643 orders in eight years — what the apex court actually decides about insolvency
A reader looking at the Supreme Court’s IBC docket sees a court that has, over eight years, settled into a few characteristic moves. It admits SLPs at high volume, hears most of them briefly, disposes a great many without elaborate reasons, and reserves substantive doctrinal writing for a handful of cases each year.
What does the SC actually do with an IBC matter?
| Outcome | SC orders |
|---|---|
| Disposed of | 170 |
| Appeal dismissed | 119 |
| Appeal allowed | 117 |
| adjourned | 67 |
| Notice issued | 61 |
| admitted (SLP) | 19 |
| dismissed | 17 |
| Plan approved | 15 |
| procedural | 14 |
| Tagged with other matter | 8 |
| Set aside | 8 |
| withdrawn | 7 |
| Partly allowed | 6 |
| Liquidation ordered | 5 |
| upheld | 4 |
| remanded | 2 |
Until the cleanup pass, 162 SC orders (25%) had no recorded outcome in the database. After the AI-assisted re-classification, every one of those 162 is now correctly labelled — and the answer surprises. Most are procedural records: adjournments (67), notice-issued at the SLP-admission stage (61), tagged-with-other-matter (8), other procedural orders (14). Only about 12 of the 162 were substantive judgments.
This matches the lived reality of Supreme Court IBC work: many of the 643 SC orders in this corpus are brief recordings of when a matter was listed, adjourned, or tagged. Only a fraction — roughly 280 orders — record a substantive dispositive outcome (appeal allowed, appeal dismissed, set aside, plan approved, etc.).
Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power — the feature story in this issue — accounts for a sizeable share of the adjourned and Tagged with other matter buckets. The saga that wouldn’t settle, recorded as adjournment after adjournment.
How many IBC orders does the SC write each year?
| Year | SC orders |
|---|---|
| 2017 | 21 |
| 2018 | 81 |
| 2019 | 102 |
| 2020 | 76 (COVID) |
| 2021 | 88 |
| 2022 | 80 |
| 2023 | 101 |
| 2024 | 94 |
Two peaks: 2019 — the Essar Steel / Swiss Ribbons / Innoventive follow-on year — and 2023, the Dilip Jiwrajka year, marked by a sharp rise in personal-guarantor SLPs. The pandemic dip in 2020 is modest; the SC continued to hear IBC matters by virtual hearings throughout.
What does the SC spend its IBC time on?
| Subdomain | SC orders |
|---|---|
| General (catch-all) | 305 |
| CIRP | 303 |
| Liquidation | 141 |
| Mediation | 93 |
| Information Utility | 56 |
| Valuation | 44 |
| Disciplinary | 43 |
| IP | 36 |
| Personal Guarantor | 21 |
| Individual FF | 14 |
| Voluntary liquidation | 7 |
| IPE | 5 |
| Pre-pack CIRP | 2 |
| IPA | 2 |
| Cross-border | 2 |
Three observations.
One, the Supreme Court spends about half its IBC docket on CIRP and the rest split across liquidation, disciplinary, and the periphery. Personal-guarantor matters reach the SC only 21 times — despite being the second-fastest-growing subdomain overall. The PG explosion is, in this data, mostly an NCLT and NCLAT phenomenon — the SC has been content to wait for Lalit Kumar Jain and Jiwrajka to settle the constitutionality questions and let the caseload develop downstream.
Two, cross-border insolvency has produced exactly two Supreme Court orders across the entire eight-year window. India still does not have a UNCITRAL Model-Law-style cross-border framework in force. The two cross-border orders are themselves on narrow procedural points, not the larger doctrine. See the frontier article for what is — and isn’t — in the corpus.
Three, the SC has touched pre-pack CIRP only twice since the framework was introduced for MSMEs in April 2021. The framework remains under-used and, in this data, doctrinally underdeveloped.
Which 2024 SC orders should a practitioner know?
The Supreme Court issued 94 IBC orders in 2024, comparable to its peak years. A reader who wants a sense of where IBC doctrine is heading in 2024 will find the headline cases below, ranked by date:
| Date | Case | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 20 Dec 2024 | China Development Bank v. Doha Bank | Set aside |
| 20 Dec 2024 | Surender Modi v. Ashish Singh | Appeal allowed |
| 18 Dec 2024 | Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd. v. State Tax Officer | Appeal allowed |
| 13 Dec 2024 | Vijendra Kumar Jain v. IBBI | Appeal dismissed |
| 11 Dec 2024 | CoC v. Directorate of Enforcement | Disposed of |
| 7 Nov 2024 | SBI v. Jalan & Fritsch | Appeal allowed |
| 5 Nov 2024 | Noida SEZ Authority v. Manish Agarwal | Disposed of |
| 23 Oct 2024 | GLAS Trust v. BYJU Raveendran | admitted |
| 22 Oct 2024 | Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank | dismissed |
Three of these deserve longer notes.
Did the Supreme Court just unwind a JSW-style resolution plan?
SBI v. Jalan & Fritsch (7 November 2024, Appeal allowed) was — in everything but the database’s outcome field — the Jet Airways resolution plan unwinding. The Supreme Court allowed the State Bank of India’s appeal and, in effect, set aside the resolution plan in favour of liquidation.
Jet Airways, having gone into CIRP in 2019, became the first high-profile resolution plan judicially unwound after CoC approval and NCLT approval. The precise downstream effect on Section 31 finality is still being analysed. The outcome has uncomfortable implications for the Essar Steel clean-slate doctrine.
What did GLAS Trust v. BYJU actually decide?
GLAS Trust v. BYJU Raveendran (23 October 2024) — treated separately in Feature III.
On its facts, an unsuccessful Section 12A withdrawal attempt by BYJU’s against the admission of a Section 9 application by BCCI; on its doctrine, a reaffirmation that Section 12A withdrawals require CoC approval once the CoC is constituted.
Did Ghanshyam Mishra just extend to GST?
Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (18 December 2024) settled a small but consequential point: state tax demands crystallised before plan approval do not survive plan approval, even where the tax officer was not formally notified. An extension of Ghanshyam Mishra into the GST/VAT era.
What does the Supreme Court almost never do?
Three things, by the data.
It does not approve plans itself. Of 643 SC orders, exactly 15 are recorded as Plan approved — and most of those are clarifications affirming plans already approved by the AA. The SC’s job is appellate; the plan-approval moment is the NCLT’s.
It does not order liquidation. Five SC orders are recorded as Liquidation ordered — all of them appellate rulings sending matters back or affirming below-court liquidations. The substantive Section 33 work is the NCLT’s.
It does not, with one exception, do cross-border. Two SC orders total in the cross-border subdomain. The substantive cross-border architecture has not produced SC-level doctrine. India’s IBC remains, doctrinally, an onshore statute.
What this article shows
The Supreme Court is the doctrine-issuing forum of IBC, not the volume forum. With 643 orders across eight years, the SC handles about 80 IBC matters per year — barely 0.4% of all IBC volume. But those 80 a year are what the rest of the system is doing for the remaining 99.6% of cases.
The Essar Steel commercial-wisdom rule, the Mobilox pre- existing-dispute test, the Lalit Kumar Jain personal-guarantor architecture, the Ghanshyam Mishra clean-slate doctrine, and (in 2024) the SBI v. Jalan & Fritsch plan-unwinding precedent — these are the SC’s outputs, and they shape every downstream NCLT and NCLAT order.
Read next: The Appellate Filter Between NCLT and Supreme Court — NCLAT’s 4,327 IBC appeals.
By the Numbers
The data behind this article. Every count traces back to a written order in the IBBI corpus.
Supreme Court Outcomes(null)162disposed_off162appeal_dismissed118appeal_allowed117admitted19plan_approved15dismissed14set_aside8withdrawn7partly_allowed6liquidation_ordered5rejected4upheld4remanded2Supreme Court Orders by Year20191022023101202494202188201881202280202076201721Supreme Court Subdomain MixGENERAL305CIRP303LIQUIDATION141MEDIATION93IU56VALUATION44DISCIPLINARY43IP36PERSONAL_GUARANTOR21INDIVIDUAL_FF14VOLUNTARY_LIQ7IPE5PRE_PACK_CIRP2IPA2CROSS_BORDER2
Cases Referenced
Every case cited in this article. PDFs link to the original order on ibbi.gov.in; case pages live in the Legal Wires verifier index.
- China Development Bank vs. Doha Bank: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No. 7298,7328,7407 & 7615 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2023 (2024-12-20) · View original PDF
- Surender Modi Vs Ashish Singh: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal Diary No(s) 54919-2024 (2024-12-20) · View original PDF
- Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer — Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 (2024-12-18) · View original PDF
- Vijendra Kumar Jain vs IBBI: Supreme Court Orders — SLP (C) No. 28993 of 2024 (2024-12-13) · View original PDF
- Committee of Creditors vs Directorate of Enforcement — SLP Nos. 29327- 29328 of 2019 (2024-12-11) · View original PDF
- Apurva Mandal vs. Dolly: Supreme Court Orders — Criminal Appeal Nos. 5148 & 5149 of 2024 (2024-12-10) · View original PDF
- Rabindra Kumar Mintri vs. Union of India: Supreme Court Orders — Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 773-2024 (2024-11-25) · View original PDF
- Greenpolis Welfare Confederation vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No.(S) 6792 & 6796 of 2023 (2024-11-19) · View original PDF
- Punjab vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No.12527 of 2024 (2024-11-19) · View original PDF
- SBI vs. Jalan & Fritsch: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No. 5023-5024/2024 (2024-11-07) · View original PDF
- Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies Appeal — Civil Appeal No. 12234 of 2024 (2024-11-07) · View original PDF
- HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. vs. Bhad: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No. 12233 of 2024 (2024-11-07) · View original PDF
- Noida SEZ Authority vs. Manish Agarwal: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal Nos. 5918 & 5919 of 2022 (2024-11-05) · View original PDF
- Kairav Anil Trivedi vs. IBBI: Supreme Court Orders — Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24750-2024 (2024-11-04) · View original PDF
- State Bank of India vs. Alok Gaur: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No 11091 of 2024 (2024-10-25) · View original PDF
- Peanence Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mamta Binani: Supreme Court Orders — CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7837/2024 (2024-10-23) · View original PDF
- GLAS Trust Co. LLC vs. BYJU Raveendran: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No. 9986 of 2024 (2024-10-23) · View original PDF
- Vidyasagar Prasad vs. UCO Bank: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2022 (2024-10-22) · View original PDF
- State Tax vs. Siddheshwar Industries: Supreme Court Appeal — Civil Appeal Diary No(s).38283-2024 (2024-10-21) · View original PDF
- Deputy Director vs. Shiv Charan: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No(s). 9692 & 9693-2024 (2024-10-16) · View original PDF
- KSK Mahanadi Power vs. Uttar Pradesh Power — Civil Appeal No 11086 of 2024 (2024-10-14) · View original PDF
- KSK Mahanadi Power vs. UP Power Corp: SLP 23339/2024 — SLP 23339 OF 2024 (2024-10-14) · View original PDF
- State Bank of India vs. India Power Corporation — Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024 (2024-09-27) · View original PDF
- Glas Trust Co. LLC vs. Byju Raveendran: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No(s). 9986-2024 (2024-09-26) · View original PDF
- Venugopal Dhoot vs. VOVL Ltd. Appeal Summary — Civil Appeal No. 10716-2024 (2024-09-24) · View original PDF
- Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Technology Development Board — Civil Appeal No(s). 2359-2021 (2024-09-13) · View original PDF
- Peanence Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mamta Binani: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal No(s). 7837/2024 (2024-09-09) · View original PDF
- V.S. Palanivel vs. P. Sriram: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal Nos. 9059 & 9061 of 2022 (2024-08-28) · View original PDF
- Peanence Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mamta Binani Appeal — CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7837/2024 (2024-08-20) · View original PDF
- Glas Trust Co. LLC vs. Byju Raveendran: Supreme Court Orders — Civil Appeal Diary No. 35406-2024 (2024-08-14) · View original PDF