Duties of interim resolution professional
Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with duties of interim resolution professional. The interim resolution professional shall perform the following duties, namely:— (a) collect all information relating to the assets, finances and operations of the corporate debtor for determining the financial position of the corporate debtor, including information relating to— (i) business operati The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.
The interim resolution professional shall perform the following duties, namely:—
(a) collect all information relating to the assets, finances and operations of the corporate debtor for determining the financial position of the corporate debtor, including information relating to—
(i) business operations for the previous two years;
(ii) financial and operational payments for the previous two years;
(iii) list of assets and liabilities as on the initiation date; and
(iv) such other matters as may be specified;
(b) receive and collate all the claims submitted by creditors to him, pursuant to the public announcement made under sections 13 and 15;
(c) constitute a committee of creditors;
(d) monitor the assets of the corporate debtor and manage its operations until a resolution professional is appointed by the committee of creditors;
(e) file information collected with the information utility, if necessary; and
(f) take control and custody of any asset over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights as recorded in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor, or with information utility or the depository of securities or any other registry that records the ownership of assets including—
(i) assets over which the corporate debtor has ownership rights which may be located in a foreign country;
(ii) assets that may or may not be in possession of the corporate debtor;
(iii) tangible assets, whether movable or immovable;
(iv) intangible assets including intellectual property;
(v) securities including shares held in any subsidiary of the corporate debtor, financial instruments, insurance policies;
(vi) assets subject to the determination of ownership by a court or authority;
(g) to perform such other duties as may be specified by the Board.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this 1 [section], the term "assets" shall not include the following, namely:—
(a) assets owned by a third party in possession of the corporate debtor held under trust or under contractual arrangements including bailment;
(b) assets of any Indian or foreign subsidiary of the corporate debtor; and
(c) such other assets as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.
Section 18, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Bharti Airtel LTD vs Union of India through Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Spectrum, being a scarce recognized natural resource held in public trust by the Central Government under its exclusive privilege granted by Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, cannot be treated as property owned by a corporate debtor and therefore cannot be subjected to insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A telecom licensee possesses only contractual usage rights over spectrum granted under the license agreement, not ownership rights. These contractual rights, being under agreement with a third party (the Government) retaining interest, fall outside the definition of 'assets' under Section 18 of the IBC as per the Explanation to that section. Accordingly, spectrum cannot be transferred in resolution plans or subject to resolution proceedings, and statutory Guidelines for Spectrum Sharing and Trading issued by the Department of Telecommunications must be adhered to. However, the jurisdictional question of whether spectrum can be subjected to insolvency proceedings and whether AGR dues are operational dues under the IBC requires consideration by the National Company Law Tribunal before any further determination.
On this section: Requires resolution professional to take custody and control of assets in ownership of corporate debtor. Explanation clarifies that assets under contractual arrangements or held by third parties are excluded. Applied to conclude spectrum cannot be treated as corporate debtor asset.
-
Raman Prakash Mangla vs Anuj Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan, circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot interfere with the commercial aspects of the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors. If the Adjudicating Authority finds shortcomings in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters of keeping the corporate debtor as a going concern, maximizing the value of its assets, and taking care of interests of all stakeholders, it must send the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration, not modify the plan itself. Payment to dissenting financial creditors must be in monetary terms, not in kind or through transfer of equity or land. Once homebuyers as a class vote in favor of a resolution plan through their authorized representative, individual homebuyers cannot challenge the plan as dissenting creditors or aggrieved persons. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company pursuant to Supreme Court orders in Chitra Sharma is the property of the holding company, not the corporate debtor, and cannot be appropriated by the corporate debtor or the resolution applicant.
On this section: Duties of interim resolution professional
-
Rajesh Gupta vs Nbcc (india) LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan is limited to verifying compliance with the mandatory requirements specified in Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot modify the commercial terms of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors by the requisite majority (66% or more of voting share). If the Authority finds that the resolution plan does not meet the specified parameters (keeping corporate debtor as going concern, maximizing asset value, protecting stakeholder interests), it must remit the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration rather than modifying it itself. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is non-justiciable and cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority on equitable or quantitative grounds. Dissenting financial creditors must receive payment in monetary terms (cash) equivalent to their liquidation value, not in kind through equity or land transfers. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company JAL pursuant to Supreme Court orders in the Chitra Sharma case remains the property of JAL and cannot be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor JIL for purposes of the resolution plan. Homebuyers as a class are bound by the decision of their authorized representative in the Committee of Creditors under Section 25A(3A), and individual homebuyers cannot maintain separate challenges to the resolution plan. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevails over the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in case of conflict, though both statutes must be interpreted harmoniously. Concession Agreements with statutory authorities are not statutory contracts and their material terms cannot be modified without the consent of the other contracting party. Security interests not avoided under Section 43 of the Code cannot be unilaterally extinguished through a resolution plan.
On this section: Duties of interim resolution professional including collection of information and constitution of Committee of Creditors
-
Vodafone Idea LTD vs Union of India Department of Telecommunications through Its Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The primary ratio decidendi are: (1) Spectrum constitutes a natural resource held by the government in sovereign trust and cannot be treated as property owned by corporate debtors subject to insolvency proceedings merely due to right to use granted under license; the question requires NCLT examination within two months as it is a substantial jurisdictional issue affecting the validity of insolvency proceedings initiated by telecom companies; (2) In spectrum sharing arrangements, the sharing operator has no liability for the original licensee's predecessor AGR dues as the sharing operator merely obtains right to use additional spectrum alongside its own spectrum - each operator remains liable only for AGR dues arising from spectrum it holds; (3) In spectrum trading arrangements, the buyer's liability for seller's predecessor AGR dues is determined by the Trading Guidelines - if entire spectrum is traded, buyer assumes seller's known past dues; if only partial spectrum is traded, buyer has no predecessor dues liability; any dues discovered after trade date are recoverable from buyer or seller jointly or severally at government discretion; (4) AGR dues determined by the Supreme Court judgment dated October 24, 2019 are final, binding and not subject to reassessment or fresh disputes; telecom operators must pay the determined amount through installment schedule without room for contesting the calculation; (5) The government as licensor retains sovereign privilege over spectrum allocation under Telegraph Act Section 4 and can enforce contractual conditions precedent (particularly payment of dues) before permitting license transfers or spectrum trading, notwithstanding IBC moratorium provisions, as these are conditions precedent to the right itself rather than post-right enforcement.
On this section: Restricts resolution professional's control to assets owned by corporate debtor; explains why spectrum (not owned but licensed) may not fall within resolution professional's control
-
Tata Teleservices LTD vs Union of India through Its Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The core ratio decidendi is: (1) Spectrum is a natural resource held by Government under exclusive privilege per Section 4 of Telegraph Act, granted to licensees subject to contractual conditions including payment of AGR dues. While the question of whether spectrum can be subjected to IBC proceedings involves significant jurisdictional issues to be examined by NCLT, it is clear that AGR dues accumulated over nearly 20 years must be paid in full by all telecom service providers without dispute or reassessment. (2) Payment of these dues aggregating Rs. 1,43,271.74 crores (as calculated by Court) shall be made in 10 equal yearly installments commencing from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2031, with 10% due by March 31, 2021. This represents modification of Government's proposal for 20-year timeline as inappropriate given the sovereign nature of spectrum rights. (3) For telecom service providers sharing spectrum under 2015 Guidelines, each operator remains liable for AGR dues proportionate to spectrum held; sharing operator bears no liability for past dues of original licensee. (4) For spectrum trading, seller must clear all pre-trading dues; buyer liable for post-trading dues except those discovered later and unknown at trading date, recoverable jointly or severally at Government's discretion. (5) All telecom service providers must pay dues without any reduction, waiver, or relief other than the approved 10-year installment schedule with NPV protection. No dispute, reassessment, or recalculation is permitted. Default in payment results in automatic interest, penalty and interest on penalty, and constitutes contempt of court. (6) The question of whether spectrum can be subjected to insolvency proceedings is a jurisdictional matter for NCLT to decide within two months, examining whether such proceedings constitute bona fide attempts at revival or subterfuge to avoid AGR payment.
On this section: Defines assets that resolution professional can take control and custody of; Government contended spectrum held under contractual arrangement is not asset of corporate debtor under this section
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 18
What have the courts held on Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
Bharti Airtel LTD vs Union of India through Secretary (01 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Requires resolution professional to take custody and control of assets in ownership of corporate debtor. Explanation clarifies that assets under contractual arrangements or held by third parties are excluded. Applied to conclude spectrum cannot be treated as corporate debtor asset. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2020 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 18, section 18 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Bharti Airtel LTD vs Union of India through Secretary (01 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 13 (Declaration of moratorium and public announcement), section 15 (Public announcement of corporate insolvency resolution process), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (2023).
When was Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?
Section 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 18, was enacted on 28 May 2016 as Act 31 of 2016. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 240. Power to make regulations2349 words
- 5. Definitions2326 words
- 3. Definitions1381 words
- 29A. Person not eligible to be resolution applicant1152 words
- 239. Power to make rules963 words
- 196. Powers and functions of Board942 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.