Introduction Reconstruction is the corporate process which involves modifying the structure of the company in order to improve the financial health of the company. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 (Code) deals with the formal restructuring of Indian companies. The process of restructuring under the Code is called the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It is the process of settling the issue of corporate insolvency with the help of the provisions of the Code. This process can only be initiated when the company commits default. By initiating the process of corporate insolvency under the Code, there can be two possible outcomes. First outcome is that the company is effectively revived, through the process of restructuring the company. Second outcome is that when there is no room for revival, then the company goes into liquidation. The Code is a positive contribution towards the insolvency laws in India as it has a different approach than the existing legal frameworks. The code focuses on the creditor in possession approach rather than the debtor in possession model. Under this former approach, more power is given to the creditor during the insolvency approach. Once the CIRP is filed in the NCLT, the court appoints an unbiased person referred as the resolution professional. He is appointed to handle the management and daily operations of the company. Whereas in the latter approach, the debtors still have the control of the day-to-day affairs of the business. This approach allows the debtors to continue to mismanage the company and worsen the financial health of the company. Second overall we see that the Code indeed improves the ease of doing business in multiple ways. The Code has established a faster resolution insolvency process by making it time bound. Additionally, by adopting the creditor-inpossession approach, it has successfully earned the confidence of the creditors. This results in an increase in investment, which helps in expansion of the businesses and the overall national economy. Even though there are advantages, the Code has experienced numerous setbacks. First is that, the prerequisite for filing the application for initiating the CIRP is to establish that default has been committed by the company. However, it is difficult to establish the same either due to operational issues or ambiguous contract terms or choosing complex financial transactions. Second is that the court has held that the timeline for the adjudicating authority to take decision with respect to the CIRP application is directory and not mandatory. This is suggestive that these corporate debtors end up filing for their responses even beyond 14 days as they are well aware they will not be penalised. This will lead to parties questioning maintainability of the application and even make the proceeding lengthy, ultimately increasing the burden of the NCLT. Another cause of delay is the involvement of multiple stakeholders in structuring the resolution plan for the restructuring of the company. Under section 5(26) of the Code, the resolution application prepares the resolution plan, which requires further inspection and analysis by the resolution professional under section 30(4), it then requires the approval of the Committee of Creditors before seeking approval from the NCLT under section 30(6). Additionally, the recent amendment of the default amount under the code has been as low as Rs. one lakh, this leads to additional burden on them. In addition to this, although the recent case of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta tried to provide interpretation of certain provisions of the Code, especially focussing on the treatment of financial and operational creditors during the CIRP. The question arose because the Code does not specifically deal with priority to be given to these two types of creditors in the distribution of the proceeds during CIRP. The Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors should be given the discretionary power to determine the distribution of the proceeds. This is problematic because the Code itself mandates equitable treatment of all kinds of creditors under section 53. This section lays down the order of priority by which the proceeds of the sale of assets will be distributed against the creditors. This section ensures that no creditor is ignored and all of them receive just and equitable treatment. However, under this case the court gives too much power in the hands of the financial creditors to decide the proceeds, by doing this they are not taking into consideration the interests of the operational creditors. Way Ahead 1) It would be better to have a more realistic timeline to ensure consistency in the CIRP. Additionally the response period of the adjudicating tribunals should be extended as well, in order to prevent overburdening and ensure approval of the right resolution plan. 2) There are multiple stakeholders involved in the making of the resolution plan. This causes further delay in the approval of the resolution plan.