{"id":1408,"date":"2026-04-09T06:08:31","date_gmt":"2026-04-09T06:08:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408"},"modified":"2026-04-09T06:18:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-09T06:18:06","slug":"streamlining-admission-and-withdrawal-of-a-cirp-application-the-ibc-ignites-hope","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408","title":{"rendered":"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series – I"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026<\/a> (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia – amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019) in relation to admission and withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (\u2018CIRP\u2019) application. Both changes have the potential to streamline CIRP hampered by sub-par legislative drafting and judicial innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd v Axis Bank Ltd<\/a> (\u2018Vidarbha Industries case\u2019), the Supreme Court expanded scope of the National Company Law Tribunal\u2019s (\u2018NCLT\u2019) powers under Section 7 of the IBC. The Supreme Court held that the NCLT can consider viability and overall financial health of the corporate debtor before admitting a CIRP application. This interpretation permitted the NCLT to not admit a CIRP application even if the corporate debtor\u2019s default of debt was established. And detracted from the legislative intent of establishing a \u2018default regime\u2019 under the IBC wherein proof of debtor\u2019s default was envisaged to be sufficient for admitting a CIRP application. The IBC Act, 2026 adds an Explanation to Section 7 which clarifies that apart from default of debt and specified procedural requirements, the NCLT cannot take any other factor into consideration before admitting a CIRP application. Clearly, the aim is to expedite the admission of a CIRP application. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simultaneously, the process for withdrawal of a CIRP application was unduly complex. Section 12A- until the IBC Act, 2026 amended it \u2013 provided that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety per cent voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner as may be specified.<\/em>       <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A plain reading of Section 12A suggested that withdrawal of a CIRP application is not permissible before constitution of the Committee of Creditors (\u2018CoC\u2019). But the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (\u2018CIRP Regulations\u2019) envisaged that it is permissible to withdraw a CIRP application prior to the CoC\u2019s formation subject to the NCLT\u2019s approval. The divergence between Section 12A and the CIRP Regulations resulted in separate procedures for withdrawal depending on the stage of CIRP.  The Supreme Court elaborated the procedures for each stage in Glas Trust Company LLC v Byju Raveendran<\/a> (\u2018Glas Trust case\u2019). To simplify the law on withdrawal of a CIRP application, the IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 12A and introduces Section 12A (2) which states that withdrawal of a CIRP application shall not be permitted: (a) before constitution of the CoC; and (b) after invitation for submission of a resolution plan has been issued by the resolution professional. By creating a definite time window within which a CIRP application can be withdrawn, the IBC Act, 2026 intends to create uniform legal conditions for withdrawal of a CIRP application, irrespective of its stage. And hopefully, expedite exit after admission of a CIRP application.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article elaborates on the need for above changes as introduced by the IBC Act, 2026 and suggests that – independently and cumulatively – they have the potential to streamline CIRP. And undo some unwarranted judicial interpretation and legal complexities that currently surround admission and withdrawal of a CIRP application.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. Admission of a CIRP Application  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(a) Admitting, Rejecting, and Keeping a CIRP Application in \u2018Abeyance\u2019 <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries case reasoned that the NCLT had discretion to not admit a CIRP application even if default of debt was established. In Vidarbha Industries, the corporate debtor \u2013 an electricity generating company under the Electricity Act, 2003 \u2013 had won a case against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (\u2018MERC\u2019). The corporate debtor claimed that since it had won the case, the MERC owed it Rs 1,730 crores; but the MERC had filed an appeal against the decision. Before the appeal could be decided, Axis Bank filed a CIRP application against the corporate debtor under Section 7 of the IBC. Both, the NCLT and the NCLAT refused to stay the CIRP application by reasoning that once default is established, no other extraneous factor should hinder an expeditious decision on a CIRP application. Both, the NCLT and the NCLAT reasoned that timely resolution of a corporate debtor is crucial to advance the IBC\u2019s aims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court, though, observed that under Section 7, the NCLT possesses discretion to not admit a CIRP application even if default is proved. The Supreme Court\u2019s observations were based on three pillars: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, the Supreme Court agreed with observations of the NCLT\/NCLAT that a struggling corporate debtor should be rescued expeditiously without considering an extraneous factor. But the Supreme Court added that overall financial health of a corporate debtor was not an extraneous factor. And thus, neither was the corporate debtor\u2019s dispute with the MERC an extraneous factor. Especially, when the amount of Rs 1,730 crores awarded to the corporate debtor far exceeded the financial creditor\u2019s claim. In stating so, the Supreme Court ignored that the corporate debtor receiving the said amount was contingent upon it winning against the MERC in the appellate forum. And a corporate debtor could potentially use a pending appeal to delay or even defeat admission of a CIRP application.      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, the Supreme Court clarified that the NCLT should not confine itself to merely determining if there was default of debt. The default of debt, as per the Supreme Court only provided the financial creditor a right to initiate CIRP. The NCLT was required to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 apply its mind to relevant factors including the feasibility of initiation of CIRP, against an electricity generating company operated under statutory control, the impact of MERC\u2019s appeal, pending in this Court, \u2026 and the over all financial health and viability of the Corporate debtor under its existing management<\/em>. (para 61)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is difficult to understand the relevance of a corporate debtor operating under a statutory control to admission of a CIRP application. Technically, all companies operate under one form of regulatory or statutory control. Further, the Supreme Court stating that the NCLT can examine \u2018overall financial health\u2019 of a corporate debtor amounts to providing the NCLT discretion to scrutinize business viability of corporates. A commercial decision that the NCLT is not equipped for or can be expected to perform. Neither does the IBC\u2019s design intend that the NCLT wade into commercial aspects.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirdly, the Supreme Court relied on distinction in statutory language under Section 7 vis-\u00e0-vis Section 9. The Supreme Court noted that Section 7(5) states that the NCLT \u2018may\u2019 admit a CIRP application filed by a financial creditor. While Section 9(5) states that the NCLT \u2018shall\u2019 admit a CIRP application filed by an operational creditor. The use of \u2018may\u2019 and \u2018shall\u2019 in two identical provisions was interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the former conferred discretion to the NCLT to admit a CIRP application. Thus, the NCLT may in its discretion choose not to admit a CIRP application of a financial creditor by considering all relevant facts and circumstances. While under Section 9(5) it was mandatory for the NCLT to admit a CIRP application of operational creditors if it complied with all pre-requisites of the IBC. The Supreme Court\u2019s reliance on difference in statutory language of two comparable provisions was defensible; and inadvertently pointed towards a differential treatment in CIRP applications of the financial creditors vis-\u00e0-vis operational creditors. Though whether this differential treatment was intended, or a result of legislative oversight is tough to establish one way or the other.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court\u2019s observations in Vidarbha Industries case had the effect of changing a crucial understanding regarding the NCLT\u2019s powers under Section 7. For example, the observations detracted from a notable precedent – E.S. Krishnamurthy & Ors v Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt Ltd<\/a> – wherein the Supreme Court had noted that under Section 7(5)(a), the NCLT had only two options: admit or reject a CIRP application. The Supreme Court in the review petition of Vidarbha Industries<\/a>however noted that its observations in Vidarbha Industries were only confined to facts of that case. The Supreme Court\u2019s clarification in the review petition was used in M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank<\/a> (\u2018M. Suresh Kumar Reddy case\u2019) to hold that the ratio of Vidarbha Industries case cannot be used as a precedent for all cases. And, thus, in M. Suresh Kumar Redddy case the Supreme Court held that the NCLT under Section 7(5)(a) has only two options of accepting or rejecting a CIRP application. The result was a less-than-ideal legal position wherein Vidarbha Industries case was simultaneously relevant and irrelevant to understand scope of the NCLT\u2019s powers under Section 7.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(b) The IBC Act, 2026 Clarifies: Admit or Reject a CIRP Application <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IBC Act, 2026 seeks to resolve the position caused by differing views about the NCLT\u2019s powers under Section 7(5)(a). To begin with, the IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 7 to reiterate two existing mandates for the NCLT: (a) the NCLT shall record reasons for delay, in writing, if it has not passed an order within fourteen days of receipt of a CIRP application; (b) a renewed emphasis on accessing records of financial debt as recorded with the information utility. And to overcome the effect of Vidarbha Industries case, adds Explanation 1 to Section 7. Explanation I states that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that where the requirements under clause (a) have been complied with, no other ground shall be considered to reject an application filed under this section. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The requirements under clause (a) are that a default has occurred, a CIRP application is complete, and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the proposed resolution professional. Clearly, if the procedural requirements of clause (a) are met, the NCLT possesses no discretion to delay admission of a CIRP application. To further expedite the admission of a CIRP application, Explanation II added by the IBC Act, 2026 states that if default in respect of a financial debt recorded with an information utility is provided with a CIRP application, it shall be sufficient to ascertain the existence of a default. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Section 7(5) has now been amended to state that the NCLT \u2018shall\u2019 admit a CIRP application within fourteen days of receipt, if it is satisfied that a default has occurred. Removing the distinction between Section 7(5) and Section 9(5) underlined in Vidarbha Industries case wherein the Supreme Court said that use of \u2018may\u2019 in the former implied that the NCLT had discretion to not admit a CIRP application even if a default was established. While use of \u2018shall\u2019 in Section 9(5) did not afford the NCLT such a discretion. With both provisions now deploying \u2018shall\u2019, the IBC Act, 2026 \u2013 alongside other changes to Section 7 – has effectively made reasoning of Vidarbha Industries case redundant.       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. Withdrawal of a CIRP Application <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally, the IBC did not contain a provision for withdrawal of a CIRP application. Filing a withdrawal application was only permitted under Rule 8 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (\u2018Adjudicating Authority Rules\u2019) which provided that the NCLT may permit withdrawal of a CIRP application if the applicant made a request for withdrawal before it was admitted by the NCLT. There was no statutory provision or a rule for permitting withdrawal of a CIRP application after its admission by the NCLT. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, if the corporate debtor and creditors arrived at a settlement after the NCLT\u2019s admission of a CIRP application, the withdrawal application was typically allowed<\/a> by the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt Ltd v Mona Pharmachem<\/em><\/a> suggested that the relevant rules may be suitably amended to address the above lacuna. And subsequently, the Insolvency Committee<\/a> examined the issue and recommended that Rule 8, Adjudicating Authority Rules be amended to empower the NCLT to allow withdrawal applications even after admission of a CIRP application provided the CoC pre-approves filing of the withdrawal application.  In 2018, the IBC was amended with insertion of Section 12A, IBC. Alongside, Regulation 30A was inserted in the CIRP Regulations which provided a detailed procedure for the withdrawal of a CIRP application after its admission by the NCLT. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(a) Interpretation of Section 12A: Swiss Ribbons Plugs a \u2018Lacuna\u2019 <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 12A \u2013 even before amendment by the IBC Act, 2026 \u2013 stated that the NCLT shall allow withdrawal of a CIRP application if it is approved by ninety per cent voting share of the CoC. However, Section 12A was silent on the phase between admission of a CIRP application and constitution of the CoC. One way to interpret the silence of Section 12A on this interim phase was that the legislature did not intend to allow withdrawal of a CIRP application until the CoC was constituted. And this would have been a reasonable interpretation of Section 12A. Interpreting Section 12A to mean that once a CIRP application has been admitted, its withdrawal can only be permitted with approval of ninety per cent voting share of the CoC and thus obviously only after the constitution of the CoC was a defensible interpretation. The Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons & Anr v Union of India & Ors<\/a> (\u2018Swiss Ribbons case\u2019), though had a different view on the issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Swiss Ribbons case, one of the petitioner\u2019s challenge was to the constitutionality of Section 12A of the IBC. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 12A and added its observations on the applicable procedure for a withdrawal application in the interim between admission of a CIRP application and constitution of the CoC. In the Supreme Court\u2019s own words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We make it clear that at any stage where the committee of creditors is not yet constituted, a party can approach the NCLT directly, which Tribunal may, in exercise of its inherent powers Under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 allow or disallow an application for withdrawal or settlement. This will be decided after hearing all the concerned parties and considering all relevant factors on the facts of each case.        <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court also pertinently clarified that the interim resolution professional has 30 days from the date of its appointment to constitute a CoC. The above prescribed procedure was only relevant if the corporate debtor and the financial creditors arrived at a settlement in this narrow time window.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(b) Reconciling Section 12A with<\/em> Regulation 30A<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulation 30A, as originally introduced alongside Section 12A, inserted an outer time limit for the withdrawal application by stating that it should be filed \u2018before issue of invitation of expression of interest\u2019, a limitation that was not mentioned in Section 12A. The secondary legislation prescribing a restriction not provided in the statutory provision was partially reconciled by the Supreme Court in Brilliant Alloys Pvt Ltd v Mr. S. Rajagopal<\/a> (\u2018Brilliant Alloys case\u2019). The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against an order of the NCLT which disallowed the withdrawal application because the invitation of expression of interest had already been issued. The Supreme Court observed that Regulation 30A needed to be read with the main provision – Section 12A of the IBC – and the latter contained no stipulation regarding the invitation of an interest. Thus, the stipulation regarding invitation of an expression of interest \u2018can only be considered as directory depending on the facts of each case.\u2019  Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly allowed withdrawal of a CIRP application even after issuance of the expression of interest. There was one issue: the Supreme Court\u2019s caveat that withdrawal of the CIRP application at such a stage should be justified by facts of the case. The caveat ensured that the condition prescribed in Regulation 30A regarding expression of interest wasn\u2019t completely irrelevant.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Brilliant Alloys case, the legal position was that withdrawal application could be filed even after issuance of an invitation for expression of interest, if the NCLT was satisfied about the need for withdrawal at such a late stage in CIRP. But, in some cases such as Abhishek Singh v Huhtamaki PPL Ltd<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that a CIRP application should be allowed to be withdrawn immediately if the CoC was not constituted. And did not perceive any inconsistency between Section 12A and Regulation 30A.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulation 30A was amended after \u2013 and partially because of – the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Swiss Ribbons case and in Brilliant Alloys case. Two elements were added in Regulation 30A that were previously missing: first, it expressly provided for withdrawal of a CIRP application before constitution of the CoC through an application to be submitted by the interim resolution professional; second, Regulation 30A expressly permitted withdrawal of a CIRP application after issuance of the invitation for expression of interest if the applicant states \u2018the reasons justifying withdrawal after issue of such invitation.\u2019 The first element provided legislative foundation to the Supreme Court\u2019s observations in Swiss Ribbons case, the latter element to the observations made in the Brilliant Alloys case. The divergence between Section 12A and Regulation 30A still persisted because the former had not been amended.       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(c) Amendment to Section 12A via the IBC Act, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IBC Act, 2026 amends Section 12A by introducing sub-section (2) which provides for the time window for withdrawal of a CIRP application. Section 12A(2)(a) states that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a CIRP application admitted by the NCLT \u2018shall not be withdrawn\u2019 before constitution of the CoC. Section 12A(2)(b) adds a CIRP application shall not be withdrawn after the first invitation for submission of a resolution plan has been issued by the resolution professional. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not allowing withdrawal of a CIRP application before constitution of the CoC makes sense since Section 12A(1) states an application for withdrawal of a CIRP application can only be made by a resolution professional with the approval of ninety-nine per cent voting share of the CoC. One can argue that submitting a withdrawal application is impossible until the CoC is constituted. Section 12A(2) though also provides statutory basis to the outer time limit previously contained only in Regulation 30A. Previously, Section 12A permitted the CoC to agree to withdrawal of a CIRP application without an outer time limit. Insistence on an outer time limit seems to be a balancing act between respecting the commercial wisdom of the CoC and preventing derailment of the CIRP at an advanced stage. The curious part is that previously the statutory provision did not encapsulate this policy dilemma, neither did the Insolvency Committee examine this issue in any meaningful detail. But the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (\u2018IBBI\u2019) \u2013 which primarily drafts the rules and regulations – recognized the need for an outer time limit by introducing it in Regulation 30A. The IBBI\u2019s intent was laudable, but it created a divergence in Section 12A and Regulation 30A. And, the IBC Act, 2026 seems to have resolved the divergence.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion   <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IBC Act, 2026 suitably amends provisions relating to admission of a CIRP application and its withdrawal. The bottlenecks caused by sub-par drafting and judicial innovation have been suitably removed to streamline CIRP. And to that extent, if the NCLT adheres to the letter of law we are likely to see a more disciplined CIRP process. The only note of caution that I would like to state here is something that is often said about the IBC: merely improving the letter of law is insufficient if the infrastructure remains inadequate. The NCLTs \u2013 across India \u2013 need a massive overhaul in terms of personnel and infrastructure. Hopefully, the necessary improvements will be prioritised and will follow the improved letter of law. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia – amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019) in relation to admission and withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (\u2018CIRP\u2019) application. Both changes have the potential to streamline CIRP hampered by sub-par legislative drafting and judicial innovation.  In Vidarbha Industries Power … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[198],"tags":[333,322,95,332,335,94,334],"class_list":["post-1408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abc-of-ibc","tag-admission","tag-cirp","tag-ibc","tag-ibc-amendment-2026","tag-ibc-reform","tag-ravpratapsingh","tag-withdrawal"],"yoast_head":"\nStreamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series - I - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series - I - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia – amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019) in relation to admission and withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (\u2018CIRP\u2019) application. Both changes have the potential to streamline CIRP hampered by sub-par legislative drafting and judicial innovation.  In Vidarbha Industries Power ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-09T06:08:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-09T06:18:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rav Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408\",\"name\":\"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series - I - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-09T06:08:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-09T06:18:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series – I\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/\",\"name\":\"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum\",\"description\":\"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917\",\"name\":\"Rav Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Rav Singh\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series - I - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series - I - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","og_description":"The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (\u2018IBC Act, 2026\u2019) – inter alia – amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (\u2018IBC\u2019) in relation to admission and withdrawal of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (\u2018CIRP\u2019) application. Both changes have the potential to streamline CIRP hampered by sub-par legislative drafting and judicial innovation.  In Vidarbha Industries Power ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408","og_site_name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","article_published_time":"2026-04-09T06:08:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-09T06:18:06+00:00","author":"Rav Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rav Singh","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408","name":"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series - I - TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-09T06:08:31+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-09T06:18:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?p=1408#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Streamlining Admission and Withdrawal of a CIRP Application: The IBC Ignites Hope | IBC (Amendment) Series – I"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#website","url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/","name":"TheLeagle | Eco Law Forum","description":"Analyse. Discuss. Learn.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/3cf683f6a55fd613e1bc28173c8e0917","name":"Rav Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/88a0d335c97cf709c9618d1d1c19ff328612a3144c986c21e6756b1e84bc15e5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Rav Singh"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.ravsingh.in\/"],"url":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/?author=2"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1408"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1408\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1411,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1408\/revisions\/1411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theleagle.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}