Impact of Tariff Changes on Insolvency Proceedings under the IBC
Table of Contents
Tariff Changes on Insolvency is regulated sectors like power, telecom, and infrastructure are critical determinants of a company’s financial viability because they directly impact revenue streams and profitability. These fluctuations in regulated prices significantly influence the valuation of assets, the feasibility of resolution plans proposed during insolvency, and the ultimate recovery prospects for creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The intricate process of balancing regulatory decisions from specialized sectoral bodies with the commercial outcomes determined by the Adjudicating Authorities, like the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), represents a complex, ongoing legal and economic challenge that requires careful coordination between these different regulatory and judicial frameworks.
Understanding Tariff Determination and its Legal Framework
In regulated industries like power and telecommunications, a “tariff” is the officially approved price or schedule of charges that a utility or service provider can levy on consumers for their services. This pricing structure operates within a strict stationery framework designed to balance consumer interests with the financial health of the service providers. For example, the determination of electricity tariffs is governed by the Electricity Act, 2003, overseen by regulatory bodies such as the Central Regulatory Commission (CERC) and State Regulatory Commission (SERC). Similarly, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 empowers the Telecom Authority of India (TRAI) to regulate telecom tariffs. These tariffs are not static, they are periodically revised through a transparent regulatory process that considers operational costs, capital expenditures, supply and demand dynamics, and prevailing regulatory policies, which directly impacts the regulated company’s revenues and long-term viability.
Read more : Fourth amendment to IBBI CIRP Regulations, 2016
Relevance of Tariff Changes on Insolvency Proceedings
Tariff variations directly impact insolvency resolution by altering the projected cash flows critical for evaluating a resolution plan. Specifically, tariff reductions can diminish an enterprise’s value, consequently affecting creditor recoveries. Conversely, tariff hikes have the potential to enhance revival prospects, making the company a more attractive target for resolution applicants. A significant challenge arises from the timing, as tariffs may be subject to change after the insolvency process has begun, thus complicating the valuation process and the eventual approval of the resolution plan.
Case Studies Highlighting Tariff–IBC Interplay
Coastal Energen Pvt. Ltd. faced tariff disputes with Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corp. (TANGEDCO), where the NCLT admitted insolvency proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India in February, 2022, highlighting the conflict between regulatory obligations and insolvency timelines. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in 2025 upheld the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (TNERC) order modifying the tariff for an imported coal-based generator under section 62 of the Electricity Act, allowing removal of a ceiling on variable fuel charges due to global coal price rises, thereby affirming regulatory authority over tariff adjustments despite contractual terms. In cases like Lanco Infratech Ltd., Essar Power, and GVK Power, tariff uncertainty significantly impacted project viability and bidder interest, with courts emphasising that regulatory approvals and tariff determinations are central to project feasibility. Tribunals have consistently balanced regulatory approvals with insolvency timelines, ensuring that tariff disputes are resolved within statutory limits while recognising the need for regulatory flexibility to preserve project viability.
Regulatory vs. Insolvency Jurisdiction: A Delicate Balance
Both the IBC and specific sectoral laws operate in parallel within the legal framework. The IBC primarily focuses on the financial distressed resolution of the corporate debtor, aiming to revive the company or liquidate its assets, while sectoral regulators maintain control over the technical aspects of operations, pricing, and licenses. The IBC includes section 238, an overriding clause asserting that its provisions take precedence over other laws inconsistent with it. However, Indian courts frequently apply the “harmonious construction” principle, seeking to balance the IBC’s goals with existing regulatory frameworks. A significant judicial effort in this regard is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Amit Gupta, which clarified that the NCLT jurisdiction is confined to matters directly arising from or related to the insolvency proceedings, themselves, not general contractual or regulatory disputes already governed by specialised laws or arbitration clauses.
Impact on Resolution Planning and Valuation
Fluctuating tariffs significantly impact enterprise valuation during resolution by altering cost structures, reducing margins, and increasing uncertainty, which can lead to lower asset values and diminished recovery prospects for creditors. Bidder’s assumptions in financial models are heavily influenced by tariff volatility, as they must account for unpredictable input costs, potential revenue losses from reduced competitiveness, and the risk of supply chain disruptions, leading to more conservative valuations. Creditors may offer less favourable debt restructuring terms, such as interest rates or stricter covenants, to compensate for the heightened risk associated with uncertain tariff regimes and their impact on cash flow. The sustainability of the resolution plan post-approval is jeopardised as tariff revisions are not anticipated, as sudden changes can erode projected profitability and undermine the financial viability of restructuring. Hence, dynamic financial modelling is essential during insolvency to accommodate tariff revisions, as it allows for scenario analysis and real time adjustments, ensuring the resolution plan remains robust under evolving trade policy conditions.
Role of Regulatory Certainty in Successful Resolutions
Predictable tariff mechanisms are essential for fostering investor confidence, as they provide a stable and foreseeable financial environment for long-term energy projects. Coordination between the CERC, SERC, Resolution Professionals (RPs), and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is vital to ensure consistent policy implementation and market stability. Advance regularity clarity on tariff adjustment mechanism can prevent post-resolution disputes by setting transparent, pre-agreed rules for price revisions. This foresight enables better planning, reduces uncertainty, and helps avoid resolution failures due to unexpected financial or operational challenges.
Policy and Legal Recommendations
There are several ways to minimize the adverse impact of tariff changes on insolvency proceedings, namely:
- Establishing inter-regulatory coordination frameworks between IBBI and sectoral regulators.
- Allowing conditional resolution plans that factor in pending tariff petitions.
- Creating standard guidelines for valuation in tariff-dependent sectors.
- Encouraging early engagement of regulatory experts during CIRP.
Conclusion
Tariff changes can be a decisive factor in the success or failure of insolvency resolutions, especially in regulated sectors, where revenue is heavily dependent on such determinations. This reality emphasizes the critical need for harmonious interaction between the regulatory framework and the insolvency regime, as inconsistent decisions can undermine certainty and erode investor trust. Achieving synergy between regulators and the IBC framework is, therefore, key to fostering sustainable business recovery and ensuring a predictable environment for investment within India’s evolving economic landscape.
Recent Posts
