Submission of resolution plan
Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with submission of resolution plan. A resolution applicant may submit a resolution plan [along with an affidavit stating that he is eligible under section 29A] to the resolution professional prepared on the basis of the information memorandum. The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.
(1) A resolution applicant may submit a resolution plan 1[along with an affidavit stating that he is eligible under section 29A] to the resolution professional prepared on the basis of the information memorandum.
(2) The resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him to confirm that each resolution plan--
(a) provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a manner specified by the Board in priority to the 2[payment] of other debts of the corporate debtor;
3[(b) provides for the payment of debts of operational creditors in such manner as may be specified by the Board which shall not be less than--
(i) the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 53; or
(ii) the amount that would have been paid to such creditors, if the amount to be distributed under the resolution plan had been distributed in accordance with the order of priority in sub-section (1) of section 53,
whichever is higher and provides for the payment of debts of financial creditors, who do not vote in favour of the resolution plan, in such manner as may be specified by the Board, which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 53 in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor.
Explanation 1.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that a distribution in accordance with the provisions of this clause shall be fair and equitable to such creditors.
Explanation 2.-- For the purposes of this clause, it is hereby declared that on and from the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019, the provisions of this clause shall also apply to the corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor--
(i) where a resolution plan has not been approved or rejected by the Adjudicating Authority;
(ii) where an appeal has been preferred under section 61 or section 62 or such an appeal is not time barred under any provision of law for the time being in force; or
(iii) where a legal proceeding has been initiated in any court against the decision of the Adjudicating Authority in respect of a resolution plan;]
(c) provides for the management of the affairs of the Corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan;
(d) the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan;
(e) does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force;
(f) conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board.
4[Explanation.-- For the purposes of clause (e), if any approval of shareholders is required under the Companies Act, 2013 or any other law for the time being in force for the implementation of actions under the resolution plan, such approval shall be deemed to have been given and it shall not be a contravention of that Act or law];
(3) The resolution professional shall present to the committee of creditors for its approval such resolution plans which confirm the conditions referred to in sub-section (2).
5[(4) The committee of creditors may approve a resolution plan by a vote of not less than 6[sixty-six] per cent. of voting share of the financial creditors, after considering its feasibility and viability, 7[the manner of distribution proposed, which may take into account the order of priority amongst creditors as laid down in sub-section (1) of section 53, including the priority and value of the security interest of a secured creditor] and such other requirements as may be specified by the Board:
Provided that the committee of creditors shall not approve a resolution plan, submitted before the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017(Ord. 7 of 2017), where the resolution applicant is ineligible under section 29A and may require the resolution professional to invite a fresh resolution plan where no other resolution plan is available with it:
Provided further that where the resolution applicant referred to in the first proviso is ineligible under clause (c) of section 29A, the resolution applicant shall be allowed by the committee of creditors such period, not exceeding thirty days, to make payment of overdue amounts in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of section 29A:
Provided also that nothing in the second proviso shall be construed as extension of period for the purposes of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 12, and the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be completed within the period specified in that sub-section.]
8[Provided also that the eligibility criteria in section 29A as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 shall apply to the resolution applicant who has not submitted resolution plan as on the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018.]
(5) The resolution applicant may attend the meeting of the committee of creditors in which the resolution plan of the applicant is considered:
Provided that the resolution applicant shall not have a right to vote at the meeting of the committee of creditors unless such resolution applicant is also a financial creditor.
(6) The resolution professional shall submit the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors to the Adjudicating Authority.
Section 30, 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.
This section refers to
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.
-
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf 2019-02-05. CA 10673/2018 (with CA 10719/2018, 10971/2018 and SLP(C) 29181/2018). A.M. Khanwilkar J. REPORTABLE. DATE-CHECK false positive (NCLAT 06.09.2018 / incorporation 2008 / steel division 2013 in the facts); body is the named CoC-commercial-wisdom reportable. Isolates IBC 30(4): approval of a resolution plan by the then 75% CoC voting share is mandatory; NCLT/NCLAT cannot sit in appeal over the CoC’s commercial wisdom or count abstentions to manufacture the threshold; the later 66% amendment is not retrospective to a plan already rejected. Map insolvency-bankruptcy-code-2016 30 cited only. Do not pad IBC 33 (liquidation is the statutory sequel, not the isolate) or 29A (already filled by Swiss Ribbons).
On this section: IBC 30(4) CoC approval of a resolution plan is a non-justiciable commercial decision; NCLT cannot approve a plan the CoC has not passed with the statutory voting share (K. Sashidhar).
-
Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association vs Nbcc (india) LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has no power or jurisdiction under Section 31 of the IBC to commercially modify or rewrite a resolution plan approved by the CoC. If a plan is non-compliant with Section 30(2), it must be remitted back to the CoC for reconsideration. Additionally, 'payment' to dissenting financial creditors under Section 30(2)(b) must be made in monetary terms/cash.
On this section: Applied to determine the limits of NCLT's power of judicial review and the mandatory requirement of paying dissenting financial creditors.
-
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: Requirements for resolution plan including payment to operational creditors, dissenting financial creditors, and compliance with law
-
Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 represents an organic evolution of insolvency law through a consultative process involving multiple committees and expert bodies. The waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of IBC, which ranks workmen's dues for 24 months preceding liquidation commencement date pari passu with secured creditors who relinquish security, is a carefully balanced framework that adequately protects workmen's interests while promoting revival of insolvent companies and maximizing asset value for all stakeholders. This framework is not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The two regimes - liquidation under Companies Act 2013 and liquidation under IBC - deal with different situations and cannot be compared for constitutional purposes. In economic legislation, courts should defer to legislative judgment unless the exercise of legislative judgment appears to be palpably arbitrary. The sacrifices required from workmen under IBC are not manifestly unjust or arbitrary, and the exclusion of Provident Fund, Pension Fund and Gratuity Fund from liquidation estate, combined with the 24-month protection and Regulation 21A safeguards, adequately protect workmen's dues.
On this section: Submission and examination of resolution plans; minimum payment to operational creditors and financial creditors
-
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: Submission of resolution plan and requirements for approval
-
Landmark Apartments Pvt. LTD vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, which deems allottees of real estate projects as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) and provides for their representation on Committee of Creditors through authorized representatives under Sections 21(6A) and 25A, is constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The amendment does not violate Article 14 as allottees, who finance their own apartment projects and provide consideration for time value of money through installment-based advance payments, constitute a rationally distinct class of financial creditors similar to debenture holders and fixed deposit holders, with intelligible differentia bearing nexus to the Code's object of maximizing creditor recovery and protecting stakeholders in corporate rehabilitation. The amendment does not infringe Article 19(1)(g) as it is a reasonable restriction in public interest for protecting millions of home buyers with substantial invested amounts. The amendment does not deprive developers of property without constitutional authority as it operates through valid legal process respecting due process and defenses. The explanation to Section 5(8)(f) merely clarifies that allottees already fell within the definition's ambit and is not substantively enlarging the scope. The classification does not offend the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide as allottees are recognized as financial creditors based on genuine financing characteristics. The Code and RERA can harmoniously coexist as parallel remedies serving different purposes, with Code taking primacy due to its later non-obstante clause. Parliament's legislative judgment in treating allottees as financial creditors is entitled to judicial deference as an economic experiment within free play in joints doctrine.
On this section: Requirement that proposed resolution plans must not contravene any provisions of law in force, ensuring RERA compliance
-
Spaze Towers Private Limited vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 classifying allottees of real estate projects as financial creditors and allowing them to trigger insolvency proceedings against developers are constitutionally valid. These amendments do not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution. Allottees constitute a distinct class of financial creditors with intelligible differentia from operational creditors due to their role in financing real estate projects through installment payments, their vital interest in the company's well-being, and their similarity to other individual financial creditors like deposit and debenture holders. The amendments have rational nexus with the Code's objects of maximizing asset value and rehabilitating corporate debtors. Section 5(8)(f) as originally enacted already subsumed allottees within the definition of financial debt as a residuary provision covering transactions having the commercial effect of borrowing. The explanation added by the Amendment Act is merely clarificatory. The Code and RERA provide concurrent remedies and must be read harmoniously with the Code prevailing in case of conflict. Representation of allottees through authorized representatives under Section 21(6A) and 25A is constitutionally valid. The legislature has free play in the joints when enacting economic legislation and courts must accord deference to such experimentation.
On this section: Resolution plans must comply with RERA provisions, ensuring harmonious application of both statutes
-
Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. LTD vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Real estate allottees are 'financial creditors' within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as they advance money against consideration for the time value of money to finance real estate construction projects. The Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, is constitutionally valid as it is clarificatory of the original provision's language and does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 300-A of the Constitution. Allottees are entitled to trigger insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Code against real estate developers, and their inclusion as financial creditors does not violate principles of reasonable classification or legislative objects. The Code and RERA operate harmoniously in different spheres providing concurrent remedies to home buyers.
On this section: Resolution plans must comply with RERA provisions. This shows the Code recognizes the concurrent applicability of RERA.
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 states that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Another 7 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- Clarification regarding approval of resolution plans under section 30 and 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Circular 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022Regulation 2022
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2022Regulation 2022
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2021Regulation 2021
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 dated 15.11.2019Rule 2019
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019Statute 2019
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018Statute 2018
Questions about Section 30
What have the courts held on Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (05 Feb 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IBC 30(4) CoC approval of a resolution plan is a non-justiciable commercial decision; NCLT cannot approve a plan the CoC has not passed with the statutory voting share (K. Sashidhar). Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2019 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 30 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 30, section 30 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 30 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. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank (05 Feb 2019).
What should I read with Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 12 (Time-limit for completion of insolvency resolution process), section 29A (Person not eligible to be resolution applicant), section 53 (Distribution of assets), section 61 (Appeals and Appellate Authority), and on 1 further provision, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there is one: most recently Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (2023).
When was Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?
Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, commonly called resolution plan, and cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 30, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.