#repeal_ibcsection32a

IBC’s Clean Slate and the Unpaid Sin: Section 32A, Section 66, and the Corporate Metamorphosis of Liability by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/02/27/ibcs-clean-slate-and-th... The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 establishes a dual legal framework combining fraud recovery and insolvency resolution. Section 66 embodies the Code’s accountability function by empowering recovery from fraudulent and wrongful trading, thereby restoring value to creditors. In contrast, Section 32A, introduced in 2019 with retrospective effect, extinguishes corporate criminal liability once a resolution plan is approved and control passes to new management. This paper argues that these provisions operate in structural tension: Section 66 presupposes continuity of corporate liability to enable recovery, while Section 32A extinguishes corporate criminal liability while preserving corporate identity, assets, and economic continuity. Through a doctrinal case study of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL), this paper demonstrates how avoidance recoveries identified under Section 66 remained corporate assets transferred to the resolution applicant, even as Section 32A extinguished the corporate debtor’s criminal liability for the underlying misconduct. This produced a structural asymmetry in which the corporate entity retained the economic benefits of fraud-linked recoveries while being legally immunized from responsibility for the fraud itself. The retrospective insertion of Section 32A further created a temporal dislocation, altering legal consequences after insolvency had commenced. The paper concludes that the interaction between Sections 32A and 66 represents a fundamental transformation in insolvency law—from a creditor-recovery framework grounded in accountability to an acquirer-protection framework grounded in corporate immunity—raising profound questions about equality before law and the political economy of insolvency resolution.

Pamphlet For DHFL Victims: No More “Clean Slates” For IBC-Proof Crony Capitalism! by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/02/24/manifesto-for-dhfl-vict... This pamphlet is a fact-based cry from over 2.5 lakh DHFL depositors who lost life savings in massive 54–77% haircuts. It chronicles how India’s first AAA-rated NBFC — a sound ₹91,000+ crore housing finance company — was deliberately dismantled under the IBC: starting with Ajay Piramal’s “shock” warning (28 Jan 2019) followed by the Cobrapost exposé (29 Jan 2019), RBI supersession (20 Nov 2019), CIRP admission (3 Dec 2019), mid-process insertion of Section 32A immunity (28 Dec 2019), ignored full-repayment proposals, a Re 1 giveaway of ₹45,000 crore Section 66 recoveries, judicial overrides culminating in Supreme Court approval (1 Apr 2025), reverse mergers to sanitize legacy, and PMLA discharge of the corporate debtor (2 Feb 2026) under Section 32A — while Piramal Finance now thrives (AUM ₹96,690 crore up 23% YoY, PAT up 162%). Highlighting statutory contradictions, CoC bias allegations, and a documented political-corporate nexus, it demands repeal of Section 32A, scrapping the IBC, restitution, and an end to SLAPP suits — framing the DHFL case as engineered crony sanitisation, not genuine resolution.

The “Clean Slate” That Was Engineered: How IBC’s Section 32A Enabled the DHFL–Piramal Takeover by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/02/24/the-clean-slate-that-wa... The DHFL insolvency resolution, culminating in its acquisition by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance (now Piramal Finance) and the February 2, 2026, Mumbai PMLA Special Court discharge from a ₹5,050 crore money-laundering case under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), exemplifies alleged systemic flaws in India’s insolvency framework. This “clean slate” immunity extinguished corporate criminal liability for pre-CIRP offences while preserving prosecution against former promoters like the Wadhawan brothers, despite their ignored full-repayment proposals. Critics portray the process—marked by retrospective Section 32A insertion in December 2019 just before DHFL’s CIRP admission, Ajay Piramal’s January 2019 “shock” prediction preceding the Cobrapost exposé, massive creditor haircuts (54–77% on retail FDs/NCDs), nominal Re 1 valuation for ₹45,000 crore Section 66 avoidance recoveries benefiting Piramal, and upheld “commercial wisdom” in the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, judgment—as engineered cronyism favoring politically connected acquirers via electoral bond donations (Piramal entities contributed significantly to BJP coffers per 2024 ECI data), family ties to Ambani, Flashnet deal controversies, and PM CARES funding. Amid Piramal Finance’s resurgence (AUM ₹96,690 crore up 23% YoY, 9M FY26 PAT ₹1,004 crore up 162%, CRISIL AA+ rating), victim groups decry SLAPP suits silencing dissent, statutory contradictions prioritizing new owners over creditors, and demand full repeal of Section 32A to dismantle what they term a sophisticated mechanism of crony enrichment at the expense of lakhs of ordinary depositors’ savings.

Pamphlet For DHFL Victims: No More “Clean Slates” For IBC-Proof Crony Capitalism! by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/02/24/manifesto-for-dhfl-vict... This pamphlet is a fact-based cry from over 2.5 lakh DHFL depositors who lost life savings in massive 54–77% haircuts. It chronicles how India’s first AAA-rated NBFC — a sound ₹91,000+ crore housing finance company — was deliberately dismantled under the IBC: starting with Ajay Piramal’s “shock” warning (28 Jan 2019) followed by the Cobrapost exposé (29 Jan 2019), RBI supersession (20 Nov 2019), CIRP admission (3 Dec 2019), mid-process insertion of Section 32A immunity (28 Dec 2019), ignored full-repayment proposals, a Re 1 giveaway of ₹45,000 crore Section 66 recoveries, judicial overrides culminating in Supreme Court approval (1 Apr 2025), reverse mergers to sanitize legacy, and PMLA discharge of the corporate debtor (2 Feb 2026) under Section 32A — while Piramal Finance now thrives (AUM ₹96,690 crore up 23% YoY, PAT up 162%). Highlighting statutory contradictions, CoC bias allegations, and a documented political-corporate nexus, it demands repeal of Section 32A, scrapping the IBC, restitution, and an end to SLAPP suits — framing the DHFL case as engineered crony sanitisation, not genuine resolution.

The “Clean Slate” That Was Engineered: How IBC’s Section 32A Enabled the DHFL–Piramal Takeover by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/02/24/the-clean-slate-that-wa... The DHFL insolvency resolution, culminating in its acquisition by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance (now Piramal Finance) and the February 2, 2026, Mumbai PMLA Special Court discharge from a ₹5,050 crore money-laundering case under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), exemplifies alleged systemic flaws in India’s insolvency framework. This “clean slate” immunity extinguished corporate criminal liability for pre-CIRP offences while preserving prosecution against former promoters like the Wadhawan brothers, despite their ignored full-repayment proposals. Critics portray the process—marked by retrospective Section 32A insertion in December 2019 just before DHFL’s CIRP admission, Ajay Piramal’s January 2019 “shock” prediction preceding the Cobrapost exposé, massive creditor haircuts (54–77% on retail FDs/NCDs), nominal Re 1 valuation for ₹45,000 crore Section 66 avoidance recoveries benefiting Piramal, and upheld “commercial wisdom” in the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, judgment—as engineered cronyism favoring politically connected acquirers via electoral bond donations (Piramal entities contributed significantly to BJP coffers per 2024 ECI data), family ties to Ambani, Flashnet deal controversies, and PM CARES funding. Amid Piramal Finance’s resurgence (AUM ₹96,690 crore up 23% YoY, 9M FY26 PAT ₹1,004 crore up 162%, CRISIL AA+ rating), victim groups decry SLAPP suits silencing dissent, statutory contradictions prioritizing new owners over creditors, and demand full repeal of Section 32A to dismantle what they term a sophisticated mechanism of crony enrichment at the expense of lakhs of ordinary depositors’ savings.

IBC’s Clean Slate and the Unpaid Sin: Section 32A, Section 66, and the Corporate Metamorphosis of Liability by DebaprasadBandyopadhyay Via Flickr: onceinabluemoon2021.in/2026/02/27/ibcs-clean-slate-and-th... The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 establishes a dual legal framework combining fraud recovery and insolvency resolution. Section 66 embodies the Code’s accountability function by empowering recovery from fraudulent and wrongful trading, thereby restoring value to creditors. In contrast, Section 32A, introduced in 2019 with retrospective effect, extinguishes corporate criminal liability once a resolution plan is approved and control passes to new management. This paper argues that these provisions operate in structural tension: Section 66 presupposes continuity of corporate liability to enable recovery, while Section 32A extinguishes corporate criminal liability while preserving corporate identity, assets, and economic continuity. Through a doctrinal case study of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL), this paper demonstrates how avoidance recoveries identified under Section 66 remained corporate assets transferred to the resolution applicant, even as Section 32A extinguished the corporate debtor’s criminal liability for the underlying misconduct. This produced a structural asymmetry in which the corporate entity retained the economic benefits of fraud-linked recoveries while being legally immunized from responsibility for the fraud itself. The retrospective insertion of Section 32A further created a temporal dislocation, altering legal consequences after insolvency had commenced. The paper concludes that the interaction between Sections 32A and 66 represents a fundamental transformation in insolvency law—from a creditor-recovery framework grounded in accountability to an acquirer-protection framework grounded in corporate immunity—raising profound questions about equality before law and the political economy of insolvency resolution.