Aditi Jajodia, WB National University of Juridical Sciences & Rishabh Govila, CPJ School of Law, GGSIPU
ABSTRACT
When the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, came out three years ago, it brought with it a promise of an efficient, modern means for lenders of Corporate Debtors to realize the amount owed to them. At the same time, it offered an alternative to liquidation. However, while the Code seemed impressive on paper when it came to its application, the realization set in that there were countless questions to be answered through judicial interpretation. And ever since then, the lenders, corporate debtors, promoters, and all other concerned parties have been involved in back-to-back litigation. Where questions of interpretation can be expected to follow the introduction of any new legislation, one must wonder whether the implementation of the Code could have been done in a better way or whether its drafters could have given its provisions more clarity. Is the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 effective in meeting its objectives as it has been made to appear? After giving a brief overview of the history of the Code, this paper dwells into the issue of phoenixing under Section 29A and the layers of ineligibilities it has introduced. The paper throws light on the scope and nature of Section 29A and the bidding paradox present in the system. This is followed by an assessment of the overall impact of the Code as per the currently available data and a concluding note.
Keywords: IBC, 29A, Ineligibility, Bidding, Morality, Phoenixing, Relevant time, BLRC
