Judicial interference with approved resolution plans is restricted to established violations of Section 30(2)(b).

The Appellants, ex-employees of the Corporate Debtor, filed two appeals challenging the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench-I, in IA (IBC) (Plan) 65 of 2024

By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor

The Appellants contended that the payment allocated to them was neither fair nor equitable

Previously, other employees had challenged the same order in Mohammed Ismail Ansari v. Dr. Mamta Binani & Ors. (Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) 241 of 2026), which was dismissed by the NCLAT on 03.03.2026

The present appeals also involved applications for condonation of an 8-day delay in filing and a 43-day delay in refiling, both of which were granted by the Tribunal

1. Whether the approved Resolution Plan violates Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) regarding fair and equitable payment to operational creditors/employees.

2. Whether the Resolution Plan was required to provide a minimum entitlement of 12 months' salary as per a previous order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandates that a Resolution Plan must provide for the payment of debts of operational creditors in a manner that is not less than the amount they would receive in the event of a liquidation or the amount they would receive if the plan's proceeds were distributed in accordance with the priority under Section 53(1)

The court further relied on the settled principle that judicial interference with a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors is limited to instances of statutory non-compliance under the said section

The Tribunal analyzed whether the Appellants' claims met the threshold for interference under Section 30(2)(b).

It noted that in its earlier judgment dated 03.03.2026 (concerning the same impugned order), it had already examined the payment distribution details and found that the employees received a higher percentage of their claims than the unsecured financial creditors, who received only 0.98%

The Tribunal observed that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any specific violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 30(2)(b)

Regarding the Appellants' argument that the NCLT’s order dated 05.12.2025 necessitated a minimum of 12 months' salary, the Tribunal held that it had already interpreted that order in its previous judgment and saw no reason to deviate from its earlier findings

Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed both appeals

The delay in filing and refiling was condoned