The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
IBBI Amends Liquidation Regulations to Streamline Asset Sale and Enhance Transparency
The Amendment modifies the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 and will apply prospectively, specifically to those liquidation cases where the sale as a going concern has not yet commenced. The primary focus of these changes is to rationalize the options for asset realization and enhance procedural clarity for the liquidator.
Key Regulation
Deletion of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) Review (Regulation 31A)
The Amendment omits clause (f) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 31A. Regulation 31A pertains to the Consultation Committee assisting the liquidator. The deleted clause (f) likely dealt with the requirement for the liquidator to seek the concurrence or review of the Consultation Committee for certain significant decisions, particularly those concerning the sale of assets. This deletion simplifies the decision-making process for the liquidator during liquidation, potentially making the process faster and more efficient by removing a layer of mandatory committee review or documentation.
Rationalization of Asset Sale Methods (Regulation 32)
Regulation 32, which specifies the manner of sale of assets, has been significantly truncated by omitting clauses (e) and (f). The Amendment also makes consequential changes to clauses (c) and (d). The deleted clauses effectively eliminate two previously available options for the liquidator to sell the assets. This removes two specific methods of selling the assets of the Corporate Debtor, thereby limiting the options to those remaining in clauses (a) through (d) (which typically cover sale as a going concern, by auction/private sale, or disposal of assets not sold). The amendment in the proviso replaces the reference to the omitted clause “(f)” with the remaining clause “(d)”, ensuring that the remaining statutory safeguards or conditions (specified in the proviso) align correctly with the surviving sale methods.
Omission of Regulation 32A
The Amendment also directs the omission of the entire Regulation 32A. Regulation 32A, which was introduced in 2020, typically deals with the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The deletion of this standalone regulation may suggest that the provisions for sale as a going concern are now integrated elsewhere in the regulations or that the IBBI is streamlining the framework by relying solely on the general mechanism of Regulation 32, as amended.
Here is a table summarizing the changes brought by the Amendment:
Regulation Provision
Old Regulation (Prior to Oct 14, 2025)
New Regulation (Effective Oct 14, 2025)
Impact of Change
Reg. 31A(1)(f) (Consultation Committee)
Contained clause (f), which likely mandated the Liquidator to consult the Committee on specific liquidation actions (e.g., sale of assets).
Omitted (Clause (f) is deleted).
Streamlines Decision-Making: Removes a layer of mandatory consultation/review for the Liquidator, potentially speeding up the liquidation process.
Reg. 32(e) and (f) (Manner of Sale)
Included two specific methods for the sale of assets (clauses (e) and (f)).
Omitted (Clauses (e) and (f) are deleted).
Rationalizes Sale Methods: Limits the permissible methods of asset sale to those remaining (a) through (d), focusing the Liquidator on core realization strategies like sale as a going concern or sale by auction/private treaty.
Reg. 32 Proviso (Reference)
Referred to the omitted clause (f) in the proviso.
The reference is substituted with the letter and symbol “(d)”.
Consequential Alignment: Ensures that the conditions or safeguards in the proviso of Regulation 32 are correctly applied to the revised list of permissible sale methods.
Reg. 32A (Sale as Going Concern)
Contained a separate, dedicated regulation detailing the procedure for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern.
Omitted (The entire Regulation 32A is deleted).
Consolidation/Integration: Suggests that the procedure for the sale as a ‘going concern’ may now be handled under the general provisions of Regulation 32 (specifically 32(c)), simplifying the overall structure of the sale framework.
Conclusion
The IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025 signals the regulator’s continued effort to refine the insolvency framework. By removing certain clauses from Regulations 31A and 32 and omitting the entire Regulation 32A, the IBBI appears to be pursuing two main objectives: accelerating the realization of assets by minimizing bureaucratic oversight from the Consultation Committee, and rationalizing the permissible methods of asset sale during liquidation.
This targeted cleanup of the regulations, effective immediately for future liquidation cases where a going concern sale hasn’t commenced, is a step towards making the liquidation process under the IBC more efficient and outcomes-focused. Liquidators must now operate strictly within the remaining defined methods and procedures for asset disposal.
Introduction The gavel falls not in Singapore, but in a courtroom in Delhi. A foreign-seated arbitration, a process designed for minimal court interference, has been abruptly halted by an Indian civil court. This isn’t just a legal curiosity; it’s a seismic shift in India’s jurisprudence, challenging the long-held tenet that courts should keep their hands off international arbitrations. The Delhi […]
The Delhi High Court in SPML Infra Limited v. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited1 held that an Arbitrator cannot pass an enforceable and binding order unilaterally determining their own fees. In this case, the Arbitrator passed an order revising the fees unilaterally, which was subsequently challenged before the court. After hearing the parties, the court set aside the impugned […]
The article explores the NCLAT Judgement in Getz Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs. SBI on whether filing a Section 10 petition after SARFAESI Act actions can be considered fraudulent or malicious under Section 65 of the IBC. The NCLAT in a recent decision titled Getz Cables Private Limited Versus State Bank of India and Another[1] has held that filing an application […]
