Section243
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Repeal of certain enactments and savings

In force Act 31 of 2016 As on 15 Oct 2026

Act 31 of 2016 Ministry Corporate Affairs Enacted 28 May 2016 Cited by 1 provision

Section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with repeal of certain enactments and savings. The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) are hereby repealed. The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.

(1) The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-section (1),—

(i) all proceedings pending under and relating to the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909), and the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920 (5 of 1920) immediately before the commencement of this Code shall continue to be governed under the aforementioned Acts and be heard and disposed of by the concerned courts or tribunals, as if the aforementioned Acts have not been repealed;

(ii) any order, rule, notification, regulation, appointment, conveyance, mortgage, deed, document or agreement made, fee directed, resolution passed, direction given, proceeding taken, instrument executed or issued, or thing done under or in pursuance of any repealed enactment shall, if in force at the commencement of this Code, continue to be in force, and shall have effect as if the aforementioned Acts have not been repealed;

(iii) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken, including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment or declaration made or any operation undertaken or any direction given or any proceeding taken or any penalty, punishment, forfeiture or fine imposed under the repealed enactments shall be deemed valid;

(iv) any principle or rule of law, or established jurisdiction, form or course of pleading, practice or procedure or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction or exemption shall not be affected, notwithstanding that the same respectively may have been in any manner affirmed or recognised or derived by, in, or from, the repealed enactments;

(v) any prosecution instituted under the repealed enactments and pending immediately before the commencement of this Code before any court or tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of this Code, continue to be heard and disposed of by the concerned court or tribunal;

(vi) any person appointed to any office under or by virtue of any repealed enactment shall continue to hold such office until such time as may be prescribed; and

(vii) any jurisdiction, custom, liability, right, title, privilege, restriction, exemption, usage, practice, procedure or other matter or thing not in existence or in force shall not be revised or restored.

(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeal of the repealed enactments or provisions of the enactments mentioned in the Schedule.

Section 243, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016).

Cross-references

Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

  1. Mahendra Kumar Rajpal vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs

    Supreme Court of India 21 May 2021 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The Central Government, acting under Section 1(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has the power to bring into force different provisions of the Code at different times for different categories of persons. The 2018 Amendment Act, by creating personal guarantors as a distinct category in Section 2(e) and mandating the NCLT as the adjudicating authority in Section 60, provided sufficient legislative guidance for the Central Government to selectively apply the Code to personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The notification dated 15.11.2019 is a valid exercise of conditional legislation, not an instance of excessive delegation or impermissible legislative exercise. Personal guarantors, though individuals, are intrinsically connected to corporate debtors and warrant unified adjudication before the NCLT. The approval of a corporate resolution plan does not discharge the personal guarantor's liability, which remains enforceable as an independent contractual obligation under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

    On this section: Repeal of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909 and Provincial Insolvency Act 1920; not yet notified

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. Sanjay Singal vs Union of India

    Supreme Court of India 21 May 2021 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The impugned notification dated 15.11.2019 bringing into force provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 only in so far as they relate to personal guarantors to corporate debtors is a valid exercise of power conferred by Section 1(3) of the Code. The Central Government acted within its constitutional powers in selectively applying Code provisions to personal guarantors as a distinct category of individuals, as this classification was created by Parliament through the 2018 Amendment Act which amended Section 2(e) and Section 60 to provide unified adjudication of corporate debtors and personal guarantors before the NCLT. The notification does not constitute impermissible delegation of legislative power or excessive modification of statutory provisions, but rather operationalizes the Parliamentary intent to treat personal guarantors differently from other individuals due to their intrinsic connection with corporate debtors. Approval of a resolution plan relating to a corporate debtor does not operate to discharge the liabilities of personal guarantors to such corporate debtors, as the guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor and continues notwithstanding involuntary discharge of the principal debtor by operation of law.

    On this section: Repeals Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and Provincial Insolvency Act, not yet notified

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  3. Lalit Kumar Jain vs Union of India

    Supreme Court of India 21 May 2021 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 1(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has authority to bring into force different provisions of the Code at different times for different categories of persons, including personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The 2018 Amendment Act, by creating distinct classification of personal guarantors under Section 2(e) and amending Section 60, provided sufficient parliamentary guidance for such selective application. The impugned notification, which brings into force provisions of Part III of the Code only in relation to personal guarantors to corporate debtors, is valid exercise of power conferred by Section 1(3) and does not amount to excessive delegation or modification of Code provisions. Furthermore, approval of a resolution plan for a corporate debtor does not discharge the personal guarantee liabilities of guarantors, as such liabilities arise from independent contracts of guarantee and are not discharged by involuntary discharge of principal debtor by operation of law.

    On this section: Repeals Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920; not yet notified for personal guarantors

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Questions about Section 243

What have the courts held on Section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?

Mahendra Kumar Rajpal vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs (21 May 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Repeal of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909 and Provincial Insolvency Act 1920; not yet notified. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.

How do I find court cases under Section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 243, section 243 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mahendra Kumar Rajpal vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs (21 May 2021).

What should I read with Section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and has it changed?

Its own text turns on General Clauses Act 6 (Effect of repeal), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.

When was Section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?

Section 243 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 243, was enacted on 28 May 2016 as Act 31 of 2016. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.