Bank of India vs SM Kamal Pasha

Timeline

1. 28 Oct 2026News

   No Withdrawal Of Application Or Approved Resolution Plan Once CoC Approves Plan & It Is Placed Before Adjudicating Authority: Supreme Court

   The Bench said that the Ebix Singapore dictum applies squarely to Committee of Creditors too; improved profitability alone cannot be reason to refuse approval if plan meets Section 30(2) requirements.

   Verdictum

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The Supreme Court decided that once a group of creditors approves a debt repayment plan, it cannot be withdrawn.

   Who:

   The Bank of India is a party, SM Kamal Pasha is a party, and the Supreme Court is the high court.

   When:

   Reported on 28 Oct 2026.

   Why:

   The court ruled that improved profit is not enough to cancel a plan that meets basic legal rules.

   What it means:

   The court confirmed that once a resolution plan reaches the judges, it is final and cannot be stopped.

2. 27 Oct 2026News

   Committee of Creditors cannot withdraw resolution plan nod: Supreme Court

   A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, while disposing of the appeal filed by Bank of India and other CoC members, including Canara Bank, India Infrastructure Finance, Union Bank of India, UCO Bank and Punjab National Bank, said the resolution plan remains binding between CoC and the successful resolution applicant (SRA), and the improved profitability of the corporate debtor alone cannot be a reason to refuse approval of the resolution plan if it meets the requirements under IBC.

   The Economic Times

   Explanation in simple terms

   What:

   The Supreme Court decided that a group of lenders cannot cancel their approval of a business recovery plan.

   Who:

   Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran are the judges. Bank of India, Canara Bank, India Infrastructure Finance, Union Bank of India, UCO Bank, and Punjab National Bank are the lenders who wanted to withdraw. SM Kamal Pasha is the other party.

   When:

   Reported on 27 Oct 2026.

   Where:

   Supreme Court of India.

   Why:

   The court ruled that the plan is legally binding and improved company profits do not justify canceling it.

   What it means:

   The resolution plan remains in effect because it already met the required legal standards for business recovery.