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
| 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
GLAS Trust Company LLC v. BYJU Raveendran & Ors.
Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman
Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd. v. Educomp Solutions Ltd. (CoC), (2022) 2 SCC 401 [Para 38
Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta
Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Premdeva
Tata Consultancy Services v. Andhra Pradesh
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Visitor, Aligarh Muslim University v. K.S. Misra
Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.
Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India
ACG Associated Capsules v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone
Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
Committee of Creditors of Essar vs. Satish Kumar Gupta
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India
State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta and others
Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India
Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. NC Budhraja and Co.
New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar
Tirath Singh vs. Bachittar Singh
Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra
Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India
Sainik Motors v. State of Rajasthan
State of UP v. Babu Ram Upadhya
and State of MP v. Azad Bharat Finance Co.
State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The Consortium of Murari Jalan and Florian Fritsch & Anr.
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.
The court ruled that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rendered the Resolution Plan invalid, necessitating liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Scope of judicial interference – When concurrent view has been taken by two adjudicating authorities, unless it is found that such a view was in ignorance of....
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Adjudicating authority (NCLT) or appellate authority (NCLAT) can sit in appeal over commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) – There is need for m....
The rejection of a Resolution Plan must comply with statutory requirements, and commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount, limiting the adjudicatory review.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.