Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited‘s (HNGIL) long-running insolvency saga has hit another snag, with a creditor, last month, filing a new application in Kolkata’s National Company Law Tribunal that challenges Independent Sugar Corporation Limited’s (INSCO) approved resolution plan. Exclusive Capital Limited, a member of HNGIL’s Committee of Creditors (CoC), seeks to reject INSCO’s revised INR 2,752 crore bid and forfeit its bank guarantee, escalating concerns over the plan’s viability and compliance.
This fresh legal hurdle emerges just as INSCO’s plan seemed to gain traction following crucial Supreme Court interventions. The Apex Court, on January 29, 2025, invalidated a rival bid from AGI Greenpac Limited for lacking prior Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval, directing the CoC to reconsider INSCO’s plan only if it possessed CCI approval as of October 28, 2022. Despite the CoC’s subsequent approval of INSCO’s revised offer – which included matching AGI’s previous commercial terms with INR 2,200 crore upfront cash and INR 550 crore in equity – and a recent NCLAT directive to proceed with the resolution, the plan remains under intense scrutiny.
The Kolkata application raises several critical objections, many echoing previous legal skirmishes but now specifically targeting INSCO’s revised proposal. Exclusive Capital alleges INSCO’s plan still lacks a “valid CCI Approval” as on the Supreme Court’s stipulated date, arguing that INSCO’s “green channel” clearance from September 30, 2022, was procedurally flawed due to unilateral filing and undisclosed “inter-connected transactions” involving a 5 percent equity offer to lenders. While the CCI dismissed these specific challenges from AGI on July 15, 2025, and the Delhi High Court has scheduled a detailed hearing on AGI’s writ petition for August 20, 2025, the Kolkata filing maintains the approval is “void ab initio”. Furthermore, the creditor alleges INSCO’s revised plan constitutes “staggered/deferred payment” contrary to its Supreme Court commitment to match AGI’s upfront offering, and that the plan lacks “finality and decisiveness,” relying on non-binding funding assurances and leaving key aspects like the ultimate acquirer uncertain. The application also flags ongoing concerns from the Resolution Professional and CoC about the plan’s “unimplementable and conditional” nature.
The filing underscores the enduring legal complexities surrounding HNGIL’s resolution. Each new application, though potentially reiterating arguments, forces a fresh judicial review, prolonging the process and highlighting the deep-seated lack of consensus among stakeholders regarding the most effective and compliant path forward for the distressed glass manufacturer. The outcome of this Kolkata challenge, alongside the ongoing Delhi High Court proceedings, will be pivotal in determining if INSCO’s plan can finally clear all regulatory and judicial hurdles.
