&w=3840&q=100)
IBC in stress: Survival depends on commitment to its core principles
M S Sahoo Ashish Makhija
Listen to This Article
The Indian Parliament in 2016 enacted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to address the country's persistent challenges of financial stress and managing bad debts, with the overarching objective of driving economic growth. In its initial years, the IBC benefited from rare institutional alignment. The legislature amended the code six times in the first five years to address implementation challenges and respond to the evolving economic environment. With alacrity, the executive issued the rules and regulations, established the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), accredited insolvency professionals, and built the supporting ecosystem. The
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Enforcement Directorate searches are over, say Reliance Group companies
Reliance Group firms Reliance Infrastructure (RInfra) and Reliance Power (RPower) on Sunday (July 27, 2025) said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had concluded searches on their premises and that the companies would continue to cooperate with the agency. Both the Anil Ambani-led group's companies said they, including their officials, would continue to fully cooperate with the ED. They said that the said action had no impact on their business operations. RInfra said, 'Action by ED has no impact on the business operations, financial performance, shareholders, employees, or any other stakeholders of the company. The same appears to pertain to allegations concerning transactions of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) or Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL), which are over 10 years old. Reliance Infrastructure is a separate and independent listed entity with no business or financial linkage to RCOM or RHFL.' 'RCOM is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, since over six years,' it said. RPower also said the same, adding that the company continued to operate in its normal course and that the said action had no impact on its business operations. The ED began searching multiple premises linked to the group on Thursday (July 24, 2025) over alleged money laundering and financial irregularities, running into crores of rupees, and the searches continued for the third day on Saturday (July 27, 2025).
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 hours ago
- Business Standard
ED actions concluded at all locations, say Reliance Infra, Reliance Power
Reliance Infrastructure (R-Infra) and its sister firm Reliance Power (R-Power) have stated that actions taken by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have concluded at all locations, and both companies have fully cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the authority. Earlier, on Thursday, the ED had raided more than 35 premises and searched over 50 companies in New Delhi and Mumbai linked to the Reliance Anil Ambani Group (RAAGA). The investigation was related to the alleged illegal diversion of loans worth Rs 3,000 crore from Yes Bank between 2017 and 2019. 'Action by ED has no impact on the business operations, financial performance, shareholders, employees, or any other stakeholders of the company,' both R-Infra and R-Power clarified again on Sunday (27 July). The companies further clarified that the media reports appear to pertain to allegations concerning transactions of Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM) or Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL), which are over 10 years old. R-COM has been undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 for over six years. Earlier this month, R-Com disclosed to the exchanges that the State Bank of India (SBI) had decided to classify the company's loan account as 'fraud' due to irregularities in the conduct of the account, and that the bank would report both the account and Anil Ambani, a director at R-Com, to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). On the other hand, R-HFL has been fully resolved pursuant to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India. 'Similar allegations as those set out in the media reports are sub judice and pending before the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, as per publicly available information,' R-Infra and R-Power noted. Further, both companies claimed that Anil Ambani is not on the board of R-Infra and R-Power. Accordingly, any action taken against R-COM or R-HFL has no bearing or impact on the governance, management, or operations of R-Infra and R-Power, the companies added. 'The company continues to operate in the normal course, and the said action has no impact on its business operations. The company continues to focus on its business plans and remains committed to creating value for all stakeholders,' R-Infra and R-Power added.
Indian Express
21 hours ago
- Indian Express
P Chidambaram writes: Life is a mystery, not always beautiful
On July 10, 2025, Mr Jagdeep Dhankhar cheerfully announced 'I will retire at the right time — August 2027, subject to divine intervention.' He was the Vice President of India and, ex officio, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. On July 21, Mr Dhankhar quietly resigned from the office of Vice President and, consequently, quit as Chairman. What happened between July 10 and July 21 is what makes life a mystery. Both Houses of Parliament began 'normally' on Monday, July 21. On the previous day, the government had convened the customary meeting of the floor leaders of political parties. The customary assurances of debate 'on all issues' and co-operation were exchanged between the government and the Opposition. Sadly, however, in the working of the Indian Parliament, there is currently no consensus between the Treasury and the Opposition on what, when and how the House may debate an issue of urgent importance. The Opposition in the Rajya Sabha usually insists on a debate under Rule 267. Rule 267 is a parliamentary device to defer the listed business and take up an issue of urgent importance. The motion is called an 'adjournment motion'. There is nothing sinister about invoking Rule 267. However, the NDA has considered a debate under Rule 267 as equivalent to a 'censure' of the government. (Perhaps, some governments in the past also took the same view). In the last 11+ years, the ruling Establishment had allowed a discussion on a motion under Rule 267 last on 'demonetisation' in November 2016. Since becoming Chairman, Mr Dhankhar had not allowed any debate under Rule 267. July 21 was no different, and what happened was straight out of Mr Dhankhar's playbook. A lone BJP member had given a notice under Rule 167 to discuss the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor; several members of the Opposition had given notices under Rule 267 on the same issue. The Chairman admitted the motion of the BJP member as a 'No-Day-Yet-Named Motion' and rejected the other motions on the oft-repeated ground they were not in conformity with the Rules and the laid-down procedure. Commotion followed. (No one has been made wiser on how to draft a motion under Rule 267 that would be in 'conformity with the Rules and the laid-down procedure'). The Chairman called a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) at 12.30 pm. Mr J P Nadda and Mr Kiren Rijiju attended representing the government. After some discussion, the meeting was adjourned to 4.30 pm. When the BAC met again, the two ministers were absent. Apparently miffed, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. He resigned at 9.25 pm, citing 'medical advice'. It is a telling commentary that no Party or MP implored Mr Dhankhar to withdraw his resignation. On July 22, the Deputy Chairman tersely announced in the House the 'occurrence of vacancy' in the Vice Presidency. Clearly, the government had decided to bid goodbye to Mr Dhankhar without fuss or fanfare or a farewell. The NDA government owed a lot to Mr Dhankhar. In American football parlance, he took upon himself the role of 'tackle'. He defended the RSS/BJP's position on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) and on the removal of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble to the Constitution. He criticised the Supreme Court for its judgement propounding the Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case). He questioned the theory of judicial review of laws passed by Parliament. He asserted the right of the government to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, debunking the proposition that the judiciary has primacy in such appointments (Second Judges case). He slammed the Supreme Court for invoking Article 142 to direct governors (and the President) to grant or refuse assent to Bills within 3 months. Contradicting Article 105, Mr Dhankhar asked members to 'authenticate' documents or data cited in their speeches. He defended sanatana dharma. He heaped fulsome praise on the RSS. His positions mirrored the conservative Right's views, and ought to have pleased the BJP. At different times, Mr Dhankhar belonged to the Janata Dal, Samajwadi Janata Party (of Chandra Shekhar), Congress and BJP. His appointment as Governor of West Bengal resurrected his political career. His unwarranted run-ins with the state government may have burnished his pro-BJP credentials but tarnished the office of governor. His surprise elevation as Vice President showed the faith reposed in him by the RSS/BJP to bear the right-wing flag. His conduct of proceedings earned him the distinction of being the first Chairman against whom a No Confidence motion was moved. What broke the cordial ties between Mr Dhankhar and the RSS/BJP? The idea of a motion to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma had germinated in a meeting of the Congress parliamentary strategy group on July 15. Signed by 63 members, the Opposition left Mr Dhankhar no choice but to admit the motion on July 21 (while a similar government-inspired motion had been lodged in the Lok Sabha on the same day). The motion forced Mr Dhankhar to act on the motion to impeach Justice Shekhar Yadav that he had held back for seven months. The speculation is that Mr Dhankhar's decisions on the two motions broke the camel's back. I disagree; the two motions were light straws. Obviously, there were more. Life is a mystery, and sometimes ugly.
