In Brief
India Resurgence ARC challenged approval of a resolution plan for a distressed company, arguing the plan failed to account for its security interest of INR 12 crores while offering only INR 2.026 crores. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once a resolution plan meets all mandatory statutory requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC, the court cannot conduct quantitative analysis of creditor distributions. The amended Section 30(4) providing discretion to consider security values is merely a guideline, not a mandate. A dissenting secured creditor is entitled only to liquidation value applicable to its class, not to enforce its full security interest. Allowing such enforcement would incentivize liquidation over resolution, defeating the Code's purpose.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.