Re-Examining Mandatory Prior CCI Approval Under Section 31(4) Of The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code After Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. V. Girish Sriram Juneja
Madu Mithra Sridharan, Sastra University
ABSTRACT
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was actually created with a straightforward goal in mind: a firm experiencing financial difficulties will go through a quick, time-bound procedure, and any value that can be preserved will be preserved. The instant that promise is joined under the Competition Act of 2002, it becomes more difficult. At that point, two regulators are essentially asking two distinct questions while examining the same transaction. Which option best saves the company is what the Committee of Creditors needs to know. The Indian Competition Commission is interested in finding out if the bailout will reduce competition in the relevant market. For the first time, the Supreme Court had to make a clear decision in the matter of Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. which query is addressed first. The Court ruled by a 2:1 majority that in cases where a resolution plan is a combination, CCI permission must be obtained prior to the Committee of Creditors approving the plan, not concurrently or later. This paper says that the majority was correct and that it was appropriate to refuse to allow commercial urgency to take precedence over a clear legislative requirement. However, correcting the sequence does not equate to making it feasible, and the dissent's caution about delay has persisted despite the majority's rejection of it. Therefore, the study contends that topic following Independent Sugar is not whether prior clearance should be required because that issue is now resolved, but rather how the CCI's procedure can be made to go at a speed that CIRP can realistically tolerate.
Keywords: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; Section 31(4); Competition Commission of India; combinations; Committee of Creditors; commercial wisdom; corporate insolvency resolution process; competition law.
