IBC and its history

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code  2016 (IBC), and the competition law are two important legislations in India that regulate different aspects of the business world. The IBC provides a time-bound resolution process for corporate insolvency and bankruptcy, while competition law aims to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote fair competition in the market. Given the significant overlap between the two, it is important to understand the interface between the IBC and competition law. The IBC provides a framework for the resolution of insolvency cases and has been widely recognized as a major reform in the Indian insolvency regime. One of the key objectives of the IBC is to maximize the value of the assets of the company and to balance the interests of different stakeholders. The IBC provides a time-bound and transparent process for the resolution of insolvency cases and aims to ensure that the value of the assets is preserved until a resolution plan is approved.

The provisions of the IBC include the following:

1. Insolvency Resolution Process: The IBC outlines a process for insolvency resolution, which involves an insolvency professional’s appointment to manage the debtor’s assets and negotiate a resolution plan with creditors. The insolvency resolution process must be completed within a period of 180 days, which can be extended by 90 days in exceptional circumstances.

2. National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The IBC establishes the NCLT, which is responsible for hearing and disposing of cases related to insolvency and bankruptcy. The NCLT has jurisdiction over both individuals and corporate entities.

3. Role of insolvency professionals: Insolvency professionals are appointed by the NCLT to manage the assets of the debtor during the insolvency resolution process. They are responsible for negotiating a resolution plan with creditors, ensuring that the assets are sold for the maximum value, and distributing the proceeds among creditors.

4. Creditor’s rights: The IBC provides for the rights of creditors during the insolvency resolution process, including the right to vote on the resolution plan and the right to receive a share of the proceeds from the sale of assets.

5. Debtor’s rights: The IBC also provides for the rights of debtors, including the right to challenge the appointment of an insolvency professional and the right to challenge the resolution plan.

6. Criminal offences: The IBC provides for penalties and criminal offences for various actions, including fraud and mismanagement by the debtor or insolvency professional.

The IBC is a crucial piece of legislation in India, as it provides a clear and efficient framework for resolving insolvency and bankruptcy cases, protecting the rights of all stakeholders, and promoting the stability and development of the Indian economy.

Competition law and its regime;

On the other hand, competition law aims to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote and protect competition in markets. The Competition Act, of 2002 prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant positions, and regulates combinations (mergers and acquisitions). The CCI is the regulatory body responsible for enforcing competition law in India.

Competition Commission of India (CCI): The CCI is the regulatory body established under the Competition Act, of 2002. It is responsible for enforcing competition law in India and has the power to investigate, impose penalties, and order the discontinuation of anti-competitive practices. According to  SECTION 18   of the Act of 2002 and its Preamble, the CCI has a legal obligation to end activities that have a significant negative impact on competition, foster and maintain competition, safeguard consumer interests, and secure other participants’ rights to engage in trade in Indian markets.

• Powers of the CCI and it’s duties: The CCI has broad powers to investigate potential anti-competitive practices, including price fixing, abuse of dominance, and anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. The CCI can also impose penalties of up to 10% of the turnover of the company involved in the anti-competitive practice.
• Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT): The CAT is the appellate body established under the Competition Act, of 2002. It hears appeals from decisions made by the CCI and has the power to overturn or modify the CCI’s decisions.
• Mergers and Acquisitions: The Competition Act, of 2002 requires that mergers and acquisitions that meet certain thresholds must be notified to the CCI for review. The CCI will assess the potential impact of the merger or acquisition on competition in the market and may prohibit the merger or acquisition if it finds that it would result in anti-competitive effects.
• Leniency program: The CCI operates a leniency program, under which companies that provide information about anti-competitive practices may receive reduced penalties or immunity from prosecution. the competition law framework in India is designed to promote and protect competition in the market, prevent anti-competitive practices, and enforce penalties for companies that engage in anti-competitive behaviour. The CCI and CAT play a crucial role in ensuring that competition law is effectively enforced in India.

Interfacing of IBC and competition law;

The interface between IBC and competition law The IBC and competition law have a significant impact on each other, as the former deals with the resolution of corporate insolvency, while the latter deals with the regulation of competition. The interplay between the two legislations is crucial, as it affects the outcome of insolvency proceedings. One of the key aspects of the interface between the IBC and competition law is the transfer of control of an insolvent company. The IBC allows for the transfer of control of an insolvent company through the process of corporate insolvency resolution. However, competition law requires that such transfer of control should not result in the abuse of a dominant position or anti-competitive practices. For instance, if a potential buyer of an insolvent company is a dominant player in the market, the transfer of control of the insolvent company to the dominant player may result in the abuse of the dominant position, leading to anti-competitive practices. In such a scenario, competition law may prevent the transfer of control of the insolvent company to the dominant player.

Another important aspect of the interface between the IBC and competition law is the settlement of debts in the course of insolvency proceedings. The IBC provides for the settlement of debts in the course of insolvency proceedings, but competition law requires that such settlement should not result in anti-competitive practices. For instance, if a creditor agrees to settle its debt in return for a commitment from the insolvent company to cease its business activities, such an agreement may result in anti-competitive practices that violate competition law.

The interplay between the IBC and competition law can also be seen in the case of joint venture arrangements between companies. The IBC provides for the formation of joint ventures between companies in the course of insolvency proceedings, but competition law requires that such joint ventures should not result in anti-competitive practices. For instance, if two companies form a joint venture to take over an insolvent company, a such joint venture may result in anti-competitive practices, violating competition law. The interface between the IBC and competition law can also be seen in the case of the liquidation of an insolvent company. The IBC provides for the liquidation of an insolvent company, but competition law requires that such liquidation should not result in anti-competitive practices. For instance, if the liquidation of an insolvent company results in the transfer of its assets to a dominant player in the market, such transfer may result in the abuse of its dominant position, leading to anti-competitive practices.

The CCI can also initiate an investigation against a company undergoing insolvency proceedings for violation of competition law. The CCI has the power to impose penalties, direct divestiture of assets, and impose interim measures to prevent anti-competitive conduct. In such cases, the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 will take precedence over the provisions of the IBC. It is important to note that the CCI has the power to review the resolution plans submitted under the IBC to assess their impact on competition. This means that the CCI can reject a resolution plan if it is deemed to hurt competition in the relevant market. The CCI can also direct the resolution professional to take appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse impact on competition.

.

 The interface between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and competition law has been seen in various cases globally, where the interplay between the two has been observed. Some examples include:

1. Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Numetal and ArcelorMittal: In this case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) considered the provisions of the IBC and competition law while adjudicating the resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal and Numetal. The NCLT ruled that the provisions of competition law would prevail over those of the IBC in cases of corporate resolution.[1] 2. Binani Cement Ltd. vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: In this case, the Delhi High Court considered the interplay between the IBC and competition law while examining the resolution plan submitted by Ultratech Cement for the acquisition of Binani Cement[2]. The court held that the provisions of competition law would apply to the resolution process under the IBC.

3. Bhushan Steel Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd.: This case dealt with the question of whether the provisions of competition law would apply to the resolution process under the IBC. The NCLT held that the provisions of competition law would apply to the resolution process and that the resolution applicant would have to comply with the requirements of both the IBC and competition law.[3]

These cases highlight the need for a proper interface between the IBC and competition law to ensure that the interests of both stakeholders and creditors are protected in the resolution process.

Impact on Market;

The interface between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and competition law in India can have a significant impact on the market and market players, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

1. Market Competition: The interface between IBC and competition law can have a positive impact on market competition by preventing anti-competitive practices and promoting fair competition. By ensuring that distressed companies are quickly and efficiently resolved, the IBC can help to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote competition in the market.
2. Market Players: The interface between IBC and competition law can also have an impact on market players, including SMEs. The IBC provides a framework for resolving insolvency and bankruptcy cases, which can benefit SMEs by providing them with a more level playing field and greater access to credit. Additionally, competition law can help to prevent anti-competitive practices that can harm SMEs, such as price fixing and abuse of dominance.
3.  Increased Competition: The interface between IBC and competition law can also result in increased competition in the market. By preventing anti-competitive practices and promoting fair competition, the IBC and competition law can help to create a more competitive market, which can benefit consumers and businesses, including SMEs.
4. Increased Confidence: The interface between IBC and competition law can also increase confidence in the market by creating a more predictable and stable business environment. This can lead to increased investment and economic growth, which can benefit all market players, including SMEs.

The interface between IBC and competition law in India can have a significant impact on the market and market players, including SMEs. By promoting fair competition and preventing anti-competitive practices, the IBC and competition law can help to create a more competitive market and increase confidence in the business environment, which can benefit all market players, including SMEs.

Role of Regulators;

Regulators play a crucial role in ensuring that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and competition law in India operate effectively and efficiently. The following are some of the key responsibilities of regulators in this regard:

1. Implementation:
2. Monitoring:
3. Education and Awareness:
4. Enforcing Compliance:
5. Providing Adjudication

Regulators play a crucial role in ensuring that the IBC and competition law in India operates effectively and efficiently. By implementing, monitoring, educating, enforcing compliance, and providing adjudicative services, regulators can help to create a more predictable and stable business environment and promote fair competition in the market.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the interface between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and competition law in India is an important and complex issue that requires further study and analysis. The IBC provides a framework for resolving insolvency and bankruptcy cases, while competition law aims to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote competition in the market.

• The key points discussed in the essay include:
• The purpose and provisions of the IBC, including the role of insolvency professionals and the National Company Law Tribunal.
• The framework of competition law in India, including the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Appellate Tribunal.
• The impact of the interface between IBC and competition law on market players, including small and medium enterprises.
• The role of regulators in ensuring that the IBC and competition law operate effectively and efficiently.
• A comparison of the interface between IBC and competition law in India with other countries.

Based on these key points, there is a need for further research and analysis to better understand the interface between IBC and competition law in India. This could include studies on the practical implications of the interface, the effectiveness of the current legal framework, and the potential for future legislative changes or judicial decisions. In addition, it may be useful to conduct comparative studies with other countries to identify best practices and potential areas for improvement in the interface between IBC and competition law in India. These studies could inform future policy decisions and help to ensure that the legal framework for insolvency and bankruptcy cases in India operates effectively and efficiently.

---

[1] Bhushan Steel Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd.,2018, NCLT

[2] Binani Cement Ltd. v. Ultratech Cement Ltd.,201 4, hC 0f Rajasthan,211.

[3] Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Numetal and ArcelorMittal., 2021, Supreme court of India, 3187.

---

Author: Ajay Sahani

---