1. Introduction

Establishment of a company is easy but windup of the same is not in India. The RDDBFI Act, the SIC Act, company act and the SARFAESI Act were observed to be in an authority on the scuffle question of whichact has precedence over the other? An Indian act of law to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency of different company, partnership firms and individuals known as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, eliminated all preceding regulations [3]. To encourage entrepreneurship and also to improve credit availability. It creates a new legal framework, and creditors may suggest a speedy liquidation or approve the plan for the companys revival. Provided that Part III of this Code shall not extend to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was introduced by the finance minister Arun Jaitley in 2015 (Bill No. 349 of 2015). After passing from Lok Sabha and in Raj Sabha, it received assent by President Pranab Mukherji and was notified in Gazette of India (a public journal) on 28th May 2016.The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act is a combined code covered inlist 9th of Indian Constitution list 3rd of the Seventh Schedule. It established time limits for implementing the laws in the time bound bankruptcy settlement. A key pillar of the insolvency ecosystemis the regulator, namely, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI).

2. Judgements

Although this significant code established, some details n the insolvency settlement indicate that the law still has to do much for the betterment. It becomes crucial to get to know what are the changes or the reformations that have come so far which in effect will provide a new shape to this code.

1. Lokhandwala Kataria vs Nissus Finance And Investment[4].

By the impugned order date 13.07.2017, the National company law Appellate trbibual was of the view the inherent power could not be so utitlized by Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

2. Macquarie Bank Limited vs Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd.[1].

Two important question arises in this case-

Firstly whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational creditor under Section 8 can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor? and secondly whether, in relation to an operational debt, the provision contained in Section 9(3)(c)[1] of the Code is mandatory.
The law has now been settled to say that, even though the certificate of a financial institution under section 9(3)(c) is an important piece of evidence, it is not mandatory. The Court also broadened the scope of section 8 by holding that a lawyer or an authorized agent is competent to issue a demand notice as required therein. The judgment of the court is a welcome development for foreign-based operational creditors who will now no longer be obstructed by the technical hurdles opening the gates for such petitions before the NCLT [5].

3. Procedure

The process includes:

Admission of application
Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional
Lodging of claim
Formation of Creditors Committee
Consideration of resolution plan
Submission of plan to adjudicating authority
Approval of plan

4. Advantage to lenders for resorting to IBC

Creditors in control as most decision making with the lenders.
Time bound and quick solution for stressed and NPA accounts.
Change of management possible.
Brings financial lenders to a platform - enabling quick decision making and arriving at consensus quickly.
Prepare and examine resolution plan by professionals appointed by creditors ensuring fearless decision making.
Final approval by NCLT (a legal entity) which ensures accountability and vigilance.
Fair chance to viable and sustainable entities for time bound revival. In case of unviable accounts, faster, transparent and smooth liquidation process.
Clear and fair distribution of funds in case of liquidation. Government / Statutory dues do not get priority.
Protection of assets of secured borrowers with maximization of realization.
Positive support from government for realization and resolution of NPAs.

5. Advantage to Borrowers to approach NCLT

There is no need to pay Court Fee in NCLT (which is 5% or more in courts)
In Courts generally it takes 3-4 years but not in NCLT because in NCLT we dont approach for recovery of money.
Less chances for settlement in less amount.
Provides for time bound resolution forcing lenders to take a decisive action.
A Resolution plan approved by NCLT has legal sanction and is binding on all stakeholders.
Transparent process under judicial supervision removes investigation and vigilance fear from the lenders perspective which is expected to improve decision making.
Preempt all creditors, legal cases and other recovery actions during moratorium period.
Not only loans, but all types of debt, including operational creditors and government dues can be restructured/realigned/reduced under the Code.
The Borrower has the option of applying himself under the code in which case borrowers proposed IP would be appointed as IRP.
Company to work under the control of IRP/RP who are supposed to preserve the economic value of the company as a going concern entity.
It can be used as a measure of last resort when other options like CDR, SDR, S4A have been exhausted.
Attracting investor (financial / strategic/ JV Partner) would be easier particularly in case of unlisted companies.
The Possibility of raising additional finance as the same will have priority as it will form part of CIRP cost.

6. Conclusion

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is one of the best reforms implemented by the Indian Government. Firstly the appropriate result needs to be within 330 days. Prior to amendment in IBC, the requisite period was of maximum 180 days which would further allow only one-time extension of 90 days from the date of commencement of insolvency proceedings [2].

However, it was not practically possible for CIRPs, to conclude all the proceedings within 270 days.the amendment provided mandatory completion of the proceedings within 330 days and 90 days for transitionary measure after which there will be a risk of liquidation.

No case shall be allowed to file in different form such as DRTs unless NCLT has adjudicated or rejected the petition. An attempt shall be made to bring all laws regarding debt recovery into single umbrella legislation of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Further effective implementation of this code will result into lesser pendency of insolvency of the suit. The quick judicial decision would further result in maximization of assets of the corporate debtor and thus would be more beneficial to creditors.