The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 encodes within its text two provisions for cross-border insolvency cooperation, Sections 234 and 235, yet both remain functionally dormant: no bilateral treaty has been concluded under Section 234 as of 2026, and India has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997). This paper critically examines the structural vacuum produced by this legislative inaction and maps the judicial improvisation that has occupied it. Drawing upon the Jet Airways parallel insolvency proceedings (2019–2020), the Videocon overseas asset recovery proceedings, and the Compuage Infocom recognition proceedings before the Singapore High Court (2025), the paper analyses how Indian courts have deployed common law comity as a substitute for absent statutory tools and identifies the irreducible structural limits of that substitution. The concurrent proceedings problem and the Centre of Main Interests doctrine, as engaged by Indian Adjudicating Authorities, are examined as the sharpest expressions of those limits. The methodology is critical-doctrinal.