&w=3840&q=100)
MCA may amend IBC to scrap prior CCI approval for insolvency bids
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) is likely to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to clarify that prior permission of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not required for submitting bids under the corporate insolvency resolution process, government sources indicated.
This comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court (SC) rejecting the winning bid of AGI Greenpac for Hindustan National Glass in January due to its failure to get CCI approval before the nod of the plan by the Committee of Creditors (Coc).
'We want to reduce the burden on CCI. We will try to address this issue in the IBC through an amendment,' the official source said.
The provision in question is Section 31A (4) of the IBC which states, '...where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002, the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the committee of creditors.'
The SC in its January order had said, 'AGI Greenpac's resolution plan is unsustainable as it failed to secure prior approval from the CCI, as mandated under the provision to Section 31(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the approval granted by the Committee of Creditors to the resolution plan dated October 28, 2022, without the requisite CCI approval, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and quashed.'
The SC's decision would impact future mergers that happen through IBC.
Experts feel a clarity by the government on this matter would bring relief to bidders who were concerned about approaching CCI before the CoC approval.
'Post the first submission of the plan, it could be significantly amended at the time of final submission for CoC approval. If the bidder approaches the CCI before final submission of the plan, there is no certainty that the plan being reviewed by the CCI would be the same that would be approved by the CoC,' said Anshul Jain, Partner & Leader - Regulatory, PwC India.
The top court on May 8 agreed to look into a request made by the CCI to reconsider its earlier judgment from January.
AGI Greenpac and Independent Sugar Corp (INSCO), were vying for HNG which went into insolvency in October 2021.
INSCO secured CCI clearance in 2022, but AGI Greenpac emerged as the successful bidder chosen by the CoC, despite not having received approval from the CCI at the time. INSCO challenged this in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The crux of the dispute was whether CCI approval was mandatory before the CoC approved a resolution plan or if it could be granted afterward.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
DDA moves Delhi HC against RERA order for registering housing projects
New Delhi, Jun 10 (PTI) The Delhi Development Authority has moved the Delhi High Court after the Real Estate Regulatory Authority in the capital directed the registration of its housing projects. On May 28, Justice Sachin Datta issued notice to Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the Centre on DDA's plea and asked for their responses. Senior advocate Ramesh Singh and advocate Vrinda Kapoor Dev represented DDA and referred to RERA's 2021 order directing it to register projects under Section 3 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The provision prescribes "prior registration of a real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory Authority". The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal had upheld the RERA decision in September 2024. The petition argued that the statutory exercise of obligations by the DDA was ex-facie not covered under the provisions of Real Estate Act as it was governed by the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 and Nazul Rules, 1981. DDA, it said, was not a "promoter" of housing projects under the RERA Act and unlike other promoters and developers, it was not required to mandatorily register under the RERA Act. The plea, as a result, sought RERA's decision to be reined in. DDA argued the preamble of the Delhi Development Act established the authority to fundamentally differ from private developers' commercial and profit-motivated objectives and claimed having "comprehensive in-house mechanisms" for quality control, grievance redressal, and accountability, making additional RERA oversight redundant. "The statutory scheme of the Delhi Development Act keeps the petitioner distinct from the other developers and promoters of the real estate on account of the fact that the disposal of the developed land and built-up properties are governed by the statutory rules and regulations framed under the DD other promoters and developers as is commonly understood the petitioner does not require mandatory registration....," the plea said. The matter would be heard on July 7.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
34 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Long-awaited tax refunds may finally land as 2023-24 returns are processed
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) will allow more time for processing pending returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2023-24 (AY 2023-24). This could result in long-awaited refunds or Income Tax demand notices reaching taxpayers over the next few months. What CBDT has said In a directive issued under Section 119(2)(a) of the Act, the CBDT has relaxed the timeline laid out in the second proviso to Section 143(1). 'Valid electronically filed returns for AY 2023-24, which remained unprocessed due to the lapse of the statutory timeline, shall now be processed and intimations under section 143(1) will be sent by November 30, 2025,' the order dated June 9, 2025, states. This relief is only for Income Tax returns (ITR) that are valid but were not processed earlier. Returns selected for scrutiny or delayed due to taxpayer-related issues will not be covered under this relaxation. Who benefits? Taxpayers awaiting refunds for AY 2023-24 due to processing delays. Returns that were electronically filed under Section 139, but couldn't be acted upon within the original deadline. However, the CBDT has clearly stated that this relaxation 'shall not be applicable' to: ITRs flagged for scrutiny assessments. ITRs that are pending due to reasons attributable to the assessee, such as missing information or mismatches. No refund without PAN-Aadhaar link There's a caveat. If your PAN and Aadhaar are still not linked, any eligible refund will not be released. The CBDT reiterated that 'refund of any amount of tax or part thereof, due under the provisions of the Act shall not be made' unless PAN-Aadhaar is linked, according to the circular by CBDT What should you do now? Check your ITR status on the e-filing portal. Ensure PAN-Aadhaar linkage if you're expecting a refund. Watch out for communications from the Income Tax Department — you may either get a refund or a notice of demand depending on your filing. With this extended window, the tax department aims to clear a significant backlog, bringing relief and resolution to lakhs of taxpayers.


Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh high court dismisses plea for visually impaired reservation in assistant professor recruitment
Chhattisgarh high court dismisses plea for visually impaired reservation in assistant professor recruitment RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a 27-year-old visually impaired candidate, who sought a 2% reservation for blind and low vision persons in the recruitment of Assistant Professors (Commerce). The court upheld the state govt's decision to deny such reservation in this specific subject, citing the nature of teaching duties involved and the reservation already granted to other disability categories. Saroj Kshemanidhi, 27, appeared for the 2019 Assistant Professor (Commerce) recruitment conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). Though he cleared the written examination and was called for the interview, he did not make it to the final selection list. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a directive to the CGPSC to issue a corrigendum ensuring a 2% reservation for visually impaired candidates, covering both current and backlog vacancies. He also requested the court to stop the CGPSC from filling these vacancies until the matter was resolved. The CGPSC argued that it functioned solely as an examining body and not as a policymaker. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo It stated that the petitioner applied knowing there was no reservation for the visually impaired in the Commerce subject and could not challenge the process midway. The Commission also pointed out that identifying suitable posts for reservation falls under the domain of the state govt. The State of Chhattisgarh, the second respondent in the case, submitted that the reservation pattern followed in the 2019 recruitment advertisement was in accordance with a govt circular dated 29 August 2018. They further noted that the High Court earlier directed the authorities to reallocate reservation in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. As a result, corrigenda were issued in November 2019 and January 2021 adjusting reservation across various subjects, including Commerce. The state clarified that the Assistant Professor post is part of a larger cadre, and reservations are applied at the cadre level, not by individual subject. It further argued that Kshemanidhi's petition resembled a Public Interest Litigation and was not maintainable as he accepted the terms of recruitment without objection. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vijay K Deshmukh contended that denying reservation to the visually impaired in the Commerce subject violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution. He cited previous recruitment rounds where such reservation was granted. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas framed the core question: whether the state was obligated to provide a 2% reservation for blind and low vision candidates in Commerce, despite already allotting reservation to other disability categories under the same recruitment. Citing Sections 33 and 34 of the RPWD Act, the court observed that while 4% of total vacancies must be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, the identification of suitable posts is the prerogative of the appointing authority. Given the writing-intensive nature of Commerce teaching, the court found the state justified in limiting reservation to candidates with disabilities such as OA (one arm) and OL (one leg). The court ruled that the state's action was neither arbitrary nor illegal and declined to issue a writ directing the inclusion of visually impaired candidates in the reservation. The petition was dismissed, and the interim stay on appointment was vacated. The state has been directed to issue the pending appointment order within 60 days.