Abstract
Modern global trade operates with assets and debts scattered across multiple nations, yet legal frameworks often remain confined within strict national boundaries. While India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 successfully reformed domestic debt resolution, its cross-border mechanism under Sections 234 and 235 remains inadequate, relying on non-existent bilateral treaties and exact reciprocity. This statutory gap leads to severe friction and delays during international corporate collapses, as demonstrated by the ad-hoc, chaotic coordination required during the Jet Airways insolvency. To resolve these systemic vulnerabilities, India's Insolvency Law Committee recommended adopting a tailored version of the 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency—a framework focused on procedural consistency, clear court cooperation, and the recognition of foreign proceedings based on a debtor's center of main interests. Global jurisdictions like the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore have successfully integrated this model, building a deep pool of jurisprudence regarding judicial flexibility and safeguards that India can draw upon. By 2026, formal adoption of the Model Law is crucial for India to enhance foreign investor confidence, lower global capital costs, and empower domestic creditors chasing assets abroad, all while preventing its legal influence from slipping to aggressive regional restructuring hubs like Singapore. Counter-arguments regarding the surrender of domestic legal sovereignty, tribunal capacity strains, and strategic forum shopping can be effectively managed through robust judicial checks, specialized training, and look-back periods to assess genuine operational hubs. Ultimately, India must implement the UNCITRAL Model Law in its 2026 legislative cycle by avoiding a restrictive reciprocity rule, defining a clear public policy exception, and establishing dedicated cross-border benches within the National Company Law Tribunal.