Submit Article
Legal Analysis. Regulatory Intelligence. Jurisprudence.
Search articles, case studies, legal topics...
IBBI

India IBC by the Numbers: 25,106 Orders Across 8 Forums (2017-2024)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code at a glance: 75% NCLT, 17% NCLAT, 1.46 plans for every liquidation, and the five provisions that anchor the entire Code.

300 wpm
0%
Chunk
Theme
Font

Eight years of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code jurisprudence, in one statistical portrait

The IBC at a glance — eight years of orders, from the first admissions in 2017 to the corpus cut-off at the end of 2024.


How big is the corpus?

Total orders, 2017–2024 25,106
Forums covered 10
Cases tagged as landmark 886

Where does the work happen?

Forum Orders Share
NCLT 18,971 75.6%
NCLAT 4,327 17.2%
Supreme Court 643 2.6%
High Courts 413 1.6%
IBBI Disciplinary Committee 300 1.2%
IBBI RTI Appeals 275 1.1%
IPA / RVO disciplinary 67 0.3%
Other courts 52 0.2%
IBBI Administrative 48 0.2%
DRT 10 <0.1%

Three out of every four orders in the corpus are written by an NCLT bench. IBBI’s quasi-judicial work — long aggregated under a single “IBBI Disciplinary Committee” tag in older reports — has been split into three actual streams here: disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professionals (300), first-appellate RTI rulings (275), and administrative orders (48).

The forum-wise concentration is the IBC’s single most-defining structural fact, and is the subject of Where the IBC Actually Lives.


What does the year-on-year curve look like?

Year Orders
2017 1,082
2018 2,173
2019 4,412
2020 2,771 (Section 10A pandemic freeze, June 2020 – March 2021)
2021 3,125
2022 4,048
2023 4,536 (peak)
2024 2,935 (partial year in pipeline)

The 2019 peak captured the Essar Steel and Innoventive follow-on year. The 2023 peak captured the personal-guarantor wave that Lalit Kumar Jain (May 2021) opened up.


What actually happens to a case?

Outcome Orders What it means
Admitted 6,206 CIRP or PG proceedings begin
Disposed of 5,842 Generic disposal — substantive outcome in body
Appeal allowed 2,825 Appellate relief granted
Appeal dismissed 2,041 Lower order upheld
Plan approved 1,665 Resolution plan approved under Section 31
Dismissed 1,506 Application rejected
Withdrawn 1,268 Section 12A withdrawal or pre-admission settlement
Liquidation ordered 1,139 Section 33 liquidation
Rejected 1,007 Application not entertained
Partly allowed 266 Mixed relief
Adjourned 67 Procedural (mostly SC docket)
Notice issued 61 Procedural — SLP admission stage
Warning 29 IBBI DC sanction
Monetary penalty 22 IBBI DC sanction
Procedural 14 Other procedural
Suspension 9 IBBI DC sanction
Tagged with other matter 8 Procedural
Registration withdrawn 4 IBBI DC sanction
Debarment 1 The strongest IBBI DC sanction, imposed once in eight years

The plans-to-liquidations ratio across the eight years is 1.46 to 1. The Code’s resolution preference is visible in the data — just barely.


What does a CoC actually vote, when it votes?

The corpus now contains 587 CoC voting percentages captured by the AI cleanup pass. Across them:

Average voting share in favour 86.3%
Statutory minimum (Section 30(4)) 66%
Lowest captured 0.01% (orders where the plan got almost no support)
Highest captured 100% (unanimous)

A reader will notice that the average is comfortably above the 66% statutory threshold but with a meaningful gap to 100%. Translation: when a CoC approves a plan, it does so with a real majority but not without dissent. Whether that gap represents healthy negotiation or quiet capitulation is one of the harder questions Chapter 5 takes up through the Essar Steel doctrine.


Which provisions anchor the Code?

Section Cases What it does
9 7,776 Operational creditor application
7 7,509 Financial creditor application
14 6,471 Moratorium
33 3,222 Initiation of liquidation
31 3,168 Approval of resolution plan
8 2,434 Operational creditor demand notice
13 2,242 Public announcement of CIRP
60(5) 2,159 NCLT exclusive jurisdiction
15 2,109 Public announcement
17 1,486 RP takes over management
12A 1,373 Withdrawal of CIRP
20 1,331 RP’s preservation duty
53 1,329 Liquidation distribution waterfall
19 1,318 Co-operation with the RP
29A 1,176 Promoter ineligibility

Five provisions — 7, 9, 14, 31, 33 — together account for the spine of the Code. Add 12A (the withdrawal door — covered in The BYJU’s marquee) and 29A (the promoter ineligibility bar — covered in The Promoter Bar That Reshaped Resolution), both 2018-amendment additions, and the picture is largely complete.


Which subdomains carry the volume?

Subdomain Orders
CIRP 20,314
Liquidation 9,836
Mediation 6,121
Insolvency Professional 3,441
General 3,344
Disciplinary 2,331
Valuation 2,184
Information Utility 1,585
Personal Guarantor 1,492
Avoidance 853
Claims 615
Voluntary liquidation 604
Committee of Creditors 456
IPA 281
Resolution Plan 165

Orders carry multiple tags — the totals exceed 25,106.

CIRP appears in 81% of orders. The “Avoidance” subdomain — covering preferential, undervalued, fraudulent, and extortionate transactions under Sections 43/45/50/66 — was 6 orders in the original corpus because of a tagging bug; it is now correctly 853 orders after the cleanup.


Five things this poster says

  1. The IBC is an NCLT statute. 75.6% of all orders come from a single forum.
  2. 2019 and 2023 are the peak years. Pandemic suppression between them makes the dip sharper than it would otherwise appear.
  3. Section 9 (operational creditors) files marginally more than Section 7 (financial creditors), but financial creditors are 60% more likely to walk out with a resolution plan. See Two Doors, Two Outcomes.
  4. Resolution beats liquidation, narrowly: 1,665 plans against 1,139 liquidations — 1.46 to 1.
  5. CoC commercial wisdom, in numbers: when a CoC approves a plan, the average voting share is 86.3% — above the 66% statutory threshold but with a meaningful 14-point gap to unanimity.

Read next: How a CIRP Actually Worksone real order, traced end to end.

By the Numbers

The data behind this article. Every count traces back to a written order in the IBBI corpus.

Orders by CourtNCLT18,971NCLAT4,327SC643IBBI_DC623HC413IPA_RVO67OTHER_COURT52DRT10Orders by Year20234,53620194,41220224,04820213,12520242,93520202,77120182,17320171,082Orders by Outcomeadmitted6,210disposed_off5,832appeal_allowed2,832appeal_dismissed2,041plan_approved1,681dismissed1,503withdrawn1,268liquidation_ordered1,148rejected1,005partly_allowed268set_aside179upheld83plan_rejected29remanded27Orders by SubdomainCIRP20,314LIQUIDATION9,836MEDIATION6,121IP3,441GENERAL3,344DISCIPLINARY2,331VALUATION2,184IU1,585PERSONAL_GUARANTOR1,473CLAIMS615VOLUNTARY_LIQ604COC456IPA281RESOLUTION PLAN165OTHER92Most-cited IBC Provisions96,39476,326145,033312,705332,60182,06460(5)2,037131,780151,395531,24912A1,237171,20529A1,137611,132521,023

Written by Sushant Shukla
1.5×

More in

Legal Wires

Legal Wires

Stay ahead of the legal curve. Get expert analysis and regulatory updates natively delivered to your inbox.

Success! Please check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.