From Resolution To Realization: A Comparative Study Of Objectives Under IBC 2016 And 2025 Amendments
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 7
- 1 min read
Divanshi Agrawal, Lloyd Law College
Diwang Mishra, Lloyd Law College
ABSTRACT
Installing a creditor-controlled resolution system was India’s first great attempt with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to replace the prominent entrenchment with commercial discipline, but the systematic bottlenecks probably had other ideas. Enterprise value eroded. Timelines collapsed. The 2025 amendment comes into the picture not just as an incremental refinement but as a structural axis with a framework preoccupied with process to hold one accountable for outcomes. Strong-arming creditor’s rights, speeding up the admissions and placing Indian insolvency law closely to the standards of the mature global restructuring markets.
The Promise of 2016 and the Slow Erosion of Its Discipline.
The legislature enacted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, with the intention to end the long-distance debtor-in-possession tradition, which has given a key to the many promoters to remain in control of falling companies for years and sometimes for decades. The code introduced a 330-day timeline for resolution and focused on large commercial discipline in insolvency proceedings. Moreover, the code also shifted the control from debtors to creditors. The framework was designed with very clear instructions; the reforms were long overdue; and a very confident change in India’s insolvency system was the move away from the widely criticized BIFR regime.
