Legalities in Business: Responses to

Assignment Questions
Problem Statement 1: Newgen Scaffoldings and Highway Construction
Limited
a) Applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016: The IBC 2016
consolidates laws for reorganization and insolvency resolution, prioritizing creditor
interests and asset value maximization. It enables efficient debt recovery processes,
including CIRP, benefiting operational creditors like Newgen Scaffoldings.

b) Newgen Scaffoldings as an operational creditor: Newgen Scaffoldings qualifies as an

operational creditor, given their service provision to Highway Construction Limited. Prior
to approaching NCLT, they must issue a demand notice, confirm the unpaid invoice, and
await a debtor's response or dispute.

c) Impact of dispute on Newgen Scaffoldings' case at NCLT: If Highway Construction Limited

proves the scaffoldings' faults, it could challenge Newgen Scaffoldings' claim. This dispute
may affect the case outcome at NCLT, potentially leading to an alternate dispute resolution.

Problem Statement 2: FinTech Loans Private Limited and UDC Limited

a) Relevant IBC 2016 provisions for FinTech Loans Private Limited: FinTech can invoke
IBC's provisions for CIRP against UDC Limited, provided there's a default over INR 1 lakh.
CIRP aims at resolving insolvencies, balancing creditor and debtor rights, and preserving
the distressed company's value.

Case Study: Google and Competition Commission of India

a) Allegations against Google: The CCI fined Google for abusing its dominant market
position, highlighting issues of market fairness and consumer protection. Google's appeal to
the Supreme Court signifies the case's complexity, involving digital market regulations.

b) Indian Competition Act 2002 provisions in the Google Case: The case revolves around the
Act's clauses against market dominance abuse. It reflects the need for adapting competition
laws to digital markets, ensuring a balance between innovation and market fairness.

c) CCI's decision on penalizing Google: The CCI's hefty penalty decision against Google is a
subject of debate. It raises questions about distinguishing normal business practices from
anti-competitive actions in the evolving digital landscape.
the CCI examined whether Google's conduct in its search and advertising services violated
these provisions. The Act's clauses against market dominance abuse were put to test,
reflecting the need for adapting competition laws to the nuanced realities of digital markets.
The case underscores the importance of balancing innovation and consumer protection,
ensuring that dominant players do not misuse their position to the detriment of market
competition.

c) CCI's decision on penalizing Google: The CCI's decision to impose a substantial penalty on
Google sparked a debate on the interpretation of anti-competitive practices in the digital
age. This decision raises critical questions about the distinction between normal business
strategies and anti-competitive actions. In a landscape dominated by digital giants, the CCI's
role becomes increasingly significant in delineating these boundaries to maintain a healthy
competitive environment. The case highlights the evolving nature of competition law,
especially in technology-driven markets, and the ongoing efforts to adapt legal frameworks
to these changes.