What do you mean by the Doctrine of Repugnancy? Where a law, earlier enacted by any State, is now contradictory to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, then which law will prevail ? Write your answ

Doctrine of Repugnancy: Doctrine of Repugnancy means the conflict between two pieces of legislation which when applied to the same facts produce different results. Repugnancy arises when the provisions of two laws are so inconsistent and irreconcilable that it is impossible to do one without disobeying the other. A plain reading of Article 254 of the Constitution of India gives an impression that if both central and state governments frame laws on a same entry under the concurrent list, only then the Central law will prevail. Prevailing Law in case of Contradiction with IBC, 2016: Where a law, earlier enacted by any State, is now contradictory to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Central law (IBC, 2016) will prevail due to the Doctrine of Repugnancy. Decided Case Law: Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank The reference of Doctrine of Repugnancy was taken by the Supreme Court in the above case. Facts of the Case: ICICI Bank had taken Innoventive Industries Ltd. to NCLT for the recovery of its due as the company had defaulted on loan repayment. The NCLT had given a verdict in favour of the ICICI Bank, which Innoventive Industries challenged in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), where it received yet another setback. The company later filed an appeal in the Supreme Court seeking relief under the Maharashtra Act, which states that if a company is facing bankruptcy, protection needs to be provided for the employees. Judgement: On a bare reading of the judgement, it seems that the case involved more adjudication on grounds related to Constitutional Law than on the Code. This case related to the first-ever application filed for initiating insolvency proceedings under the new Code. The Court was cognizant of the fact and hence wanted to settle the law so that all 'Courts and Tribunals take notice of the paradigm shift in the Law'. The case involved contradictory provisions in the Code and a state law of Maharashtra state, Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. This state law provided for overtaking of industries by the state by declaring them 'relief undertakings'. Such overtaking can be done through government notifications to that effect under the Act. This is done to protect employment of the people who are working in such an undertaking. The Code instead provides for overtaking of an undertaking's business by an 'Insolvency Professional' through a committee of creditors. In the instant case, insolvency application was filed against Innoventive Industries which later claimed to be a relief undertaking under the Maharashtra Act. This brought the two legislations on a collision course, for the simple reason that enforcement of one will hinder the enforcement of the enforcement of the other. Supreme Court dealt with the constitutional law doctrine of repugnancy. This doctrine stems from the operation of Article 254 of the Constitution. As per this doctrine, whenever central and state laws are framed on the same subject and are contradictory to each other, it is the central law which prevails, and the state law is rendered void. In the instant case, however, the laws even though coming in conflict with each other, were framed under different entries of the concurrent list. This involved adjudication by the Supreme Court on this point. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had ruled that Innoventive Industries cannot claim any relief under Maharashtra Act. It also decided that there is no repugnancy between the two laws, as they operate in different fields. The appeal to the Supreme Court, hence involved two major questions. One was, whether the petitioner can seek relief under the Maharashtra Act at the cost of the Code. The second was, whether both the laws are repugnant to each other. Invoking a lot of international cases, especially of the Commonwealth countries and previous judgments of the Supreme Court, the bench ruled that there is indeed repugnancy between the two laws. The court held that even if the two legislations are framed on different entries of the concurrent list, the Central law will always prevail if it comes in conflict with the State law. The State law, therefore, was held inoperable to the extent that it was in contradiction to the Code. The court delved into great detail of the provisions of the Code and held it to be intended as an 'exhaustive legislation by the Parliament, to cover the whole field of its operation. In such instances involving an exhaustive law, even though the State law may not be in strict violation of the Code, it will even then be rendered inoperative to give way to implement the exhaustive law on the point. With respect to the Code, being acknowledged as an exhaustive law on the point is a very progressive step. It also, now brings in more clarity that the provisions of the Code will have supremacy over every other law, whenever and wherever any conflict arises.