Case Citation
K. Sashidhar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.
(2019) 12 SCC 150
Civil Appeal No. 10673 of 2018
Decided on: February 5, 2019
Bench: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar & Justice Ajay Rastogi
Key Principle
The Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is non-justiciable. Neither the NCLT nor the NCLAT has jurisdiction to analyze, evaluate, or reverse the commercial decisions of the CoC regarding approval or rejection of resolution plans.
Related Supreme Court Judgments
Constitutional Framework
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 17
- Upheld constitutionality of IBC provisions
- Established primacy of commercial wisdom in insolvency resolution
- Clarified limited equity jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 8 SCC 531
- Reinforced commercial wisdom principle established in K. Sashidhar
- Emphasized fair and equitable treatment of creditors
- Limited NCLT jurisdiction to Section 30(2) compliance only
Section 29A and CoC Autonomy
Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2018) 17 SCC 1
- Interpretation of Section 29A eligibility criteria
- CoC’s role in resolution process
- Commercial decision-making authority of financial creditors
Procedural Framework
Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (2017) 8 SCC 271
- Time limits under Section 12 of IBC
- CIRP framework and timelines
- Mandatory vs directory provisions
Statutory Provisions Cross-Referenced
Primary Sections
Section 30(4) of IBC – Resolution plan approval by CoC
- Originally required 75% voting share approval
- Amended by IBC (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 to 66%
- K. Sashidhar clarified prospective application only
Section 31(1) read with Section 30(2) – NCLT’s limited jurisdiction
- NCLT can only verify compliance with Section 30(2) requirements
- No authority to review commercial merits of CoC decisions
Section 32 read with Section 61(3) – NCLAT’s appellate jurisdiction
- Limited grounds for interference with CoC decisions
- Cannot substitute commercial judgment
Amendment Analysis
IBC (Second Amendment) Act, 2018
- Reduced threshold from 75% to 66% for resolution plan approval
- Effective from June 6, 2018
- K. Sashidhar held amendment has prospective application only
- Cannot be applied to decisions taken before effective date
CIRP Regulations Cross-Referenced
Regulation 38 – Priority of Payments
- Waterfall mechanism for distribution
- Ensures compliance with Section 30(2)(a)
Regulation 39 – Dissenting Financial Creditor Rights
- Minimum liquidation value entitlement
- Protection mechanisms for minority creditors
Regulations 30-32 – Resolution Plan Process
- Submission requirements
- Evaluation criteria
- CoC decision-making procedures
Practical Applications
For Resolution Professionals
- Cannot question CoC’s commercial judgment
- Administrative role in facilitating decisions
- Must ensure statutory compliance under Section 30(2)
For NCLT/NCLAT
- Jurisdiction limited to legal compliance verification
- Cannot enter into merits of business decisions
- Must respect CoC’s commercial wisdom
For CoC Members
- Autonomous decision-making on commercial aspects
- Protected from judicial second-guessing
- Must consider feasibility and viability (post-2017 amendment)
Research Framework for Limited Insolvency Exam
Core Concepts to Master
- Commercial Wisdom Doctrine – Non-justiciable nature of CoC decisions
- Threshold Requirements – 75% vs 66% and prospective application
- Jurisdictional Limits – NCLT/NCLAT cannot review commercial merits
- Amendment Interpretation – Prospective vs retrospective application
Case Law Synthesis
Students should understand the progressive development from Innoventive (procedural framework) → Arcelor Mittal (CoC autonomy) → K. Sashidhar (commercial wisdom protection) → Swiss Ribbons (constitutional validation) → Essar Steel (implementation guidelines).
Examination Strategy
- Focus on distinguishing factors between administrative vs commercial decisions
- Understand statutory interpretation principles for threshold amendments
- Master jurisdictional boundaries between various forums under IBC
Legislative Trends Post-K. Sashidhar
The judgment has influenced subsequent amendments and judicial interpretations, reinforcing the creditor-in-controlmodel of the IBC while maintaining necessary judicial oversight for legal compliance.
Disclaimer: This cross-reference is for limited insolvency exam-focused analysis. For comprehensive coverage of 72+ landmark cases with practice questions, check out our Limited Insolvency Exam eBook: sample available here.
© 2025 – Chamber of Prakash K. Pandya | For educational purposes only
