NCLAT’s Ruling: Understanding the Rights of Operational Creditors and Payment Methods as per Section 30(2)(b) in IBC

Posted On - 18 April, 2024 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva


In a complicated and detailed legal story, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) located in Delhi has given an important judgment[1] that explains what exactly Operational Creditors are entitled to under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This big decision comes at a time when there is much debate on law matters about approving a Resolution Plan within Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) case against Television Home Shopping Network Limited. The decision of NCLAT goes through careful study of rules, past cases in court and business needs to manage insolvency process with a focus on fair share out of assets and following law requirements.

Background of the Case:

The legal journey commenced with the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Television Home Shopping Network Limited. In the intricate realm of corporate insolvency, characterized by disputes over rights and strategic maneuvers, the adjudicating authority encountered the challenging task of meticulously scrutinizing the Resolution Plan proposed by Respondent No. 2. The focal point of this legal conundrum revolved around the issue of compensating Operational Creditors, igniting a contentious legal debate concerning adherence to statutory regulations and equitable distribution of assets.[2]

Arguments Advanced:

Petitioner’s Arguments: The legal fight began when the lawyer of the Appellant, the upset Operational Creditor, strongly attacked approval for Resolution Plan. Their argument was centered on alleged mismatch with suggested payment system that included ‘redeemable preference shares’ which were partly paid – this they said goes against law from Section 30(2)(b)(ii) in IBC because it does not provide for an equivalent amount as per liquidation value. Relying on support from previous court decisions and legislative aim, they argued that Operational Creditors should receive a sum matching up to their debt’s liquidation value; this is an essential requirement stated in Section 30(2)(b)(ii).[3]

The Petitioner argued that the distribution process suggested in the Resolution Plan greatly violated the legal rules of IBC, especially Section 30(2)(b)(ii). They strongly emphasized on what is essential within law’s mandate. This highlighted a clear requirement for Operational Creditors to get an amount no less than liquidation value for their debts. The Petitioner, by insisting on strict observance of statutory provisions, aimed to protect the substantial rights and claims of Operational Creditors in this important process of insolvency resolution.

Respondent’s Arguments: In a lively response, advocate for Respondent No.2 gave strong support to the Resolution Plan. They praised its good points as a practical method for handling insolvency while getting best possible results for all parties involved. It was highlighted that Committee of Creditors (CoC) had agreed on this Plan without any disagreement – highlighting both its legitimacy and effectiveness in reaching bigger aims set by IBC law rules. Also, they pointed out how important it is for judges to trust in commercial knowledge of CoC members when making decisions about approving or not approving plans; this principle has been written into previous court statements many times and forms the base point of such judgements.[4]

The Respondent put forth a complex argument, blending legal principles with practical thoughts about insolvency resolution. They claimed that the Resolution Plan, which was carefully created and agreed upon by all members in CoC (with full agreement), demonstrated a wise equilibrium between different interests involved. Additionally, they referred to court examples to highlight the need for judicial self-control when it comes to stepping into commercial choices made by CoC – unless there is clear illegal action or harm being caused.

Judgment and Analysis:

Amidst varied legal explanations and conflicting statements, the NCLAT entered into a detailed study of the law rules and court past decisions that support insolvency resolutions. The Tribunal carefully examined the complex law IBC, looking closely at the language and legislative aim of Section 30(2)(b). A key part of its study was an important statement from Supreme Court that recalled Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association case[5] which explained how vital cash payments are for Operational Creditors during insolvency resolutions.

The NCLAT carefully interpreted Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC, explaining its details and legislative aim with knowledge and understanding. It understood the essential rights of Operational Creditors by studying closely both law rules and court decisions. The Tribunal, through detailed cross-reference of legal principles with commercial needs, attempted to reconcile rival requests as well as statutory requirements in its judgment. It aimed at providing a clear and principled way ahead for resolving insolvency matters.[6]


The NCLAT’s decision is a turning point in the development of insolvency law, giving clear understanding on how to interpret and use Section 30(2)(b) of the IBC. The judgment shows balance between legal needs and business demands by repeating that cash payments for Operational Creditors are most important. The ruling underlines the importance of following rules set by law when making decisions about approving or rejecting Resolution Plans. When those involved deal with complicated paths in corporate insolvency, this ruling becomes like a light leading them along their way; showing where future Resolution Plans will go within wide area covered by IBC.

[1] Gupta Textiles vs. Goblin India & Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 408 of 2024

[2] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) § 61.

[3] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) § 30(2)(b).

[4] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) § 53(1).

[5] Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association and Others v. NBCC (India) Limited and Others, REED 2021 SC 03527.

[6] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) § 62.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi | Kolkata
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: