The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 replaced a scattered set of laws (SICA, the Recovery of Debts Act, and parts of the Companies Act) with a single code. This is the basic IBC framework relevant to CLAT PG which you must read which shifts the focus from penalizing debtors to maximizing the value of assets, ensuring entrepreneurship thrives while safeguarding the rights of stakeholders.
Its preamble aims at time-bound resolution, maximisation of asset value, promoting entrepreneurship and credit availability, and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. The Code’s core idea is that insolvency should be resolved through a collective, creditor-driven process and not through individual recovery suits.
This section bars promoters and others from regaining control of a failed company cheaply. It applies to wilful defaulters, persons with NPA accounts, undischarged insolvents, disqualified directors, and their related parties. It is tested often because it connects toArcelorMittal-type disputes and to the balance between recovery and fairness.
Liquidation (Sections 33 to 54)
If no resolution plan is approved, or the CoC resolves to liquidate, the AA orders liquidation. A liquidator takes charge, realises the assets and distributes the proceeds. The Code treats liquidation as the last resort and not the first option.
Workmen’s dues (24 months) together with secured creditors.
Employees’ dues (12 months).
Unsecured financial creditors.
Government dues and the remaining debts of secured creditors.
Other debts.
Preference shareholders.
Equity shareholders.
Avoidance Transactions and Wrongful Trading
The RP can challenge transactions that harm creditors before commencement of insolvency.
These are preferential transactions (Section 43), undervalued transactions (Section 45), and extortionate credit (Section 50). Section 66 covers fraudulent and wrongful trading, where directors continued the business knowing insolvency was unavoidable. Courts can order recovery and make responsible persons contribute to the assets.
Operational vs Financial Creditors
Financial creditors lend money for a time value of money and control the CoC. Operational creditors are owed for goods and services and have no vote. The Supreme Court upheld this classification in Swiss Ribbons because the two groups differ in their commercial interests and in how they assess the debtor’s viability.
The IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act No. 6 of 2026) received Presidential assent on 6 April 2026 and is described as the biggest overhaul of the insolvency framework since 2016. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified 26 May 2026 as the date on which many of its provisions came into force.
CIIRP: a new Chapter IV-A (Sections 58A to 58K) creates an out-of-court, debtor-in-possession resolution process started by creditors.
Group and cross-border insolvency: new provisions enable coordinated resolution of group companies and set up a framework for cross-border insolvency.
Look-back period: the period for preferential, undervalued and extortionate credit transactions now runs from the date the insolvency application is filed, and not only from admission.
Penalties: the criminal offences in Sections 74 and 76 are replaced by a civil penalty regime.
Mandatory admission: the Amendment is reported to restore the mandatory character of admission under Section 7 and to confirm the waterfall’s primacy over ad hoc claims to secured status.
Locus Classicus
Innoventive Industries Ltd v. ICICI Bank: once default is established, the AA must admit the application. The Code is a complete code and overrides state laws on conflicting points.
State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers: TheIBC Amendment Act, 2026 explicitly overrules State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., solidifying that statutory government dues cannot claim "secured creditor" shortcuts and must remain lower in the waterfall.