By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 11 February 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a resolution plan must be approved by the committee of creditors (CoC) by not less than 66 per cent of the voting share, under Section 30(4), before it goes to the adjudicating authority under Section 31. In K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (2019) and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020), the Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is not open to judicial review on its merits.
A dissenting financial creditor, or a creditor who believes a better bid was available, therefore cannot ordinarily challenge a plan only because the recovery is lower than it hoped. Review is limited to the grounds in the statute, which include whether the plan meets the mandatory requirements of Section 30(2), such as payment of the insolvency resolution process costs and the minimum entitlement of operational creditors, and whether the plan is otherwise consistent with the law.
Dissenting creditors and operational creditors have accordingly succeeded more often by pointing to specific non-compliance with the statutory requirements than by challenging the commercial terms. The result in each case turns on the plan and the record.