Our Expert in India
No results available
Understanding how to file for insolvency in India has become significantly more important since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 received presidential assent in April 2026. The amendment streamlines admission triggers, tightens resolution timelines and introduces procedural changes that affect every stakeholder, from corporate debtors and financial creditors to individual guarantors and sole proprietors. Whether you are a company director facing mounting debt, a creditor pursuing an unpaid claim, or an individual weighing personal insolvency, the filing route you choose (NCLT, DRT or District Court) and the evidence you assemble will determine the speed and outcome of proceedings. This guide translates the 2026 changes into a practical, step-by-step process.
Quick steps to file for insolvency in India (2026):
| Who Can File | Where to File | Minimum Default Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate debtor (company or LLP), financial creditor, operational creditor | National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) | ₹1 crore (under the threshold notified in 2020 and continued under the 2026 amendment framework) |
| Individual or sole proprietor | Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) / District Court | ₹1,000 (IBC Section 78 read with relevant rules; higher thresholds may apply once Part III is fully operationalised) |
| Personal guarantor to a corporate debtor | NCLT (if linked to ongoing CIRP) / DRT | ₹1,000 (statutory floor under Section 78; practical claims are typically much larger) |
Last reviewed: 19 May 2026
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), as amended in 2026, recognises several categories of applicants who may initiate insolvency proceedings. Identifying the correct category is the first compliance decision because it determines which tribunal has jurisdiction, which forms to use and what evidence must accompany the petition.
For corporate entities, the CIRP NCLT process is the primary route. Three classes of applicant may trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):
All corporate petitions are filed at the NCLT bench that has jurisdiction over the registered office of the corporate debtor. The IBC Amendment Act, 2026 has introduced refinements to the admission stage, industry observers expect that revised admission triggers will reduce the scope for procedural objections that previously delayed NCLT hearings.
Yes, an individual can file for insolvency in India. Parts III and IV of the IBC cover individual insolvency in India, although their operationalisation has been phased. As of 2026, the provisions relating to personal guarantors to corporate debtors (Section 95 onwards) are fully notified and active. For other individuals and sole proprietors, the framework continues to evolve, with DRT or the relevant District Court serving as the adjudicating authority depending on the nature of the debt and whether the individual is a guarantor linked to a corporate CIRP.
Where Part III has not yet been notified for a particular debtor class, legacy provincial insolvency statutes, such as the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, may still technically apply, although their practical use is increasingly limited.
Not every entity or individual may trigger insolvency proceedings under the IBC. The following are notable exclusions:
The minimum threshold to initiate insolvency is one of the most frequently asked questions in Indian bankruptcy practice. Before the pandemic-era notification, the original IBC floor for corporate CIRP was ₹1 lakh. A 2020 notification raised this to ₹1 crore, a change that has remained in effect through the 2026 amendment cycle. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 has not altered this ₹1 crore floor for corporate applications; instead, it has focused on streamlining admission mechanics and resolution timelines.
For individual insolvency and personal guarantor proceedings, the statutory minimum under Section 78 of the IBC is ₹1,000. In practice, insolvency petitions by or against personal guarantors typically involve exposures running into several crore, as they are linked to corporate defaults. Practitioners should note that the Central Government retains the power to revise these thresholds by notification.
| Entity Type | Minimum Default Amount | Where to File |
|---|---|---|
| Company or LLP (corporate debtor) | ₹1 crore (per MCA notification dated 24 March 2020, continued under the 2026 framework) | NCLT |
| Individual / personal guarantor to corporate debtor | ₹1,000 (Section 78 IBC; subject to future notification) | DRT / NCLT (if linked to active CIRP) |
| Operational creditor (supplier, employee, government body) | ₹1 crore (same corporate CIRP threshold applies) | NCLT |
The practical implication is clear: small and medium-sized operational creditors whose individual claim falls below ₹1 crore may need to explore collective filing strategies or consider other recovery mechanisms such as SARFAESI or civil suit remedies, unless the aggregate default breaches the threshold.
Choosing the correct forum when learning how to file for insolvency in India is critical. Filing in the wrong tribunal will result in the petition being returned or dismissed, costing months in wasted time. The table below provides a jurisdiction matrix.
| Tribunal / Court | Typical Cases | Key Procedural Difference |
|---|---|---|
| NCLT (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) | Applications under Sections 7, 9 or 10 against companies and LLPs; also applications against personal guarantors where linked to an ongoing CIRP | Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional (IRP); declaration of moratorium under Section 14; formation of Committee of Creditors (COC); prescribed resolution timeline |
| Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) | Insolvency applications by or against personal guarantors to corporate debtors (under Sections 94–187 as notified); standalone individual insolvency where Part III is operationalised | Separate application forms; DRT may appoint a resolution professional; moratorium under Section 96; different procedural rules from NCLT |
| District Court / Provincial Insolvency Acts | Legacy individual insolvency and pauper petitions under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 | Older, slower process; limited to individuals not yet covered by IBC Part III notifications; increasingly rare in practice |
Jurisdiction decision flowchart (textual): Is the debtor a company or LLP? → File at the NCLT bench where its registered office is located. Is the debtor a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor? → If a CIRP is already pending, the NCLT may have jurisdiction; otherwise, file an insolvency petition at the DRT. Is the debtor a non-guarantor individual or sole proprietor? → Check whether IBC Part III has been notified for the relevant class; if not, proceed under the applicable provincial insolvency act at the District Court.
This section is the core how-to. The insolvency process in India follows two parallel procedural streams depending on whether the debtor is a corporate entity or an individual. Both routes are laid out below with numbered steps, document requirements and practitioner guidance reflecting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026.
Practitioner tips: Prioritise evidence from information utilities, NCLT benches routinely cite NeSL records as conclusive proof of default. Also be aware that the 2026 amendment strengthens scrutiny of avoidable transactions, so both applicants and debtors should audit all transfers made in the look-back period before filing. For a deeper analysis of how the 2026 changes affect creditor strategy, see the IBC Amendment Act 2026 impact on creditors.
For those seeking to file an insolvency petition at the DRT, whether as an individual debtor, a personal guarantor, or a creditor pursuing a guarantor, the process under Parts III and IV of the IBC is distinct from the corporate CIRP route.
Practitioner tips: Negotiation windows before a DRT petition is admitted are valuable. Creditors are often more willing to agree to structured repayment once a petition is on file but before formal admission. Also note that garnishee orders and attachment proceedings may be stayed once the interim moratorium takes effect, plan cash-flow management accordingly.
Filing checklist (quick reference):
One of the central objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 is to compress timelines and reduce the backlog of cases that has plagued the CIRP NCLT process. The table below outlines the key stages and their expected duration.
| Stage | Statutory Timeline | Practical Expectation |
|---|---|---|
| Admission of CIRP petition (NCLT) | 14 days from filing (per amended provision; previously no hard statutory deadline) | 30–90 days in practice, depending on bench workload and contested applications |
| CIRP resolution period | 180 days (extendable by 90 days; outer limit of 330 days including litigation time) | The 2026 amendment signals intent to enforce the 330-day cap strictly; industry observers expect median timelines to fall from 500+ days toward 400 days initially |
| COC voting on resolution plan | Within the CIRP period; 66% voting threshold for plan approval | Most plans go to vote within 240–270 days of admission |
| Withdrawal of CIRP application (Section 12A) | 90% COC voting share required to approve withdrawal | Withdrawal requests are common where settlements are reached; the 90% threshold remains unchanged under the 2026 amendment |
| Appeal (NCLT → NCLAT) | 30 days from the order (extendable by 15 days) | NCLAT hearings typically take 3–6 months; Supreme Court appeals add further time |
| Individual insolvency (DRT admission to repayment plan) | No hard statutory outer limit yet prescribed | 6–18 months depending on complexity and DRT workload |
The likely practical effect of the 2026 timeline reforms will be incremental rather than immediate. Benches with heavy dockets may still experience delays, but the statutory pressure on NCLTs to admit or reject within 14 days is expected to reduce the pre-admission bottleneck that has historically accounted for months of lost time.
Once an insolvency petition is admitted, a carefully sequenced process unfolds. For corporate CIRP, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) assumes management of the corporate debtor, displacing the existing board. The moratorium under Section 14 takes immediate effect, barring all creditors from pursuing individual enforcement actions, initiating or continuing lawsuits, or transferring the debtor’s assets.
The IRP issues a public announcement inviting claims from all creditors. Financial creditors, operational creditors and other stakeholders must submit their claims within the prescribed period. Verified financial creditors form the Committee of Creditors (COC), which becomes the decision-making body for the remainder of the CIRP.
The COC appoints a Resolution Professional (RP) to replace the IRP (or may choose to continue with the same professional). The RP invites, evaluates and presents resolution plans submitted by prospective resolution applicants. A resolution plan must be approved by at least 66% of the COC by voting share. If no viable resolution plan is approved within the statutory period, the corporate debtor proceeds to liquidation, a process governed by Sections 33–54 of the IBC. For an in-depth comparison of resolution and liquidation pathways, see restructuring vs liquidation, choosing the right path.
For individual insolvency cases admitted by the DRT, the resolution professional prepares a repayment plan that must be approved by the creditors. If no plan is feasible, the individual debtor may ultimately be adjudicated bankrupt, with assets vested in a bankruptcy trustee for distribution.
Where insolvency cases involve cross-border insolvency elements, additional complexities arise under the evolving framework that the 2026 amendment has begun to address.
Assembling the correct documents is the single most controllable factor in avoiding petition rejections. Below is a consolidated checklist of documents required for insolvency petition filings at both the NCLT and DRT.
For corporate CIRP petitions (NCLT):
For individual / personal guarantor petitions (DRT):
Even experienced practitioners encounter avoidable errors when filing insolvency petitions. The following tips can prevent costly delays:
Navigating the insolvency filing process in India, particularly after the 2026 amendments, requires experienced legal counsel familiar with both NCLT and DRT practice. Global Law Experts maintains a directory of insolvency and bankruptcy specialists across India who can advise on petition preparation, strategy, IRP nomination and post-admission proceedings. For readers seeking specialist guidance on how to file for insolvency in India, connecting with a qualified practitioner early in the process is the most effective way to protect your interests and avoid procedural missteps.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Ranjana Roy Gawai at RRG & ASSOCIATES, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
posted 27 minutes ago
posted 57 minutes ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 1 hour ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 2 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
posted 3 hours ago
No results available
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest legal briefings and news within Global Law Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Law Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional legal services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced lawyers, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
Global Law Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional legal services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced lawyers, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
Send welcome message