Supreme Court rejects JSW Resolution Plan for Bhushan Steel
The Supreme Court, in a judgment on Friday (May 2, 2025), rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd.
Also Read | ED restitutes assets worth ₹4,025 crore in Bhushan Power and Steel case to JSW
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had previously approved the Resolution Plan.
A Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi found the plan contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A copy of the judgment is yet to be published on the Supreme Court website.
In a statement, a JSW Steel spokesperson said they have 'learnt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced judgment on May 2 rejecting the Resolution Plan approved by NCLAT on certain grounds'.
'We are yet to receive the formal copy of the Order to understand the grounds for rejection in detail and its implications. Once we receive the order and are able to review the same along with our legal advisors, we will decide on our further course of action,' the statement said.
The court faulted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for accepting the Resolution Plan. The court further directed the National Company Law Tribunal to initiate liquidation proceedings against Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd.
Justice Trivedi, who pronounced the judgment, said the Resolution Professional had failed to perform his statutory duties during the corporate insolvency resolution process, as mandated under the IBC and its associated regulations.
The Bench said the CoC was found to have approved the Resolution Plan without proper application of its commercial wisdom. The plan had contravened mandatory IBC provisions and did not protect creditors' interests and notably, the CoC accepted payments from JSW without objection, despite the plan's shortcomings, the court observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Survey company selected for Forest Rights Act implementation
Panaji: The state cabinet on Wednesday approved the appointment of Polestar Surveys to carry out survey demarcation, preparation of plans, and fixing of boundary stones concerning claims received under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The FRA is a landmark legislation aimed at recognising and vesting forest rights in forest-dwelling communities, particularly Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. In Goa, the implementation of the FRA has been progressing slowly, with around 10,500 claims received, but only a small fraction was processed and settled. As of June 2025, around 806 land titles (sanads) were distributed, highlighting the need for expedited action to address the backlog. A critical component of FRA's implementation is the accurate demarcation of land boundaries to ensure rightful claims. This process involves survey demarcation, preparation of plans, and the fixing of boundary stones. Previously, Theovel Surveys, Bengaluru, was contracted to undertake this work. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the demise of a key partner and financial constraints, the firm expressed its inability to continue. The disposal of forest rights claims is being monitored by the Supreme Court.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Bank of Baroda top bidder in Jet Airways BKC office insolvency auction
Bank of Baroda has emerged as the highest bidder for Jet Airways' 83,000 sq ft office space in Mumbai's Godrej BKC, offering Rs 370 crore. Brookfield Asset Management, which already owns office space in the building, holds the right of first refusal and is likely to exercise it. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads In a significant development under the ongoing Jet Airways insolvency proceedings, public sector lender Bank of Baroda has emerged as the highest bidder for the airline's 83,000 sq ft office space in commercial tower Godrej BKC in Mumbai's business district Bandra-Kurla Complex , said people familiar with the bank has placed a bid of Rs 370 crore, outpacing other contenders in the auction held under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), month, a government-appointed liquidator had put an entire office floor owned by the defunct aviation company in this tower on the block with a reserve price of Rs 335.24 this, the liquidator is now expected to inform global alternative investment major Brookfield Asset Management that holds the right of first refusal (ROFR) with a 15-day period to match the highest bidder if it intends to acquire the to sources, Brookfield is likely to exercise the ROFR for the 2020, as part of Jet Airways ' insolvency proceedings, Brookfield had acquired the company's two office floors in the building for Rs 490 crore. These offices are currently occupied by marquee tenants including World Bank and transaction involved around 180,000 sq ft office space spread across the third and fourth floors, along with rights to 138 car parking spaces. Brookfield holds the ROFR for this additional office space too as part of the agreement entered currently vacant office on the second floor of the commercial tower was sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai owing to unpaid dues. On April 28, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ordered the civic body to de-seal the property and halt recovery asset is being sold on an 'as is where is' basis under the IBC and all applicable taxes, dues and transfer charges will be borne by the successful separate email queries to the liquidator Satish Kumar Gupta, Bank of Baroda remained unanswered, while Brookfield declined to e-auction for the property along with 70 exclusive car parking slots in the tower was scheduled on June 2 and prospective bidders were expected to submit an earnest money deposit of Rs 32.5 Godrej BKC building, a 19-storey commercial tower, was developed in 2011 through a joint venture between Godrej Properties and Jet Airways Jet Airways had originally purchased the land from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in 2008 for Rs 826 crore before collaborating with Godrej Properties for the project's development.
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Mumbai development body ordered to pay Rs 1,100 crore to Metro One in dispute
The Bombay High Court has ordered the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to pay Mumbai Metro One Private Limited (MMOPL) Rs 1,169 crore with interest as of May 31, 2025, in an arbitration dispute over the development, design, engineering, financing, procurement, construction, operation and maintenance of Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar corridor under a deal signed on March 7, bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that no case was made for an unconditional stay on amount disclosed by Reliance Infrastructure Limited (RIL), which has a majority stake in MMOPL, to the Bombay Stock Exchange is approximately Rs 1,169 crore. The award granted MMOPL a sum of Rs 992 crore along with interest. MMOPL was a joint venture between RIL, which holds a 74 per cent stake, and the MMRDA, which has the remaining 26 per cent, which operates the Versova–Andheri–Ghatkopar metro corridor in award was passed by a three-member arbitral tribunal in favour of MMOPL where one of them dissented. The MMRDA had approached the high court with an interim application seeking stay of the effect and operation of the arbitral award, praying for the impugned award to be quashed and set aside. MMRDA relied on the dissenting metro rail project started with a delay of over two years. MMOPL claimed that the project costs had increased from Rs 2,356 crores to Rs 4,321 crores. This was hotly contested by the Impugned Award had quantified claims under various heads including awards of amounts withheld in the course of paying tranches of Viability Gap Funding (VGF) alongwith interest thereon, interest on delay in disbursement of VGF tranches, compensation for additional costs incurred on account of payment of rent for land along with the cost of funds on such payments, compensation for having to construct a steel bridge instead of a concrete one, amounts towards operations and maintenance and life cycle costs, amounts towards cost escalation, pendente lite interest, future interest and MMRDA argued that no deposit should be directed to be paid by the court for grant of stay, and the MMOPL contended that the conventional approach of a full deposit must follow should there be any stay on execution of the bench further noted that the court has the discretion to impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to grant a stay of the operation of the arbitral the conditions under which the court must stay the award unconditionally are made if the court is satisfied that the contract or agreement which is the basis of the award, or the marking of the award, was induced by fraud or bench observed that merely because the award-debtor is an agency of the state, the principles to be applied would not stand diluted.
