Market Intelligence

In its judgment dated 30 September 2026 in Orris Infrastructure Private Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Others, the Supreme Court of India examined whether insolvency proceedings initiated through fraud and collusion can be recalled after admission and whether such fraud necessarily requires termination of the entire Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is intended to provide the successful resolution applicant with a clean slate, free from past liabilities not provided for under the plan. Under this principle, commonly referred to as the ‘clean slate doctrine’, claims against the corporate debtor that do not form part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished and cannot subsequently be enforced. This includes claims arising from contractual disputes involving the corporate debtor. However, a question arises when the corporate debtor seeks to recover its own contractual dues from a counterparty whose claim against it has been extinguished.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 introduced sub-section (4) into Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), excluding personal guarantors to corporate debtors from the protection of the interim moratorium that automatically arises on the filing of an application to initiate insolvency resolution proceedings under Section 94 or Section 95. The amendment, which came into force on 26 May 2026, does not contain any express statement as to whether it applies to pending applications or applications filed after the introduction of Section 96(4).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) seeks to facilitate the resolution of insolvency, maximise the value of a corporate debtor’s assets and balance the interests of stakeholders. A central aspect of this framework is the identification and preservation of assets available for resolution or liquidation. However, the position becomes more complex when a corporate debtor holds assets acquired using foreign contributions regulated under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (“FCRA”).

Ten years in, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has finally been amended to close gaps that case law had quietly opened up in it. The IBC Amendment Act, 2026, in force from 26 May 2026, does three things that matter to anyone advising creditors: it takes the discretion back out of admission, it widens the window for clawing back value that left a company before insolvency was formally declared, and it hands financial creditors a new route into a distressed company that doesn't need a Section 7 petition at all. This piece walks through each change and the litigation that made it necessary.

The NCLT, New Delhi (Special Bench) vide order dated 25.08.2026 in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs. Dr. Subash Chandra approved the repayment plan of INR 6.50 Crores submitted by the Personal Guarantor as against admitted claims of approximately INR 22,006.57 Crores.