&w=3840&q=100)
CCI approves Dalmia Cement's acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates
JAL is currently undergoing insolvency resolution proceedings. The CCI's approval for Dalmia's proposal comes ahead of the committee of creditors' (CoC) final decision on selecting a successful bidder. The Adani Group's application for the same acquisition is still under review by the antitrust regulator.
'The proposed combination envisages 100 per cent acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) by Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (Acquirer) pursuant to a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,' the CCI's press statement said.
The CCI added that a detailed order will follow.
JAL is engaged in diverse business activities including real estate, cement, hospitality, and engineering, procurement and construction.
Dalmia Cement is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dalmia Bharat Limited (DBL), which is the ultimate parent entity of the Dalmia Bharat Group. DBL is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement.
JAL entered insolvency on 3 June 2024. Besides the Adani and Dalmia groups, Vedanta Group, Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (JSPL), and PNC Infratech have also submitted resolution plans for the beleaguered conglomerate.
After the last meeting with bidders, lenders had asked all resolution applicants to submit revised resolution plans without any conditionalities and with a definitive bid amount, according to sources.
Most bids remain contingent on the outcome of a key legal case concerning Jaiprakash's 1,000-hectare Sports City project in Greater Noida.
In March, the Allahabad High Court upheld a decision by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (Yeida) to cancel the land allotment. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Following a recent Supreme Court ruling, resolution applicants are now expected to secure CCI approval for their plans before seeking approval from the CoC.
However, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is expected to amend this provision in the proposed Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill to clarify that prior permission from the CCI is not required for submitting bids under the CIRP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
NCLAT clears way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors
NEW DELHI: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) has cleared the way for insolvency proceedings against Supertech Realtors , the developer of the Supernova project, which comprises residential apartments, offices, retail space, and a luxury hotel. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Appellate Tribunal has upheld the previous order passed by the Delhi bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had, on June 12, 2024, directed the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) over a petition filed by Bank of Maharashtra , claiming default. A two-member NCLAT bench said the revised proposal submitted by its promoter, Ram Kishore Arora , for settlement has not been accepted by the Consortium of Banks. "We are of the view that the present is a case where the resolution of the Corporate Debtor (Supertech Realtors) has to be undertaken as per the I&B Code and CIRP Regulations, 2016, in accordance with law. We, thus, upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitting the Section 7 application and dismissing the appeal," said NCLAT. The appellate tribunal also gave a go-ahead to the interim resolution professional appointed by NCLT to constitute the CoC (Committee of Creditors) and proceed with the CIRP in accordance with the law. Supertech Realtors is a subsidiary of realty firm Supertech, which is also facing insolvency proceedings along with some other group companies. Supertech Realtors is developing the Supernova project at a cost of Rs 2,326.14 crore on a land measuring 70,002 square metres at Sector 94, Noida. As per the plans, the Supernova project will have 80 floors and will be the tallest building in Delhi-NCR at a height of 300 metres. Earlier, the NCLAT had put the process of constitution of the lender body CoC on hold on July 3, 2024, over Arora's plea. He had not raised any dispute. Regarding the debt and default of Bank of Maharashtra, the realty firm -- with assistance from investor M/s Kotak Advisors --submitted a settlement proposal offering 75 per cent of the running ledger book balance. However, this was rejected by the consortium of lenders. Meanwhile, the NCLAT has been periodically extending its interim order staying the formation of CoC, as Arora has pleaded that 80 per cent of the project is complete and investors have offered to infuse funds for its construction. Finally, the consortium of banks also rejected a revised OTS proposal submitted by Arora with Parmesh Construction Company as Co-Developer, after which NCLAT moved ahead. The appellate tribunal also declined Ram Kishore Arora's plea to challenge the decision of the Financial Creditor not accepting the OTS (one time settlement) proposal submitted by him. "We are of the view that reasons which persuaded the Banks not to accept the OTS proposal cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Present is not a case, where an application filed under 12A for withdrawal of CIRP has not been approved by CoC with 90 per cent vote share, which decision has been held to be subject to judicial review on limited grounds that the decision of CoC is arbitrary," said a 32-page-long NCLAT order. The Bank of Maharashtra submitted that the dues of all Consortium Banks are above Rs 990 crore, and the Banks in their Joint Lenders' Meeting held on June 13, 2025, have deliberated on all aspects of the matter and decided not to accept the OTS. Arora further claimed that he was not informed about the rejection of the OTS proposal. On this banks replied that the decision of the Consortium was communicated by Union Bank of India, which is the lead bank of the consortium, on July 15, 2025, and a copy of the letter has already been brought on record by them in their compilation submitted before NCLAT. For the project, Supertech Realtors approached a consortium of lenders led by Union Bank of India seeking financial assistance of Rs 7,35.58 crore. Out of this, it had also requested a credit facility of Rs 150 crore, which was granted by Bank of Maharashtra. In December 2012, a term loan of Rs 150 crore was granted. The term loan was repayable in quarterly installments in the consolidated door-to-door tenor for 10 years and 4 months by March 2023. However, Supertech Realtors failed to maintain financial discipline and defaulted in properly maintaining the said accounts in addition to committing other breaches and violations of the credit limit, leading to the accumulation of huge outstanding.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
IBC amendments plug a major gap in the insolvency process
MUMBAI , NEW DELHI : The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, tabled in the Lok Sabha on 12 August, closes a key exit route, making it harder for companies to quit insolvency proceedings for an early out-of-court settlement. The amendment makes the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) approval mandatory for an applicant to withdraw from bankruptcy proceedings under Section 12A of the IBC. A CoC—a group of financial creditors—is set up by the interim resolution professional (IRP) after the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) is initiated. As of now, companies can withdraw the CIRP application even before the CoC is formed by securing approval from 90% of the creditors. However, the proposed Clause 8 in Section 12A permits only the IRP to seek withdrawal—and only within a narrow window after the CoC is formed but before the first call for resolution plans. Early or late withdrawals would be barred, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) must rule within 30 days. 'The ban on withdrawals before CoC formation and after the first plan invitation will likely discourage early, informal settlements that were sometimes reached between the debtor and a few creditors,"said Mohit Adatiya, director at NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. 'It will push stakeholders to resolve disputes within the formal CoC framework, reducing scope for back-channel deals but potentially prolonging timelines," he added. The popular loophole To be sure, many firms in high-profile bankruptcy cases have attempted to exit at an early stage—before the CoC is formed—by offering quick settlements to lenders. One prominent example is the edtech major Buyu's. In 2024, edtech major Byju's sought to quit the legal proceedings after settling dues with its lead operational creditor Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The Supreme Court, however, stayed the bid, noting that the CoC had already been formed. The case is still being heard before multiple forums. On Wednesday, in SKIL Infrastructure Ltd's matter, the NCLT rejected the IRP's request to withdraw from the insolvency was admitted into insolvency in February 2024 after its financial creditor, Amluckie Investment Co. Ltd, filed for bankruptcy in February 2020. Other creditors blocked attempts to settle outside the formal process, underscoring the practical challenges of reaching consensus. Similarly, in March 2025, the NCLT rejected Syska LED Lights' bid to withdraw from insolvency proceedings initiated by operational creditor Sunstar Industries. Even after a settlement, financial creditors, including IDFC First Bank and State Bank of India, opposed the withdrawal. A mixed bag Though experts fear the proposal will give dissenting creditors more leverage, they also believe it will prevent the filing of frivolous applications under Section 12A. 'Even a small minority holding more than 10% of the voting share can now effectively veto settlements, as seen in high-profile matters like the one involving Byju's. This could lead to prolonged proceedings unless a broader consensus is built early," Adatiya pointed out. The amendment will facilitate discussion between all financial creditors at a very early stage prior to admission, considering that 90% CoC approval will anyway be required for post-admission withdrawal, added Siddharth Srivasta, partner, Khaitan and Co. Experts also said the ban on withdrawals before the formation of the CoC and after the first invitation for resolution plans will fundamentally change settlement behaviour. Srivasta said the change would also 'inculcate discipline in the CoC members and will reduce any complacent behaviour to consider settling at an advanced stage". He said this will nudge debt-laden companies' promoters to submit and finalize proposals before the first request for resolution plans rather than at a fairly advanced stage, wherein the corporate debtor's assets have already depleted, and there would be no option of withdrawal. According to law firms, while the amendment could be challenging, another area of concern is the criteria for the 90% voting threshold from the CoC, which is often difficult to achieve. 'The amendment is expected to bring a behavioural shift in cases where there is potential for early settlement and creditor exit. It will also help curb frivolous litigation, where proposals are submitted merely to derail the resolution plan process," said Surbhi Pareek, partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Besides, now companies will have to undergo the CIRP right from the beginning. 'Many cases will have no alternative but to undergo the entire process. This may prolong cases and add costs, but will also ensure a comprehensive and transparent process, reducing the risk of collusive or side deals. Parties aiming for settlement must now design far more inclusive and robust proposals to win broad-based approval," said Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris. Lawyers also noted that the amendment changes who will be in charge of filing a withdrawal application. Earlier, such applications were generally filed by an operational or a financial creditor. Now, the IRP must file the application. 'As the IRP acts on the instructions of the CoC, the CoC will deliberate on whether such an application should be filed at all, rather than deciding whether to approve an application that has already been submitted," said Durgesh Khanapurkar, partner at Desai & Diwanji.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
NCLT rejects IRP bid to end SKIL Infra's insolvency process
Advt The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an application filed by the interim resolution professional (IRP) of SKIL Infrastructure seeking withdrawal of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the listed infrastructure firm, promoted by brothers Bhavesh and Nikhil Gandhi, was admitted under the CIRP on an application filed by its financial creditor, Amluckie Investment Company "We are of the considered view that the withdrawal does not deserve to be allowed," an NCLT Mumbai division bench of judicial member Saji Kumar and technical member Anil Raj Chellan said in its order dated August 13. "The applicant/IRP is directed to constitute the committee of creditors (CoC) forthwith and conduct the process as per law."The move to exit the insolvency proceedings came after the company settled with its original financial creditor, Amluckie Investment. The company's IRP, through counsel Nausher Kohli, approached the tribunal to withdraw the CIRP against the the company's other financial creditors, including Bank of India, UCO Bank and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC), objected to the withdrawal of the CIRP. The lenders informed the tribunal that the IRP has received total claims of ₹13,715.15 crore, of which ₹12,504.74 crore have been ARC, through counsel Rohan Agarwal, challenged the maintainability of the withdrawal application and argued that in February 2022 it had also approached the tribunal to admit SKIL Infrastructure under the that application was disposed of since the company was already admitted under the application filed by Amluckie Investment. The ARC also informed the tribunal that the IRP has confirmed admission of its claim of ₹1,294 of India informed the tribunal that it is one of the 19 lenders of Reliance Naval & Engineering (formerly Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Company and Reliance Defence & Engineering), which is the principal borrower, with SKIL Infrastructure as its corporate guarantor. The lender argued that SKIL Infrastructure, being the promoter and corporate guarantor of the principal borrower, is liable for its claims to the extent of ₹908.26 crore.
