https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jbil/issue/feed 2026-01-05T06:36:22+00:00 Mr. Gagan Kumar (Associate Editor) [email protected] Open Journal Systems <p>The Journal of Banking and Insurance Law is prepared under the aegis of eminent scholars, Legal experts, academicians, attorneys and other professionals. The scope of the journal is broad and covers topics such as banking, securities, financial services, administrative and general banking &amp; Insurance related laws &amp; issues arising out of them. The Journal welcomes all scholars exploring the general subject matter of financial institutions including financial products and markets. Law and strategy makers are under consistent pressure to watch the enthusiasm of buyers. JBIL welcomes contributions from scholarly community and experts involved in banking &amp; insurance industries.</p> https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jbil/article/view/1967 2026-01-05T06:36:22+00:00 Chowdavarapu Vatsal [email protected]

<p>In this case, the focus is on the fundamental Principle of Utmost Good Faith, which is integral to all kinds of insurance. The insurance contract is based on trust, and the principle of utmost good faith, which emphasizes disclosures, is essential for establishing trust between insurers and the insured. This trust is crucial for both parties when it comes to settling claims. The case examines the evolution of the principle of utmost good faith over time, emphasising relevant cases. Additionally, it delves into the<br>statutory provisions related to good faith by referencing domestic insurance statutes in India. The paper also explores various aspects of the principle of utmost good faith. It discusses the responsibilities of both the insurer and the insured in line with this principle. Specifically, the case concerns the failure to disclose information about a prior insurance policy in the proposal form.</p>

2026-01-05T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Banking and Insurance Law https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jbil/article/view/1962 2026-01-03T08:05:29+00:00 ABHISHEK BANSAL [email protected]

<p>The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Regime in India was developed for MSMEs to provide a speedier, less disruptive, and cost-effective alternative to formal insolvency, with the implicit intent of reducing the “resolution risk premium” inherent in MSME lending. However, due to the structural and procedural flaws inherent in the PPIRP framework, this implicit cost of credit has persisted whereas, in some cases, it has increased aslo. The hybrid model, in which debtors retain operating control but lose decision-<br>making powers, generates agency risks, moral hazard, and monitoring inefficiencies that erode confidence among lenders. Moreover, the legislatively guaranteed 120-day resolution timeline has proved illusory due to judicial delays, objections raised at the pre-admission stage, and inconsistent interpretations by various tribunals. This has enhanced timeline risk, which is one of the key components of the resolution risk premium. Simultaneously, the recovery risk remains high due to the negotiations-based approach toward base resolution plans, the legally binding prioritization of operational creditors, and the apprehensions relating to accountability that financial institutions face when approving haircuts. Ultimately, these systemic weaknesses discourage creditor participation and hinder the objective of affordable credit flow into the MSME sector, which accounts for nearly one-third<br>of India's GDP and is the anchor for employment generation. Restoring predictability and efficiency, thereby reducing the embedded risk premium and strengthening MSME credit markets and contributing to broader financial and economic stability, calls for a calibrated recasting of statutory timelines, judicial intervention thresholds, and creditor protection mechanisms.</p>

2026-01-03T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Banking and Insurance Law