Introduction

The case of Bharti Airtel Limited versus Vijaykumar V. Iyer is a watershed point in the growing jurisprudence of India’s bankruptcy law under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016. The issue stemmed from spectrum trading agreements between Bharti Airtel Limited (Airtel entities) and Aircel Limited (Aircel entities), which included the transfer of spectrum rights, the filing of bank guarantees, and cash claims. 

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT)-approved agreements became controversial when the Aircel firms joined the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Airtel entities attempted to use their right of set-off, balancing payments payable to Aircel firms against sums owed by the latter. However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) determined that such a set-off contradicted IBC principles, particularly its moratorium provisions and the overriding goal of fair insolvency resolution. 

This case raises important problems about the relationship between contractual rights and insolvency law, specifically regarding creditors’ rights in CIRP. By exploring the balance between creditor claims and the IBC’s goals, this case remark investigates how Indian courts manage the intricacies of insolvency disputes, establishing a precedent for the interpretation of financial transactions in corporate insolvency situations.

FACTS

The case of Bharti Airtel Limited versus Vijaykumar V. Iyer is a contractual and insolvency dispute involving spectrum trade agreements, financial guarantees, and rival claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 

In 2016, Bharti Airtel Limited and affiliated businesses (the “Airtel entities”) signed eight spectrum trading agreements with Aircel Limited and Dishnet Wireless Limited (the “Aircel entities”). The agreements were for purchasing spectrum usage rights in the 2300 MHz band, subject to clearance by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The DoT ordered bank guarantees of ₹453.73 crores to secure outstanding spectrum usage and license dues payable by Aircel businesses. Because the Aircel firms lacked the financial resources to provide these assurances, they sought help from the Airtel corporations.

Airtel supplied bank guarantees to the DoT and deducted ₹586.37 crores from the total ₹4,022.75 crores payable under the spectrum agreements, as per the Letters of Understanding between the parties. The Airtel entities were to retrieve the guarantees after the Aircel entities had replaced them. However, conflicts occurred when the DoT refused to return the guarantees despite favorable verdicts from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and the Supreme Court. 

To complicate matters further, insolvency procedures under the IBC were filed against the Aircel firms in March 2018. Bharti Airtel Limited filed claims totaling ₹203.46 crores, including monies owing from the merger with Telenor India. The Resolution Professional accepted ₹112 crores of Airtel’s claims but challenged further amounts. 

In January 2019, the Resolution Professional notified Airtel of a unilateral adjustment of ₹112.87 crores against the sums retained by Airtel for bank guarantees and demanded payment of the amended amount. Airtel objected to this adjustment, claiming the right to set against sums owing by Aircel against its own payable amounts. The Adjudicating Authority affirmed Airtel’s claim for set-off in May 2019, but the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) overturned it.

The NCLAT determined that allowing set-off would contradict the IBC’s moratorium provisions and fair resolution framework, underlining that such changes were contrary to the goals of bankruptcy legislation. The Tribunal also highlighted that the claims were for different and unconnected transactions, which undermined Airtel’s set-off argument. This case highlights the interplay of contractual rights, insolvency concepts, and the IBC’s overall policy aims.

ISSUES

1. Whether Bharti Airtel Limited and Bharti Hexacom Limited (the “Airtel entities”) had a legal right to claim set-off for amounts owed by Aircel Limited and Dishnet Wireless Limited (the “Aircel entities”) against the payments retained under the spectrum trading agreements during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
2. Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, prohibits set-off claims involving unrelated transactions between the Airtel entities and Aircel entities.
3. Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) correctly interpreted the principles and objectives of the IBC when it held that allowing set-off claims would contravene the insolvency resolution process.

 ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES 

Arguments by the petitioners

• The petitioners argue that the Rs.112.87 crore in question stems from bilateral pre-insolvency transactions, especially spectrum transfer agreements and bank guarantees. These responsibilities were part of business transactions that occurred prior to the bankruptcy procedures, demonstrating the mutuality necessary for the set-off claim.
• The petitioners contend that the set-off does not breach the moratorium rules in Section 14 of the IBC since it only settles shared debts between the parties and does not represent an attempt to begin separate proceedings. The set-off is just an internal reconciliation of dues that does not interfere with the insolvency procedure.
• The petitioners argue that the Resolution Professional’s decision to remove Rs.112.87 crore from the monies owing to the Aircel corporations acknowledges the legality of the set-off claim. As a result, the petitioners feel it is unreasonable to reject the set-off after it has been tacitly accepted during the settlement process.
• Allowing the set-off would avoid excessive hardship for the Airtel businesses, who would otherwise face multiple payment obligations: once under the spectrum agreements and again during the bankruptcy process. This would violate the IBC’s fundamental principles of justice and equity.
• The petitioners argue that the set-off is required to protect the commercial integrity of the transaction, as the sums owing by both parties are closely tied to the pre-insolvency arrangements. Denying the set-off will pervert the terms of the original contracts and result in undue enrichment for the Aircel businesses, which is contrary to the objectives of insolvency legislation.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The respondents allege that the set-off claim contradicts the IBC’s principles, notably the protection provided to all creditors during the insolvency resolution process. Allowing the set-off would provide one creditor (Airtel entities) an undue advantage over other creditors of Aircel firms.
• The respondents argue that the debts between the Airtel and the Aircel corporations are insufficiently linked to support the set-off claim. The two sets of claims derive from separate arrangements—spectrum transfer agreements and bank guarantees—and do not fulfill the mutuality criterion for a valid set-off.
• Respondents emphasize that the IBC’s goal is to promote a fair and orderly settlement of corporate insolvencies. Permitting a set-off would disrupt the process by giving the Airtel businesses preferential treatment, violating the CIRP’s principle of equitable treatment for all creditors.
• They underline that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prevents creditors from taking any action to pursue or reclaim their claims, including set-off. Allowing the set-off would undermine the moratorium’s protections and allow one creditor to collect its debts outside of the regular settlement procedure.
• The respondents contend that permitting the set-off would be counter to the IBC’s greater goals, which are to ensure a fair and transparent settlement for all creditors. Set-off would result in an unreasonable decrease in the amount available for distribution among other creditors, thus distorting the insolvency resolution process.

DECISION

In the case of Bharti Airtel Limited vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer, the Court had to decide whether the Airtel entities’ claim for Rs. 145.20 crores against amounts owed to the Aircel entities during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was valid under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court underlined mutuality as a crucial notion of insolvency set-off, finding that the set-off must be legal if the parties engage in mutual dealings. It remarked that the set-off of post-commencement claims against pre-commencement obligations would not meet the mutuality criterion and, hence, could not be permitted under the IBC. 

The Court noted that while the Airtel businesses had genuine claims for operating costs, SMS services, and interconnect use, they did not fulfill the conditions for insolvency set-off due to a lack of mutuality. The Court stated that such a set-off would unfairly reduce the estate available for distribution to other creditors, violating the principle of pari passu, which ensures that all creditors are treated equally. The Court emphasized that the insolvency set-off clause could not be exploited to favor one creditor over others, especially when the principles of justice and equity were at stake.

Finally, the Court found that the Airtel companies’ set-off of Rs. 145.20 crores was invalid under the IBC. The Court emphasized that any set-off in insolvency proceedings must rigorously follow the principles of mutuality and fairness, assuring equitable treatment of all creditors. This ruling reiterated the Court’s commitment to the integrity of the bankruptcy resolution process, emphasizing the significance of enforcing legislative measures to protect the interests of all parties. 

ANALYSIS

The Bharti Airtel Limited versus Vijaykumar V. Iyer case focuses on the use of insolvency set-off principles. The Court emphasized the importance of mutuality, stating that set-off may only occur where the debts are between the same parties, guaranteeing justice and equality. It found that post-insolvency claims cannot be set off against pre-insolvency dues due to a lack of mutuality, in accordance with the pari passu principle, which guarantees creditors are treated equally. The judgment also advised against utilizing insolvency set-off to unfairly strengthen a creditor’s position. Overall, the ruling emphasized the need to follow insolvency laws’ principles, ensuring that the resolution process is reasonable, equitable, and compatible with legal requirements and encouraging a fair allocation of the debtor’s assets.