By Binay Kumar, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; Managing Partner, The Justice Law Partners.
Case: Bank of India & Others v. S. M. Kamal Pasha & Others
Decision: 26 October 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12045/2026
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 1154
Bench: J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Judgment authored by: K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Reportability: Reportable
Relevant paragraphs: 14, 17, 22–27
The dispute
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved a resolution plan and the Resolution Professional had placed it before the National Company Law Tribunal. During the delay before adjudication, the corporate debtor’s finances improved. Creditors attempted to withdraw the approved plan and reopen the process.
What the Court held
Once an approved plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC cannot unilaterally withdraw it on a reconsideration of commercial advantage. Approval binds the CoC and the successful resolution applicant at that stage. The CoC does not thereby cease to exist or become functus officio for every purpose.
The NCLT’s continuing role
The Adjudicating Authority must still examine compliance with Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court left the plan approval application and a separate proposed one-time settlement application for consideration by the NCLT. Improved profitability alone does not authorise refusal of an otherwise compliant plan.
Practical consequence
The judgment protects certainty in the resolution process while respecting the NCLT’s statutory scrutiny. It is not a final judicial approval of the particular plan, nor a general permission to revise the commercial bargain after submission.
For practitioners
The procedural stage is critical: distinguish CoC voting and approval, submission to the NCLT, statutory confirmation, and a separate settlement or withdrawal route under the Code.
Judgment and editorial note
Supreme Court official judgment entry. This case note is an explanatory summary of the decision and is not legal advice. The operative judgment governs in the event of any discrepancy.