The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is considered one of the important changes in business law after independence. It was created to resolve issues in the previous insolvency systems. To solve the problems IBC aimed to combine all the scattered laws into one system and created time bound process. It focused on maximising the value of company, protecting the interests of creditors and motivated people to start businesses. By giving the power to creditors IBC made the process flexible, faster, effective and introduced stringent timelines. Although the time taken to resolve the cases have been reduced from 4.3 years to 394 days in most cases and improved recovery rates as compared to earlier systems such as DRT, SARFAESI Act, and SICA challenges still continue to exist. Some of them are delays in resolving cases, increased number of cases ending in liquidation as compared to resolution, difference in treatment of creditors, low recovery, liquidation waterfall etc. The paper analyses whether IBC is able to achieve the balance between creditors and debtors. With the help of doctrinal and empirical approach the paper examines the judicial decisions (Essar steel, Swiss Ribbons, K. Sashidhar), structure of IBC, practical data and evidence. Further, legal- economic theories are also used (creditor bargain and stakeholder) to determine whether the more advantage is given to financial creditors, the impact on corporate governance and how people start their business. It also looks into how benefits and losses are distributed between operational creditors and society. The study highlights that while IBC has strengthened the rights of creditors and made businesses more responsible in taking loans or any risks, it also has created a difference between operational and financial creditors and has made people more cautious about starting or expanding a business. The paper highlights certain changes like giving protection to operational creditors, increasing the capacity of NCLT, making provisions for MSMEs.