Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{190639,
        author = {DAMARAJU PRADEEP KUMAR and Dr. Rajbir Kumar},
        title = {An Identifying and Mitigating Delays in IBC Proceedings: A Study of NCLT and Stakeholder Perspectives},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {12},
        number = {8},
        pages = {4405-4412},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=190639},
        abstract = {The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, was enacted to expedite corporate insolvency resolutions in India, mandating a 180-day timeline for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) extendable to 330 days, with the objective of maximizing asset value and promoting entrepreneurship. However, persistent delays in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) have undermined these goals, leading to protracted litigations, eroded creditor recoveries, and stalled economic revival. This study examines the multifaceted causes of such delays through an empirical lens, integrating NCLT adjudicatory data and qualitative insights from diverse stakeholders, including insolvency professionals, financial creditors, operational creditors, and judicial officers. It further evaluates the efficacy of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025—introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 12, 2025—and concomitant reforms by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), NCLT procedural directives, and judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, in mitigating these challenges.
Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research analyses over 500 NCLT orders from 2023 to mid-2025, focusing on admission, resolution plan approval, and appellate stages. Semi-structured interviews with 120 stakeholders, including representatives from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), resolution applicants, and NCLT benches, reveal systemic bottlenecks: overburdened dockets with escalating pendency, interpretational ambiguities in avoidance transactions under Sections 43–51 and 66, protracted creditor committee deliberations, and enforcement hurdles in post-resolution implementation. Quantitative mapping of procedural timelines highlights deviations attributable to interim applications, regulatory overlaps with agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, and insufficient adjudicatory capacity at NCLT benches.
The 2025 Amendment Bill emerges as a pivotal intervention, introducing creditor-initiated insolvency resolution processes (CIIRP) under proposed Section 58C, enabling proactive creditor engagement within 30 days of objection windows, thereby streamlining admission gateways. It mandates 14-day timelines for admission or rejection decisions and 30 days for resolution plan approvals or liquidation orders, with reasoned extensions to curb discretionary delays. Decriminalization provisions under new Sections 67B and 67C alleviate moratorium-related penal overhangs, while enhanced data access for resolution professionals in avoidance probes accelerates forensic audits. MCA notifications, including circulars on condonation of delays for restored companies under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, complement these by facilitating swift reinstatements. NCLT's procedural reforms, such as digitized filing protocols and specialized insolvency benches, address caseload surges, as evidenced in the tribunal's 2025 operational guidelines.
Judicial interventions further fortify mitigation efforts. The Supreme Court's rulings in 2025, including strict enforcement of the 330-day CIRP cap and upholding resolution plan finality under Section 31(6), deter dilatory tactics. High Court precedents, such as those clarifying moratorium scopes vis-à-vis consumer protections, reduce parallel litigations. Stakeholder perspectives underscore the Bill's potential to halve appellate backlogs through a 90-day NCLAT deadline, though implementation gaps, like inadequate training for insolvency professionals persist.
The key Findings advocate for hybrid mitigation strategies: augmenting NCLT infrastructure with AI-driven case triage, mandating pre-admission mediation under IBBI oversight, and fostering cross-agency coordination protocols. These reforms, if holistically integrated, could transform IBC into a robust, time-bound framework, enhancing India's global insolvency ranking and investor confidence. The study concludes that while the 2025 amendments mark a legislative watershed, sustained stakeholder collaboration and empirical monitoring are imperative for translating intent into operational efficiency.},
        keywords = {IBC Amendments, NCLT Delays, Stakeholder Perspectives, CIRP Mitigation, Procedural Reforms, Judicial Interventions},
        month = {January},
        }