Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: