Balancing public trust and creditor primacy in public-private partnership concessions under India’s insolvency framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62452/8ybqtx02Palavras-chave:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Public-private Partnership, Concession Agreement, Public Trust Doctrine, Infrastructure InsolvencyResumo
India’s insolvency framework seeks the timely resolution of financially distressed corporate debtors while preserving their value as going concerns. Public-private partnerships, however, present distinctive challenges because infrastructure development and service delivery depend on concession agreements that combine commercial rights with public responsibilities. Conflict arises when a concessionaire enters corporate insolvency resolution and the granting authority seeks to terminate the concession. This study examines how Indian insolvency law can reconcile creditor protection, preservation of enterprise value, and the state’s continuing responsibility for public infrastructure and services. Using doctrinal and comparative legal methods, the analysis examines the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, relevant constitutional principles, and Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning contractual termination during corporate insolvency. It also draws comparatively on the United Kingdom’s special administration regimes and the United States’ Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy framework. The analysis identifies four principal areas of friction: the legal characterisation of concession rights, the interaction between termination powers and the insolvency moratorium, the potential erosion of going-concern value, and the treatment of termination compensation within creditor priorities. To address these problems, the study proposes a specialised public infrastructure insolvency framework incorporating a dual-threshold termination test, mandatory step-in rights for financial creditors, and ring-fenced termination compensation. These reforms seek to provide a more predictable balance between public-service continuity and creditor interests while strengthening legal certainty for granting authorities, concessionaires, creditors, and prospective resolution applicants involved in financially distressed public-private partnership projects in India.
Downloads
Referências
Alexander, P. C. (2025). Chapter 9 bankruptcy: The solution that causes problems. Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law, 19(2), 323–350. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjcfcl/vol19/iss2/1
Coordes, L. N. (2016). Restructuring municipal bankruptcy. Utah Law Review, 6(2), 329–385. https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ulr
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, HM Treasury, Ofgem, & Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. (2017). Memorandum of understanding: Energy supply company administration. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-energy-supply-company-administration
Government of India. (1950). The Constitution of India (Art. 14). Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department. https://www.legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
Jain, S. (2020). Analysing the overriding effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. NUJS Law Review, 13, 1. https://nujslawreview.org/index.php/lr/article/view/442/317
Jon, W. (2025). Ipso facto clauses in cross-border insolvency: From STX Pan Ocean to Hanjin Shipping and beyond. International Insolvency Review, 34(3), 793–821. https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.70024
National Company Law Tribunal. (2017). ICICI Bank Ltd. v. ABG Shipyard Ltd. (C.P. No. (IB) 53/7/NCLT/AHM/2017, Ahmedabad Bench). https://ibbi.gov.in/webadmin/pdf/order/2017/Jun/1stAug2017inthematterofABGShipyardLtdCPIBNo537AHM2017.pdf
Parliament of India. (2016). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act No. 31 of 2016). India Code. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/2154
Parry, R., Vaccari, E., & Chapagain, S. (2026, February 1). A critical review of UK special administrations and their alternatives for struggling providers of public functions. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6216978
Shah, A., & Sabne, M. (2025). A critical analysis of waterfall mechanism under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 7(2). https://www.ijllr.com/post/a-critical-analysis-of-waterfall-mechanism-under-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016
Sinha, A. K., & Jha, K. N. (2021). Financing constraints of public–private partnership projects in India. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(1), 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2018-0237
Supreme Court of India. (1996). M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 182 of 1996; 1996 INSC 1482; (1997) 1 SCC 388). https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1514672/
Supreme Court of India. (2019). K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10673 of 2018; 2019 INSC 148). https://api.sci.gov.in/pdfdate/index1.php?dno=393152018&dt=2019-02-05&filename=supremecourt/2018/39315/39315_2018_Order_05-Feb-2019.pdf
Supreme Court of India. (2019). Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 2019; 2019 INSC 889). https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/1348/1348_2019_5_1501_15816_Judgement_09-Aug-2019.pdf
Supreme Court of India. (2021a). Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Mr. Amit Gupta & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9241 of 2019; 2021 INSC 163; (2021) 7 SCC 209). https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/42523/42523_2019_36_1503_26738_Judgement_08-Mar-2021.pdf
Supreme Court of India. (2021b). Tata Consultancy Services Limited v. Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Resolution Professional, SK Wheels Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3045 of 2020; 2021 INSC 780). https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/16761/16761_2020_4_1502_31612_Judgement_23-Nov-2021.pdf
United States Congress. (1978). Bankruptcy Code, Chapter 9: Adjustment of debts of a municipality (11 U.S.C. §§ 901–946). Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title11-chapter9
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Barkha Rani, Neeti Goyal, Madhulika Singh (Autor/a)
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Os autores que publicam na Revista Metropolitana de Ciencias Aplicadas (REMCA), concordam com os seguintes termos:
1. Direitos autorais
Os autores mantêm direitos autorais irrestritos sobre suas obras. Os autores concedem ao periódico o direito de primeira publicação. Para tal, cedem à revista, em caráter não exclusivo, direitos de exploração (reprodução, distribuição, comunicação pública e transformação). Os autores podem firmar acordos adicionais para a distribuição não exclusiva da versão publicada do trabalho no periódico, desde que haja reconhecimento de sua publicação inicial nesta revista.
© Os autores.
2. Licença
Os trabalhos são publicados na revista sob a licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Os termos podem ser encontrados em: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.pt
Esta licença permite:
- Compartilhar: copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer meio ou formato.
- Adaptar: remixar, transformar e desenvolver o material.
Nos seguintes termos:
- Atribuição: Você deve dar o crédito apropriado, fornecer um link para a licença e indicar se alguma alteração foi feita. Você pode fazer isso de qualquer maneira razoável, mas não de uma forma que sugira que o licenciante endossa ou patrocina seu uso.
- Não comercial: você não pode usar o material para fins comerciais.
- Compartilhamento pela mesma licença: se você remixar, transformar ou criar a partir do material, deverá distribuir sua criação sob a mesma licença do trabalho original.
Não há restrições adicionais. Você não pode aplicar termos legais ou medidas tecnológicas que restrinjam legalmente outros de fazerem qualquer coisa que a licença permita.
