SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 246

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N.BHATTI, JJ.
Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 4924 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 4937 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5018 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 5401 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 6847 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 6055 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 6123 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 7037 OF 2023 Civil Appeal No. 7038 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 6771 of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 7428 OF 2023
Decided On : 29-01-2025

The court ruled that the requirement for CCI approval under Section 31(4) of the IBC is directory, allowing for post-approval compliance to avoid stalling the CIRP.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 31(4) - Competition Act, 2002 - Approval of combination - The NCLAT upheld the approval of AGI Greenpac's resolution plan for Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd. without prior CCI approval, interpreting the requirement as directory rather than mandatory. The court emphasized that the CCI's approval is essential for compliance with competition laws but can be obtained post CoC approval, ensuring the CIRP is not stalled. (Paras 155.1, 155.2, 155.3)

(B) Locus Standi - The court affirmed that the unsuccessful resolution applicant has the standing to challenge the approval of the resolution plan. (Paras 26, 27)

(C) Procedural Compliance - The court noted that the CCI's failure to issue a show cause notice to both parties to the combination was a significant procedural lapse, but did not invalidate the approval. (Paras 125, 126)

Table of Content
1. statutory appeals under ibc (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
2. key parties involved (Para 2)
3. arguments by insco (Para 18)
4. nclat's interpretation (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154)
5. final orders of the court (Para 155 , 156 , 157 , 158)

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Table of Contents

FACTUAL MATRIX

SUBMISSIONS

DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

Objections on Locus Standi

Proviso to Section 31(4) IBC

Undertaking Interpretation: Why Literal and not Purposive?

Principle of Plain Meaning

Different Threshold for Combinations

Notes on Clauses, Memorandum & Scrivener’s Error

(Dis?)Harmony between Stipulated Timelines

Distinguishing cases relied upon by the NCLAT

Relevance of CCI & its scrutiny

Procedural Lapses under the Competition Act

Discrepancies in Data

Practical Challenges with Conditional Approvals

CONCLUSION

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. These are statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’] against the judgment dated 18.09.2023 (impugned order) passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLAT’] in appeals, pertaining to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘HNGIL’]. Additionally, there is a set of appeals arising out of the NCLAT Order dated 28.07.2023, pertaining to the approval accorded to the combination between HNGIL and AGI Greenpac. In this common judgment, the parties are identified from Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023.

2. One key party in this matter is HNGIL i.e., the Corporate Debtor/Target Company with a 60% market share of the glass packaging industry in India. The Resolution Professional represents them. Incorporated in 1946, HNGIL has manufacturing plants located in Bahadurgarh (Haryana), Rishra (West Bengal), Neemrana (Rajasthan), Naidupeta (Andhra Pradesh), Sinnar (Maharashtra), Puducherry and Rishikesh (Uttarakhand), catering to a wide range of industries, including pharmaceutical and wellness, cosmetics, food & beverage, and alco-beverages, etc.

3. Combining with HNGIL is AGI Greenpac Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘AGI Greenpac’] i.e., the Successful Resolution Applicant, which is the second largest company in the field of glass packaging and manufacturing in India, after HNGIL. With two manufacturing plants in Telangana, AGI Greenpac is the leading manufacturer of container glass. The combination between AGI Greenpac and HNGIL, with potential market share of 80-85% in F&B segment and 45-50% in alco-beverage segment, is generating a key issue for adjudication since the combination of the two major players in this sector is likely to result in an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition [hereinafter referred to as ‘AAEC’] in the glass packaging industry generally and in particular, within the sub- segments of F&B and alco-beverages.

4. The main contesting party to the aforementioned proposed combination is the Bermuda-registered Appellant – Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘INSCO’], incorporated in 1984, which also submitted t

                              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5
                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                              10
                              11
                              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                              supreme today icon
                              logo-black

                              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                              Please visit our Training & Support
                              Center or Contact Us for assistance

                              qr

                              Scan Me!

                              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                              whatsapp-icon Back to top