{"id":2782,"date":"2025-02-17T12:43:54","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:13:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2782"},"modified":"2025-02-17T12:43:54","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:13:54","slug":"insolvency-and-competition-legal-dispute-over-agi-greenpacs-resolution-plan-in-hngils-cirp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/insolvency-and-competition-legal-dispute-over-agi-greenpacs-resolution-plan-in-hngils-cirp\/","title":{"rendered":"Insolvency and Competition: Legal Dispute Over AGI Greenpac\u2019s Resolution Plan in HNGIL\u2019s CIRP"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 <strong>Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong><strong>GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA &amp; ORS.\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023<\/p>\n<p>(3JB, HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and S.V.N. BHATTI JJ.)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The case involves statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against NCLAT&#8217;s judgments on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Hindustan National Glass and Industries Ltd. (HNGIL). AGI Greenpac, the successful resolution applicant, proposed a merger with HNGIL, raising concerns about an adverse effect on competition. The Bermuda-based Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. (INSCO) challenged AGI Greenpac\u2019s resolution plan, arguing that it lacked prior Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval. Despite objections, AGI Greenpac&#8217;s plan was approved by NCLT and upheld by NCLAT, deeming prior CCI approval as directory rather than mandatory. INSCO contested this before the Supreme Court, citing competition concerns. The case has significant implications for insolvency law and competition regulations in India.<\/p>\n<p>Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing INSCO, the unsuccessful resolution applicant, argued that AGI Greenpac\u2019s resolution plan was approved with procedural irregularities. He contended that the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC) violated Section 31(4) of the IBC by submitting the plan to the NCLT without mandatory Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval. The RP allegedly allowed unlawful relaxations, bypassing legal mandates, and AGI Greenpac\u2019s modifications were made without due process. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the CoC\u2019s role, arguing that IBC timelines must be followed, and statutory approvals were obtained correctly. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing AGI Greenpac, asserted that Section 31(4) is directory, not mandatory, and that delays would hinder business continuity. He dismissed the appellants\u2019 standing, emphasizing that unsuccessful bidders lack vested rights. The case revolves around whether procedural lapses in the CIRP process invalidate AGI Greenpac\u2019s resolution plan.<\/p>\n<p>The appellants challenged the accuracy of AGI\u2019s data considered by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). However, the NCLAT emphasized that CCI, comprising experts in trade and commerce, deserves due weightage. Under Section 53T of the Competition Act, appeals do not require reconsideration of data or findings on adverse effects on competition (AAEC). The CCI\u2019s assessment of market share and capacity utilization was deemed appropriate. Since the CCI\u2019s conclusions were affirmed by NCLAT, there was no basis for re-examination. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the validity of CCI\u2019s findings on AGI\u2019s market impact.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the bench was divided in its conclusions. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia concurred with the lead opinion, while Justice S.V.N. Bhatti presented a separate dissenting view. The differences in opinion were acknowledged as valuable contributions to the evolving jurisprudence of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Competition Act, 2002. Quoting Shakespeare\u2019s <em>The Taming of the Shrew<\/em>, the judgment highlighted the essence of legal debates\u2014fierce in argument but collegial in spirit\u2014underscoring the adversarial yet respectful nature of judicial discourse in shaping legal principles.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.\u00a0 \u00a0[APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA &amp; ORS.\u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6071 OF 2023 (3JB, HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and S.V.N. BHATTI JJ.) &nbsp; The case involves statutory appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against NCLAT&#8217;s judgments on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Hindustan [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2784,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2782"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2782\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2785,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2782\/revisions\/2785"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2784"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}