Introduction
Corporate restructuring refers to the process through which companies reorganize their structure, operations, or finances to improve efficiency, profitability, or competitiveness. Before the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), India’s framework for dealing with distressed companies was fragmented and ineffective. Laws such as the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the SARFAESI Act, 2002 existed, but they often led to delays and poor recoveries.
The introduction of the IBC marked a paradigm shift in India’s approach towards insolvency and restructuring. It consolidated multiple laws, set strict timelines, and emphasized resolution over liquidation. The Code has become a cornerstone in reshaping India’s corporate restructuring landscape.
Objective and Framework of the IBC
The primary objective of the IBC is not merely to recover debts but to ensure timely resolution of stressed assets. The Code promotes entrepreneurship, maximizes asset value, and balances the interests of all stakeholders. It provides a comprehensive legal framework for insolvency resolution of companies, individuals, and partnership firms.
The IBC introduced a creditor-in-control model, where creditors, through the Committee of Creditors (CoC), play a decisive role in approving a resolution plan. This approach replaced the earlier debtor-in-possession system, which often allowed defaulting promoters to retain control.
The process begins with the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Once admitted, a moratorium is imposed, suspending all legal proceedings and recovery actions against the corporate debtor. The Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) takes charge, prepares an information memorandum, and invites resolution plans from potential investors. If a viable plan is approved by the CoC and the NCLT, the company is restructured; otherwise, it proceeds to liquidation.
IBC as a Tool for Corporate Restructuring
The IBC has transformed the restructuring process from being court-driven and time-consuming to a market-driven and time-bound mechanism. Unlike earlier laws that focused on asset recovery, the IBC emphasizes revival through resolution.
Corporate restructuring under IBC can take multiple forms:
• Merger or Amalgamation: When a financially strong company takes over or merges with a distressed one through an approved resolution plan.
• Debt Restructuring: Where creditors agree to convert debt into equity or alter repayment terms to revive the company.
• Change in Management: The Code allows transfer of ownership from defaulting promoters to new investors or professionals.
• Sale of Business Units: Viable parts of the business can be carved out and sold separately to maximize value.
These mechanisms have enabled distressed companies to undergo fundamental restructuring while preserving jobs, assets, and economic value.
Positive Impacts of IBC on Corporate Restructuring
1. Time-Bound Resolution
One of the most significant contributions of the IBC is the strict timeline for completing the resolution process — 180 days, extendable up to 330 days including litigation. This has brought predictability and discipline into restructuring.
2. Strengthening Creditor Rights
The Code empowers financial and operational creditors by giving them control over decision-making through the CoC. This has improved lender confidence and reduced non-performing assets (NPAs) in the banking system.
3. Boost to Investment Climate
The transparent and predictable resolution process has enhanced investor confidence, both domestic and foreign. Global players like ArcelorMittal and JSW have successfully acquired distressed assets under IBC, signaling a positive business environment.
4. Maximization of Asset Value
By ensuring early intervention, the Code prevents asset deterioration. Restructuring under IBC often leads to better realization compared to liquidation or earlier recovery mechanisms.
5. Promoting Responsible Corporate Behavior
The fear of losing control over the company has encouraged promoters to adopt better financial discipline and corporate governance practices. The “creditor-in-control” model ensures accountability and discourages willful default.
Landmark Cases Reflecting the Impact of IBC
Several landmark cases illustrate the Code’s role in corporate restructuring:
• Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019):
The Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the CoC in approving resolution plans, reinforcing the creditor-driven approach. ArcelorMittal’s acquisition of Essar Steel became a landmark in India’s restructuring success.
• Bhushan Steel Case:
Tata Steel’s acquisition of Bhushan Steel through IBC proceedings showcased how the Code can successfully revive large industrial assets while ensuring repayment to lenders.
• Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Case:
The case highlighted the growing maturity of the IBC framework as it dealt with complex cross-border insolvency issues and facilitated a consortium-led resolution plan.
These cases demonstrate that IBC has not only enabled debt recovery but also provided a platform for genuine corporate restructuring and revival.
Challenges and Limitations
Despite its success, the IBC framework faces several challenges:
1. Delays in Adjudication:
The NCLTs are overburdened, and many cases exceed the prescribed time limits, affecting the objective of swift resolution.
2. Haircuts and Low Recoveries:
In some cases, creditors have faced significant losses, raising concerns about fairness and valuation transparency.
3. Limited Participation of Investors:
The number of resolution applicants remains limited in certain sectors, which restricts competitive bidding and optimal restructuring outcomes.
4. Cross-Border Insolvency Gaps:
While the Code introduced provisions for cross-border insolvency, a comprehensive framework is yet to be implemented, creating uncertainty for multinational corporations.
5. Operational Creditor Concerns:
The distribution mechanism sometimes disadvantages operational creditors compared to financial institutions, calling for more equitable treatment.
Reforms and the Way Forward
To strengthen corporate restructuring under IBC, the following reforms are desirable:
• Expansion of NCLT capacity to ensure faster disposal of cases.
• Implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to handle multinational restructuring efficiently.
• Encouraging Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Processes (Pre-Packs) for MSMEs and specific sectors, allowing restructuring before formal insolvency.
• Introducing mediation and negotiation frameworks to supplement the formal process.
• Improving valuation standards and professional accountability among insolvency professionals.
With these improvements, the IBC can evolve into a more effective and balanced mechanism that aligns with global best practices.
Conclusion
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has revolutionized India’s approach to corporate restructuring by replacing a fragmented, slow, and recovery-centric system with a unified, time-bound, and resolution-driven framework. It has empowered creditors, revived viable companies, and enhanced India’s reputation as a business-friendly economy.
While challenges remain, continuous reforms, judicial clarity, and institutional strengthening are paving the way for a more robust restructuring environment. The IBC has shifted the focus from “recovery” to “resolution,” ensuring that corporate restructuring in India contributes not only to the revival of companies but also to the overall stability of the financial system and economy.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
