When a company slides near insolvency, Indian law places its directors at a statutorily conflicted position. Section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”) codifies directorial duty to shareholder primacy and a loosely defined set of stakeholders, with creditors being absent from the list. While Section 66(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) imposes personal liability for failures to protect creditor interests ex post facto, i.e. once insolvency proceedings have commenced. The paradox is therefore structural, since the sole creditor-protective provision is inaccessible during the very period in which protection is most required. This article argues that creditors must be expressly incorporated into Section 166(2). It further argues that when creditor interests are considered, balanced or treated as paramount, it must be left to judicial discretion on the factual matrix of each case, rather than being drawn by a single line.