The petitioners, primarily allottees under real estate projects and some money lenders, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They are challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020. Specifically, Section 3 amends Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by introducing three provisos that impose a new threshold for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for certain financial creditors, including allottees. Section 4 incorporates an additional Explanation in Section 11 of the Code, and Section 10 inserts Section 32A, which grants immunity to corporate debtors and their properties from criminal liability for offenses committed prior to the commencement of CIRP, subject to certain conditions.

The petitioners, primarily allottees under real estate projects and some money lenders, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They are challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020. Specifically, Section 3 amends Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by introducing three provisos that impose a new threshold for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for certain financial creditors, including allottees. Section 4 incorporates an additional Explanation in Section 11 of the Code, and Section 10 inserts Section 32A, which grants immunity to corporate debtors and their properties from criminal liability for offenses committed prior to the commencement of CIRP, subject to certain conditions.