DISSENT AND DEBT: A COMPARATIVE JOURNEY THROUGH THE INDIA RESURGENCE ARC AND DBS BANK WITH INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
AUTHOR – SARFRAZ ALAM & PRIYANSHU DANU
STUDENTS AT B.SC. LLB (HONS) {CYBERSECURITY}, NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL
BEST CITATION – PARIDHI SHARMA, AI-GENERATED BRANDS: CREATIVE REVOLUTION OR LEGAL RISK?, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (12) OF 2025, PG. 586-597, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’) was enacted in 2016[1] with the intention of streamlining and easing out the process of insolvency, winding up, or liquidation of a company. The 2019 amendments to this code introduced significant changes to crucial sections, including Sections 7, 12, 25A, 30, 31, 33, and 240. Notably, these amendments enhanced protections for dissenting financial creditors, ensuring their interests are safeguarded. Though the purpose of the legislature behind the amendments is clear, the practical application of these provisions has been very controversial and problematic. One such legal issue remains pending before the Supreme Court of India, concerning the determination of the minimum amount a dissenting financial creditor is entitled to when an adjudicating authority accepts a resolution plan.
[1] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, Act 31 of 2016 (prior to the 2019 amendment).