In Brief
A secured financial creditor (India Resurgence ARC) holding approximately 3.94% voting share in the Committee of Creditors challenged a resolution plan approved by 95.35% majority, arguing it should receive payment based on its security interest value (₹12 crores) rather than the liquidation value offered (₹2.026 crores). The Supreme Court held that the Committee of Creditors' commercial decision approving the plan is not subject to quantitative review by courts. A dissenting secured creditor is entitled only to the minimum prescribed amount under Section 30(2)(b), not to enforce its full security interest. The amendment to Section 30(4) only permits—not mandates—consideration of security values. Allowing dissenting secured creditors to enforce complete security interests would incentivize liquidation over resolution, defeating the Code's purpose. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.