The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: Corporate law

  • The CCI’s Nod for Resolution Plans: The 2025 Amendment Strikes the Right Note

    The CCI’s Nod for Resolution Plans: The 2025 Amendment Strikes the Right Note

    BY VAISHNAV M, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NUALS, KERALA

    INTRODUCTION

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) ensconces a mechanism known as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) that attempts to revive the Corporate Debtor (‘CD’) through restructuring and strategic resolution of debts. With the CD managed by a Resolution Professional (‘RP’), the Resolution Applicants (‘RA’) can propose restructuring plans to resolve debts and sustain the CD as a going concern.

    Where the plan involves acquisition, merger or amalgamation (collectively, ‘Combination’), it is important that the restructuring does not distort the competition in the market. This is where merger control and the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) step in. The Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram & Ors (‘ISC’)dealt with the procedure to seek the CCI’s approval for combination during the insolvency process.

    The piece is not a general comment on the decision; instead, it aims to examine a particular point in the judgement that has not received the critical attention it deserves. That is, the particular stage at which the CCI-nod for the combination is to be obtained. This question is especially pertinent in the context of the recently introduced IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (‘2025 Amendment’), which proposes to relax the timeline for the CCI’s approval for resolution plans.

    THE ISC CASE AND THE STATUS QUO

    In the ISC case, one of the RAs challenged the CIRP, citing many procedural laxities. One of the grounds was failure to seek approval of the CCI before placing the resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) for voting. According to Section 31(4) of the IBC, an RA has one year from the approval of the Adjudicating Authority (‘AA’) to obtain necessary clearances under other laws. But the proviso clarifies that the approval of the CCI for the combination is to be obtained before the approval of the CoC.

    Hitherto, the position was that this proviso is directory and not mandatory in nature, as laid down by the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) in Arcellor Mittal v Abhijit Guhakartha & Ors. The Supreme Court (‘SC’), in the ISC case, reversed the position by holding that the proviso is to be read literally, and treating it otherwise would render it obsolete. However, the proviso does not specify who seeks approval and at what stage before the CoC nod. In the scheme of CIRP, the stages preceding the CoC approval are:

    • Stage 1: Invitation for expression of interest from prospective RAs
    • Stage 2: Request for resolution plans from prospective RAs
    • Stage 3: Examination and confirmation of the plans by the RP
    • Stage 4: Voting by the CoC on the plans

    The SC in ISC clarified that the RA need not wait till submission of the plan to the RP before sending a notice to the CCI for approval. In effect, the approval of the CCI can be sought at any time, even in Stage 1 during the invitation for expression of interest at any point before Stage 4. The next section shall discuss the workability of the same.

    DETERMINING THE TRIGGER POINT FOR CCI NOTICE

    When to send the notice?

    According to Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, (‘the Competition Act’) an enterprise must send a notice of combination to the CCI when it executes any agreement or document for acquisition, or when the Board of Directors (‘Board’) of the enterprises involved approves the proposal for a merger or amalgamation.

    As held in ISC, an RA can send a notice to the CCI much before it submits its resolution plan to the RP. But is the requirement of an agreement or a decision for acquisition or the Board’s approval for merger met at Stages 1 and 2?

    An ‘agreement’ to acquire is a broad and liberal construct, and includes an arrangement of understanding or even an action in concert. Such an arrangement or understanding can be reflected in a formal or written form, and it need not have been formulated with the intent legal enforceability. In the case of the CIRP, the RP is tasked with managing the CD, including entering into contracts on behalf of the CD, courtesy Section 23 read with Section 20 of IBC. Resultantly, an agreement or understanding for the purpose of acquisition has to be between the RA proposing the combination on one side and the RP on the other side.

    But such an understanding or arrangement is absent at Stage 1. An agreement requires a meeting of minds of at least two parties, which is lacking when the RA is yet to share their proposal with the RP. Similarly, Stage 2 only marks a point where the RAs have prepared the plan. That does not signify an agreement as it is yet to be examined and understood by the RP.  

    At Stage 3, the RP examines the resolution plans proposed by the RAs and confirms whether they comply with the minimum essentials mandated by the law. This confirmation implies an agreement or an understanding, making Stage 3 and onwards the appropriate trigger for notice.

    Now, in the case of a merger or amalgamation, the notice is triggered only after the proposal is approved by the Board of both parties.[i]  In the case of a CD, the interim RP (‘IRP’) or the RP steps into the shoes of the management. Resultantly, the approval would have to be sought from the RP himself. Therefore, a notice for merger or amalgamation cannot be sent to the CCI before the plan is submitted to the RP and confirmed by them, which is Stage 3. So, the same conclusion follows – it is at Stage 3 that the notice is triggered.

    Who should send the notice?

    In the case of acquisition, the acquirer sends the notice.[ii] Generally, the successful RA submitting the plan acquires the target CD company, as was seen in the case of ISC. Therefore, it is the RA who is required to send the notice to the CCI. For merger or amalgamation, notice must be sent jointly by the RA and the RP.[iii]

    Suppose there are RAs intending to propose an acquisition in Stages 1 and 2, then all those RAs must send the notice to the CCI with the requisite fees,[iv] even before the plan is seen and examined by the RP. So, even RAs whose plan might not be voted in later would have to bear the cost at an early stage. Quite similarly, in the case of merger or amalgamation, the RP and the respective RA have to send the notice and pay the fees, jointly or severally.[v]Whether the RA or the RP handling the stressed CD would want to take the liability to pay the fees amid relative uncertainty is doubtful.

    WELCOMING THE 2025 AMENDMENT

    The 2025 Amendment has been appreciated for many desirable introductions, from the new ‘creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process’ to ‘group insolvency’. Clause 19(d) amends the proviso to Section 31(4), allowing the RA to obtain the CCI approval before submission to AA. So, the approval process can be deferred till the CoC votes on the plan and the Successful Resolution Applicant is identified. The minor change resolves the above-discussed problem of redundancy, while leaving room for seeking approval at an earlier stage.

    There are certain concerns regarding the amendment as well, but these can be addressed duly. One of the concerns is regarding compliance with the CIRP timeline of 330 days under Section 12 of the Code. However, 330 days is a general rule. The Court has already held, previously as well as in ISC, that the breach of the time-limit can be condoned in exceptional circumstances where any blame for such a delay cannot be attributed to any of the parties.

    In case the plan approved by the CoC is rejected by the CCI, it must be modified to address those objections. However, the successful RA cannot make any change at its own behest. So, once changes are made, the CoC must approve it again. Essentially, such a rejection need not be fatal to the CIRP, though it may elongate the process. In any case, Clause 19(b) of the 2025 Amendments allows the AA to return back the plan to the CoC for correcting any defects. What it reflects is that alterations made post first CoC approval is not doctrinally unacceptable. When CCI recommends changes, the CoC is well-equipped to accommodate it then and there. 

    Therefore, the proposed amendment to the procedure for CCI approval of the resolution plan is a pragmatic improvement as it spares the RA and the RP from the additional paperwork and costs that are characteristic of the existing position.

    CONCLUDING REMARKS

    The current position as settled in the ISC case does not gel well with reality. Even though it seems to make available a broad period for sending the notice, starting from Stage 1, it is generally not possible to send a notice until Stage 3 when the trigger for the notice under the Competition Act is activated. In rare cases with only one RA and mutual certainty as to the terms of the combination, this proposition in ISC might be of some use. Such cases are rare in the typically uncertain flow of business in the CIRP.

    The proposed change in the 2025 Amendment reflects the reality. The RAs and the RP can even wait till the CoC approval to send the notice. This improves ease of doing business and provides more leeway for the stakeholders to ensure compliance.

    [i] Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2024, Reg. 5(7).

    [ii] Id., Reg. 9(1).

    [iii] Id., Reg. 9(3).

    [iv] Id., Regs. 10, 11.

    [v] Id., Regs. 10(2), 9(3).

  • Reconsidering the Scope of Section 14 of IBC: Analysing the Inherent Extra-Territorial Scope of Moratorium 

    Reconsidering the Scope of Section 14 of IBC: Analysing the Inherent Extra-Territorial Scope of Moratorium 

    BY ADITYA DWIVEDI AND PULKIT YADAV, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENTS AT NUSRL, RACHI

    INTRODUCTION

    The moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘The Code’), are important mechanisms to maintain the debtor’s assets and maximise value for all stakeholders. Yet, the territorial applicability of these provisions, especially in proceedings involving cross-border assets, is a matter of judicial interpretation and academic discussion. 

    This article analyses the extra-territorial applicability of moratorium under the Code with a special focus on comparing and contrasting the interpretation of moratoriums applicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolutions Process (‘CIRP’) and Insolvency Resolution Process (‘IRP’) under Sections 14 and 96 of the Code, respectively. 

    By analysing the recent judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Rajesh Sardarmal Jain v. Sri Sandeep Goyal, (‘Rajesh Sadarmal’) this article contends that whereas Section 96 moratorium might be restricted to Indian jurisdiction, Section 14 moratorium necessarily has extra-territorial application due to the interim resolution professional’s statutory obligation to manage foreign assets under Section 18(f)(i) of the Code.

    TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF MORATORIUM: DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS

    The Code provides for two types of insolvency proceedings: CIRP for corporate persons under Part II and IRP for individuals and partnership firms under Part III, with moratoriums under Sections 14 and 96, respectively, to facilitate these processes

    However, courts have interpreted the moratoria under Sections 14 and 96 differently. In P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat, the Supreme Court held that Section 14 has a broader scope but limited its analysis to domestic proceedings. In contrast, the Calcutta High Court in Rajesh Sadarmal highlighted the extra-territorial reach of Section 96. Hence, examining these interpretations is key to understanding the territorial scope of both provisions.

    INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS VIS-A-VIS SCOPE OF SECTION 96: ANALYSING THE NARROW INTERPRETATION OF MORATORIUM UNDER PART III

    IIn Rajesh Sardarmal, the Calcutta High Court held that the Section 96 moratorium for personal guarantors does not extend to foreign jurisdictions, as the Code’s scope under Section 1 is limited to India and does not specify the enforcement of the Section 96 moratorium in foreign courts. Thus, the court held that actions in foreign jurisdictions cannot be suspended by Section 96. This interpretation implies that all provisions under the Code lack extra-territorial application.

    However, this view contradicts the Code’s inherent extra-territorial mechanism, as outlined in Sections 234 and 235 of the Code which respectively empower the central government to enter into reciprocal arrangements with other countries to enforce the provisions of the Code and allow the Adjudicating Authority (‘AA’) to issue a letter of request to the competent authority of a reciprocating country, requesting it to take necessary action regarding any ongoing homebound proceedings against the Corporate Debtor (‘CD’) under the Code. Further, this interpretation also negates the inherent extra-territorial scope of the moratorium under Section 14. 

    CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS VIS-À-VIS SCOPE OF SECTION 14: A CASE WARRANTING BROADER INTERPREATAION OF MORATORIUM UNDER PART II

    The Supreme Court, in M/S HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd v. M/S Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, held that the Code, as an economic legislation, is intended for the revival of the CD rather than being used as a recovery mechanism. Further, in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Apex Court held that moratorium under section 14 envisions the protection of the assets of the CD, to facilitate its smooth revival. 

    Therefore, applying Rajesh Sadarmal’s narrow interpretation to Section 14 would weaken the moratorium’s purpose and hinder the CIRP. In a globalised economy, corporate debtors often hold foreign assets, which must be brought under the control of the interim resolution professional and the resolution professional under Sections 18 and 25 of the Code, respectively. This will maximise the value of the CD and enhance the chances of higher recovery for creditors. Further, it would also prevent successful resolution applicants from acquiring foreign assets of the CD without making any payment, and enable the committee of creditors to exercise their commercial wisdom judiciously in selecting the most suitable resolution plan after assessing the true financial position of the CD. 

    EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SCOPE: LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

    In Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Anr, the Supreme Court held that courts must act upon the intent of the legislature, and such intent can be gathered from the language used in the statute. Moreover, inRenaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v.  B. Vijaya Sai & Others, the Apex Court ruled that the quintessential principle of interpretation is that every provision of a statute shall be interpreted considering the scheme of the given statute. Meaning thereby that the textual interpretation must align with the contextual one. 

    The Supreme Court went further ahead in the State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, and held that a statute may have extra-territorial application if a sufficient territorial nexus exists. Hence, Section 1 of the Code does not bar such application. Interpreting Section 14 thus requires examining legislative intent and nexus, with Sections 18(f)(i), 234, and 235 providing key guidance.

    SECTION 18(f)(i): CONTROL OVER FOREIGN ASSETS

    After the commencement of insolvency and imposition of moratorium, the AA appoints an interim resolution professional under Section 16. As per Section 18(f)(i), the interim resolution professional must take control of all assets owned by the corporate debtor, including those located abroad. This establishes a clear territorial nexus, supporting extra-territorial application.

    In M/s Indo World Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Mukesh Gupta, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) held that under Section 18(f), read with Section 20, the interim resolution professional must secure and preserve the corporate debtor’s assets. This interpretation aligns with the moratorium’s objective under Section 14. Such an intra-textual reading reflects the legislative intent to extend the moratorium to foreign assets for effective CIRP and value maximisation. While Section 1 poses no bar, supported by the doctrine of territorial nexus, actual enforcement abroad still depends on securing international cooperation through agreements under the Code.

    INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 234 AND 235: HIGHLIGHTING THE INHERENT EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF THE CODE

    Under Part V, the Code provides a legislative route under Sections 234 and 235 to facilitate the extraterritorial application of its provisions. This legislative structure recognises the necessity of international coordination and highlights the extraterritorial nature of the Code. 

    However, their efficacy is yet to be tested because, to date, no notification[i] has been issued by the central government in this regard. Therefore, unless the central government gives effect to these provisions through mutual agreement with other countries, no provision of the Code can be extended to foreign proceedings or assets situated in foreign lands. 

    However, in State Bank of India v. Videocon Industries Ltd., the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) held that the  CD’s foreign assets will form part of the CIRP and be subject to Sections 18 and 14 of the Code. Yet, the NCLT has not provided any judicial framework for the consolidation of the CD’s foreign assets in the CIRP. 

    Therefore, even if the CD’s foreign assets are considered part of the CIRP, in the absence of a judicial or legislative framework (such as mutual agreements), those assets cannot be included in the CIRP.

    NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE CROSS-BORDER FRAMEWORK

    In DBS Bank Limited Singapore v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited & Another, the Apex Court held that the primary aim of the Code is to balance the rights of various stakeholders by enabling the resolution of insolvency, encouraging investment, and optimising asset value. 

    Therefore, it is necessary to address the concerns of distressed Indian companies with a foreign presence and foreign companies having the centre of main interest (‘COMI’) in India. This will ensure that stakeholders or creditors are not left in the lurch due to skewed recovery resulting from the non-inclusion of the CD’s foreign assets in the CIRP. 

     However, to effectively address these concerns, there is a need to devise a cross-border framework that encompasses not only the CIRP but also the IRP. At present, India lacks such a framework, which constitutes a significant regulatory gap in its insolvency regime. In cases where personal guarantors possess assets located outside the country, this gap severely impairs the ability of creditors to recover dues effectively. The present framework is limited in scope and fails to provide mechanisms for the recognition and enforcement of foreign proceedings involving personal guarantors, thereby undermining the efficiency of cross-border recoveries.

    While the Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency, 2018 (‘The Report’) laid down a robust foundation for dealing with CDS, it did not address personal insolvency, as Part III of the Code had not yet been notified at that time. The report emphasised the importance of providing foreign creditors access to Indian insolvency proceedings and of enabling Indian insolvency officials to seek recognition abroad. However, with the subsequent notification of provisions relating to personal guarantors, there is now an urgent need to expand the cross-border framework to encompass personal guarantor insolvency as well. The report also supports this view as it provides for the subsequent extension of cross-border provision on IRP, post notification of Part III. 

    Moreover, in Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India,  the Supreme Court held that due to the co-extensive nature of the liability of the surety with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, creditors can recover the remaining part of their debt from CIRP by initiating IRP against the personal guarantor to the CD.

    Therefore, failing to extend the cross-border insolvency regime to IRP would limit creditors’ access to the guarantor’s foreign assets, thereby impeding the full and effective realization of their claims.

    To address this regulatory shortfall, a pragmatic way forward would be to operationalise Section 234 through mutual agreements with key trading partners of India, by expanding the scope of the cross-border framework, as suggested in the report   to include IRP, and amending the Code accordingly. 

    Further, the Courts should also refrain from narrowly interpreting the scope of moratoriums and other provisions of the Code, and should take into account the doctrine of territorial nexus while analysing the scope of any provision of the Code. 

    A broader interpretation, especially in cases involving foreign assets or proceedings, would facilitate a more effective and holistic resolution process by recognising the global footprint of many CDs. This approach aligns with the objective of maximising the value of assets under Sections 20 and the preamble of the Code and ensures that proceedings under the Code are not rendered toothless in cross-border contexts. 

    Additionally, invoking the doctrine of territorial nexus can help establish a sufficient legal connection between India and foreign assets or persons, thereby allowing Indian insolvency courts to issue directions that can have extraterritorial reach, wherever justified. This interpretive approach will ultimately enhance creditor confidence and will reinforce India’s credibility as a jurisdiction with a robust insolvency regime.

    Moreover, in the absence of any judicial and legislative framework, the doctrine of Comity of Courts can be invoked by the creditors seeking the enforcement of insolvency proceedings on foreign lands. This common law doctrine postulates an ethical obligation on the courts of one competent jurisdiction to respect and to give effect to the judgments and orders of the courts of other jurisdictions.

    Creditors can also seek recognition of Indian insolvency proceedings abroad through the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as seen in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd., where the Singapore High Court recognised the Indian CIRP but denied asset repatriation. This highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework aligned with the spirit of the Code and the report that is primarily based on the Model Law.

    CONCLUSION

    While the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Rajesh Sardarmal limits the territorial reach of Section 96 moratorium, Section 14 moratorium has to be interpreted more expansively, considering its inextricable link with Section 18(f)(i). Further, while interpreting the Code, the courts must give due regard to the legislative intent and the judicial principle of territorial nexus.  The success of the Code’s insolvency resolution mechanism, especially in cross-border asset cases, relies on acknowledging and enabling the extra-territorial operation of moratorium provisions. Legislative amendments, international cooperation frameworks, and judicial interpretation of the Code’s provisions based on legislative intent are essential to realise this goal.

    [i] Uphealth Holdings, INC. v. Dr. Syed Shabat Azim & Ors. Co., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6311 ¶ 20