Introduction

Retention of Title (“ROT”) clauses, although still not commonly used in India, are a well-established measure in various international jurisdictions to secure the interests of sellers in commercial transactions. An ROT clause allows a seller to retain ownership or title to the goods supplied until a specified condition, usually payment in full, is met by the buyer.

This article examines whether a delay in implementing the Resolution Plan equates to failure of the plan or can timelines for implementation be extended?

Power to extend timelines

1 | 15 Introduction The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is a landmark legislation which was enacted in 2016 to put in place a consolidated and holistic legal framework for resolution of stressed assets in India. Since its enactment, IBC has been one of the most dynamic legislations which has undergone several revisions on account of various learnings arising out of resolution of large volume of stressed assets in its initial phases.

INTRODUCTION:

The legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.

In the regime of insolvency and bankruptcy law in India, the question of when and how the liabilities of Personal Guarantors crystallize has become increasingly significant. Recent judgments by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Shantanu Jagdish Prakash v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) 1609 of 2024), Mavjibhai Nagarbhai Patel v. State Bank of India & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 1702, 1711 & 1712 of 2024), Asha Basantilal Surana v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) recently notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 19, 2025 and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 26, 2025 (collectively referred as “Amendment Regulations”), amending certain key provisions under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”).

Introduction