JSW Steel Share Price: What went wrong and why did Supeme Court reject resolution for Bhushan Power and Steel? Explained
The top court cited two key reasons for invalidating the resolution:
Mode of Payment: The court noted that JSW's proposal to complete the acquisition using a mix of equity and optionally convertible debentures was in violation of the IBC, which mandates that the resolution must be executed strictly via equity.
Delay in Implementation: JSW failed to implement the resolution plan within the stipulated time frame as prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), leading to a breach of procedural compliance. Background of the Case
JSW had offered a total of ₹19,350 crore to financial creditors, implying a haircut of nearly 60%. It also proposed to pay ₹350 crore to operational creditors, whose total admitted claims stood at ₹733 crore.
However, complications arose due to investigations against BPSL's former promoters, who were accused of diverting ₹4,025 crore in bank loans. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), in October 2019, attached BPSL assets worth ₹4,025 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, citing them as proceeds of crime.
Although JSW's resolution plan was previously cleared by both the NCLT and NCLAT, the ED challenged the plan, arguing that JSW was a 'related party' and could not claim immunity under Section 32A of the IBC. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the ED, ordering liquidation. What now?
With the Supreme Court ordering liquidation, the chances of financial recovery for lenders have diminished significantly. The decision also raises concerns for other IBC bidders on procedural compliance and potential delays.
This judgment sets a strong precedent around how courts view timeliness and structure of payment under resolution plans, and could impact investor confidence in distressed asset acquisitions.
Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
a day ago
- Business Upturn
ICICI Bank account holders will now have to keep Rs 50,000 as minimum balance vs Rs 10,000 earlier
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on August 9, 2025, 09:33 IST ICICI Bank has announced a sharp increase in the minimum average monthly balance (MAB) requirement for its savings account holders in metro and urban locations. Effective October 1, 2025, customers in these areas will need to maintain a minimum balance of Rs 50,000, compared to the current requirement of Rs 10,000. The move marks a fivefold jump in the balance requirement, aimed at revising the bank's account maintenance norms in line with market conditions. According to the bank's updated schedule of charges, non-maintenance of the minimum balance will attract penalties as per the revised slab rates, which will also come into effect from October 1. The revision applies only to customers with savings accounts in metro and urban branches, while semi-urban and rural account holders will continue with the existing minimum balance requirements. ICICI Bank has advised customers to review their account balances ahead of the change to avoid non-maintenance charges. The update is part of a broader industry trend where banks are reviewing account-related fees and conditions to align with evolving cost structures and deposit mobilization strategies. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
a day ago
Prosecutors may appeal to US Supreme Court on 1979 missing child Etan Patz case
NEW YORK -- Prosecutors said Friday they might appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to try to restore a murder conviction in the 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz, a bewildering case that went without an arrest for decades. A federal appeals court recently overturned the conviction of Pedro Hernandez, the former convenience store clerk who became a suspect over 30 years after the New York City first-grader vanished. The appeals court ordered him freed unless he is retried 'within a reasonable period.' Prosecutors asked the appeals court Friday to hold off sending the case back to a lower-level federal judge to set a retrial date. 'The abduction and murder of Etan Patz is one of the most infamous crimes in recent American history,' the Manhattan District Attorney's Office wrote. 'This court's decision unsettles a nearly decade-old conviction that previously was upheld.' Saying the situation presents 'substantial legal questions,' prosecutors wrote that they were determining whether to file a petition to the Supreme Court this fall. Hernandez's lawyers said they would oppose prosecutors' request to put the case on hold while they contemplate an appeal. 'We don't believe there is any basis to ask the Supreme Court to revisit –- let alone reverse" the appellate court ruling, said one of Hernandez's attorneys, Edward Diskant. Hernandez already has been tried twice — his 2017 conviction came after a prior jury couldn't reach a verdict. Now 64, he has been serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Etan disappeared while walking little more than a block to his school bus stop. He became one of the first missing children pictured on milk cartons, and his anguished parents helped reshape how American law enforcement agencies responded to missing-child cases. Other parents, meanwhile, became more protective of children over the years after Etan's case and others. No trace of Etan was ever found. After many years, his parents eventually had him declared legally dead. Investigators scoured the city, and even overseas, for leads. But no arrests were made until 2012, when police got a tip that Hernandez — who worked in Etan's neighborhood when the boy was last seen — had made remarks in the ensuing years about having harmed or killed a child in New York. Hernandez then told police that he had offered Etan a soda to lure him into the basement of the shop where Hernandez worked. The suspect said he then choked the boy and put him, still alive, in a box and left it with curbside trash. Hernandez's lawyers say he confessed falsely because of a mental illness that sometimes made him hallucinate. The attorneys emphasized that the admission came after police questioned him for seven hours without reading him his rights or recording the interview. Hernandez then repeated his confession on tape, at least twice. The trials happened in a New York state court, but the Hernandez appeal eventually wound up in federal court. 'The high cost of federally invalidating a state-court conviction is especially pronounced in this case,' prosecutors wrote. At issue was the state trial judge's response to jurors' questions about whether they had to disregard the recorded confessions if they found the first, unrecorded one was invalid. The judge said no. The appeals court said the jury should have gotten a more thorough explanation of its options, which could have included disregarding all of the confessions. Prosecutors argue that the confessions were freely given, and that the appeals court inappropriately applied a federal legal rule when assessing the state court's handling of the jury note.
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Vicious killing of 14-year-old Angel Mendoza is so heinous that ‘Raise the Age' won't apply for alleged teen killers
Some crimes are just too vicious. The bloodthirsty teens who allegedly stabbed, pistol-whipped and beat 14-year-old Angel Mendoza to death Tuesday won't benefit from New York's controversial 'Raise the Age' law, experts said. The biggest advantages handed to young defendants under the arguably soft-on-crime 2019 law — which upped the age of adult criminal responsibility from 16 to 18 — won't apply to the murder charges facing the quartet of youthful suspects, two of whom are juveniles. Advertisement 'When you're talking about violent crimes of the first order — murder, violent, violent acts — they still are going to get prosecuted in [Manhattan] Supreme Court, and if it's a very, very serious violent crime, they are still certain to be facing very, very serious consequences,' said Mark Bederow, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor. 3 A group of teens stabbed, pistol-whipped and beat Angel Mendoza, 14, to death Tuesday. Family handout 3 The bloody slaying unfolded in Williamsbridge Oval Playground in Norwood. Luiz C. Ribeiro for New York Post Advertisement 3 Two of the four alleged killers are juveniles. Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto/Shutterstock Two of the alleged killers — Andrew Ansah, 18, and Jordan Williams, 18 — are adults and will be tried in Manhattan criminal court. A 15-year-old boy and 16-year-old boy also charged with the same raps as the 18-year-olds — murder, manslaughter, gang assault and criminal possession of weapon — but because of their age, they likely will head to the 'Youth Part' of Manhattan criminal court, Bederow said. The Youth Part features judges specifically trained to deal with young defendants and also offers additional social services. Advertisement But the juveniles won't likely be eligible for lighter sentencing guidelines — often afforded to youths facing lesser crimes — because the charges are so serious. Still, Bederow said their young age could help them. 'A judge almost certainly would take into account their age and circumstances in considering the possible difference between a 16-year-old and a hard-boiled 30-year-old killer,' he said. 'But at the end of the day, you're still talking about murder — the sentences can be severe.' Many New York lawmakers and law enforcement officials have called for changes to Raise the Age, arguing it has helped lead to a surge in juvenile crimes. But supporters contend Raise the Age helps young criminals receive resources to help stop them from becoming repeat offenders. Advertisement Leandra Feliz — the mother of 15-year-old Junior Guzman, who was killed in 2018 by a gang of men who dragged him from a Bronx bodega — argued to The Post on Friday that Raise the Age only helps gang members. Feliz said gang members, who can be wildly different ages, should all face the same charges. 'Pass a new bill that everyone involved gets the same sentence,' she said.
