linked
Delay raises cost. The longer CIRP runs, the more parties spend.
Therefore, delay and cost must be treated together.
Liquidation Adds Another Cost
The PIB release records 3,003 liquidation cases. In these cases, creditors may bear CIRP cost first. Then they may bear liquidation cost.
Consequently, failed resolution can create a double cost burden. This is why cost discipline must become central to the second decade.
Critical Finding
IBC cannot maximise value if the process itself consumes value.
Ground 6: Liquidation Remains High
Resolution Should Come First
Therefore, resolution should remain the first preference. The aim is to save viable businesses.
Even so, liquidation remains a major outcome.
The PIB release records 3,003 liquidation cases. It also treats 4,099 companies as rescued.
Why Firms Enter Too Late
Liquidation is not always a failure of IBC. Many firms enter the process after years of stress.
By then, assets may have lost value. Workers may have left. Customers may also have moved away.
Therefore, the question is not only how IBC works after admission. The real question is when the company enters IBC.
In addition, high liquidation numbers require deeper study. They may show that many companies enter IBC too late. They may also show weak bidder interest or poor asset quality.
Liquidation as Decline
| Cause | Concern |
|---|---|
| Late admission | Value already lost |
| Weak bidder interest | No viable plan |
| Poor assets | Business value gone |
| Litigation delay | Buyers lose trust |
| High cost | Resolution becomes hard |
Critical Finding
If firms enter IBC after economic death, the law can only manage decline.
Ground 7: Corruption Allegations and Process Risk
Why Integrity Matters
A review of 10 years of IBC must examine corruption-risk claims and process gaps. This does not mean IBC has failed.
However, distressed assets create high-value opportunities. Therefore, process integrity is vital.
IBC deals with factories, land, brands, licences and contracts. Each decision may affect value. Hence, opacity can harm creditors and the public.
Process trust is central to IBC. If parties suspect undervaluation, selective access or weak disclosures, confidence falls.
Therefore, valuation, RP conduct, CoC records and liquidation sales need stronger audit trails.
Valuation Risk
Valuation is the most sensitive point. If the fair value or liquidation value is wrong, the whole process can be skewed.
A low value may help a selected buyer. Consequently, creditors and smaller stakeholders may suffer.
Moreover, distressed assets often carry hidden value. Land, licences, brands and contracts may be worth more than the balance sheet suggests. Consequently, a weak valuation process can shift value from creditors to selected buyers.
RP Conduct
Resolution Professionals control key steps. Their independence and disclosures are vital.
Therefore, RP accountability must remain central to reform.
CoC Transparency
The Committee of Creditors has wide commercial power. However, where public money is involved, decisions need strong records.
Valuation integrity and conflict checks are also needed.
Liquidation Sale Risk
Liquidation sales need close review. If assets are sold below their real value, creditors and workers lose.
Moreover, weak sales can create public doubt.
Audit Trail Needed
| Area | Risk |
|---|---|
| Valuation | Undervaluation |
| RP conduct | Conflict or selective information |
| CoC decisions | Low transparency |
| Bidder access | Unequal information |
| Liquidation sale | Low-value sale |
| Litigation | Delay used as pressure |
Critical Finding
Distressed asset resolution must not become distressed asset capture.
Ground 8: CoC and Commercial Wisdom
Why CoC Control Exists
IBC gives financial creditors control through the CoC. This design has a reason.
Financial creditors usually understand debt, revival and recovery strategy.
Supreme Court View
The Supreme Court recognised CoC commercial wisdom in K. Sashidhar and Essar Steel. These cases gave strong weight to CoC decisions.
This helped IBC stay market-based. It also reduced the risk of courts rewriting business decisions.
Benefits and Risks
Creditor-led resolution can move faster when institutions work well.
However, wide commercial power needs checks. If courts defer to CoC, then CoC decisions must be credible.
They must also be informed and free from collusion.
Commercial wisdom is useful because courts cannot run businesses. However, deference to CoC decisions also creates responsibility.
Therefore, creditor control must be accompanied by process discipline. Otherwise, commercial wisdom may become an opaque shield.
Critical Finding
Undoubtedly, commercial wisdom is needed. However, it cannot become an opaque shield.
Ground 9: Operational Creditors, MSMEs and Fairness
Financial Creditors Dominate
Financial creditors have stronger control under IBC. This helps speed.
However, it also creates fairness concerns.
Operational Creditors Need Protection
Operational creditors often need timely payment to survive. If they receive very little, stress spreads across the supply chain.
MSME suppliers often lack bargaining power. Moreover, they may not survive large haircuts.
Therefore, their treatment needs special care.
This issue matters beyond one insolvency case. If MSME suppliers receive very little, stress may move into the wider supply chain. As a result, one company’s insolvency can damage many smaller firms.
Workers and Employees
Workers also face real risk during insolvency. Wage claims need protection.
At the same time, revival should save jobs where possible.
Balancing Speed and Fairness
| Stakeholder | Concern |
|---|---|
| Financial creditors | Recovery and control |
| Operational creditors | Low payment |
| MSMEs | Weak bargaining power |
| Workers | Wage and job risk |
| Homebuyers | Need voice |
| Buyers | Need clean title |
Critical Finding
Ultimately, a good insolvency law must be fast and fair.
Ground 10: Clean Slate and Accountability
Why Buyers Need Certainty
Successful buyers need a clean slate. Without finality, they will avoid distressed firms.
Therefore, claim finality supports investor confidence.
The clean-slate rule is necessary for serious buyers. Otherwise, no buyer will risk old claims after taking over a distressed company.
However, clean slate must not become a moral escape.
Clean Slate Must Have Limits
In Ghanashyam Mishra, the Supreme Court held that an approved plan binds stakeholders. Claims outside the plan stand extinguished.
This supports plan finality.
Section 32A also protects the company after genuine change in control. This helps attract buyers.
However, the rule must stay within accountability limits.
Wrongdoers Must Remain Liable
Clean-slate protection must not protect wrongdoers. In Manish Kumar, the Supreme Court upheld Section 32A.
At the same time, it preserved liability against responsible individuals.
Therefore, the law must protect the new buyer while preserving the right to bring action against wrongdoers. This balance is central to IBC’s credibility.
Critical Finding
IBC must give buyers certainty. However, it must not give wrongdoers immunity.
Case Law Dashboard: Judicial Direction of IBC
IBC Is for Revival, Not Recovery
| Issue | Leading Case | Principle | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective | Swiss Ribbons | IBC is for revival | Supports resolution-first view |
| Debt and default | Innoventive Industries | IBC is creditor-driven | Explains creditor pressure |
| Misuse by operational creditors | Mobilox | Real dispute bars admission | Prevents misuse |
| CoC discretion | K. Sashidhar | Courts respect CoC wisdom | Strengthens creditor control |
| Stakeholder balance | Essar Steel | CoC primacy with safeguards | Balances speed and fairness |
| Clean slate | Ghanashyam Mishra | Approved plan binds all | Gives buyer certainty |
| Section 32A | Manish Kumar | Wrongdoers remain liable | Balances revival and accountability |
| Delay | E.S. Krishnamurthy | NCLT cannot keep cases pending | Supports speed |
What the Cases Show
The case law gives one clear message. IBC must rescue value, not merely recover money.
It must empower creditors, but it cannot allow coercion. Equally, it must give buyers finality without protecting wrongdoers.
Finally, it must preserve speed without sacrificing fairness.
DSLA Critical Dashboard: 10 Years of IBC
Achievement, Concern and Reform Priority
| Ground Achievement Concern Reform | orm Priority | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective | Resolution culture | Recovery pressure | Reaffirm resolution |
| Credit discipline | Changed behaviour | Threat-based filings | Filter misuse |
| Recovery | Over ₹4 lakh crore realised | Haircuts remain | Earlier action |
| Timelines | Faster than old system | Still delayed | Strengthen NCLT |
| Cost | Professional process | Cost consumes value | Cost control |
| Liquidation | Orderly exit | Too many liquidations | Early stress detection |
| Integrity | Formal safeguards | Valuation risk | Audit trails |
| CoC control | Commercial speed | Opaque discretion | Better records |
| Fairness | Creditor-led model | Small creditors at risk | Minimum safeguards |
| Clean slate | Attracts buyers | Fraud concern | Individual liability |
Where IBC Succeeded
IBC changed debtor behaviour. It also improved recovery discipline.
In addition, it created a structured insolvency process.
Where IBC Needs Correction
Despite these gains, the Code needs to be corrected on delay, cost, and valuation. It also needs better liquidation outcomes and stakeholder fairness.
What the Second Decade Must Deliver
The next decade must deliver faster resolution. It must also lower cost and improve trust.
Most importantly, it must keep distressed asset resolution clean.
Cross-Verification Note
PIB Data Is Credible, But Needs Balance
The PIB data is broadly credible on headline figures. However, its framing is celebratory.
Therefore, the data needs context from PRS and other sources.
PRS Confirms Key Concerns
PRS confirms delay. It records 602 days for CIRPs ending in plans.
It also records recovery of around 33% of admitted claims and 171% of liquidation value.
Why Balance Is Needed
PIB data proves IBC’s success in credit discipline and recovery. However, the same data also shows delay and haircuts.
It also raises concern over high liquidation and recovery-style use.
Therefore, the correct public-interest reading is balanced. IBC has worked. However, it must now work faster, cheaper and more fairly.
Reform Agenda for IBC’s Second Decade
Strengthen NCLT Capacity
India needs more members, benches and staff. It also needs digital case tracking.
Otherwise, timelines will remain hard to enforce.
Enforce Admission Discipline
NCLT must decide admission quickly. At the same time, it must screen out genuine disputes and misuse of recovery.
Control Process Cost
IBC must become more proportionate. This is especially important for MSMEs and small firms.
Improve Valuation Transparency
The system needs stronger valuation rules. It also needs audit trails and conflict checks.
Moreover, valuation integrity must become a public-interest issue.
Increase RP Accountability
Resolution Professionals need clear conduct rules. Faster disciplinary review will also build trust.
Bring More CoC Transparency
CoC decisions should remain commercial. However, they must also be properly recorded.
This matters more where public-sector banks have large exposure.
Protect Operational Creditors and MSMEs
The law must protect smaller stakeholders. Otherwise, insolvency can push stress onto suppliers and workers.
Reform Liquidation Process
Liquidation should preserve going-concern value where possible. Better asset marketing can also reduce value loss.
Add Group Insolvency Rules
India needs clear rules for connected corporate groups. PRS records that the 2025 Amendment Bill allows rules on group insolvency.
Add Cross-Border Insolvency Rules
Cross-border rules are needed for global assets and foreign creditors. PRS also records that the 2025 Amendment Bill allows rules on cross-border insolvency.
Sources and Resources
Official Government Source
Ministry of Corporate Affairs / PIB: Official PIB release marking 10 years of IBC. It provides data on admissions, closures, plans, liquidations, recoveries, and settlements.
Uploaded PIB Text Reviewed
The uploaded text contains the same MCA PIB data. It was used to align the report structure and data references.
Legislative Analysis
PRS Legislative Research was used for timeline, recovery and IBC Amendment Bill context. It also records key reform points on group and cross-border insolvency.
ABC Live Internal Link
ABC Live’s earlier case analysis on IBC recovery misuse: Anjani Technoplast Ltd. v. Shubh Gautam.
Judicial Sources
The report uses Supreme Court case law. Key cases include Swiss Ribbons, Innoventive Industries, Mobilox, K. Sashidhar, Essar Steel, Ghanashyam Mishra, Manish Kumar and E.S. Krishnamurthy.
Final Editorial Conclusion
IBC’s First Decade Was a Real Reform
IBC is one of India’s most important reforms of the last decade. It changed default culture. It also improved creditor confidence and repayment discipline.
More importantly, it gave India a working legal route for business failure. That itself is a major gain.
But Success Must Not Hide Weaknesses
However, the Code’s success must not hide its weaknesses. Delay remains serious. Process cost is high. Liquidation numbers are large.
Recovery figures also need context. In addition, concerns about undervaluation and collusion require stronger safeguards.
Pre-admission settlements show both success and risk. They prove deterrence. Yet they also show that IBC can become a recovery shortcut.
Case Law Gives the Correct Direction
The Supreme Court’s case law gives the right direction. IBC must rescue value, not merely recover money.
It must empower creditors, but not permit coercion. At the same time, it must give buyers certainty without protecting wrongdoers.
Most importantly, it must preserve speed without sacrificing fairness.
Final Editorial Finding
IBC’s first decade proved that India could build a modern insolvency framework. However, its second decade must now prove that the framework can deliver fast, fair, low-cost, transparent and genuine resolution.