SC agrees to hear pleas for review of verdict on liquidation of Bhushan Steel
A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an application for open-court hearing and fixed July 31 for hearing a batch of pleas seeking a review of the verdict.
'Application(s) for listing review petition(s) in open court and application for oral hearing are allowed. Issue notice. List these matters on July 31, 2025 at 3 pm," the bench ordered.
The court considered the review pleas in chambers by circulation and passed the order.
The former promoters of BSPL urged the top court on July 21 to accord an open-court hearing to their plea for a review of the May 2 verdict.
The former promoters of BSPL were Sanjay Singhal and his family, specifically including his father Brij Bhushan Singhal and brother Neeraj Singhal.
Legal firm Karanjawala and Co. said a review petition was also filed by JSW Steel Limited on June 25, along with the review petitions filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the resolution professional against the May 2 verdict.
The firm said the former directors had moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for starting the process of liquidation for BPSL, without allowing JSW to exercise its proper legal remedies against the May 2 verdict.
It added that on May 26, on a special leave petition filed by JSW Steel Limited, the top court ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings of BSPL and temporarily halted the proceedings before the NCLT till the disposal of the review petitions, which were to be filed by the aggrieved parties, including JSW.
The apex court ordered the liquidation of BSPL under the IBC on May 2 as it criticised the conduct of all key stakeholders in the resolution process — the resolution professional, the CoC and the NCLT — for enabling what it termed a 'flagrant violation" of the IBC.
The top court criticised multiple stakeholders, including successful resolution applicant (SRA) JSW Steel Limited, for procedural lapses and a failure to uphold the objectives of the IBC.
'Having thoroughly examined the entire matter factually and legally, we arrive at the following irresistible conclusions: the resolution professional had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the IBC and the CIRP regulations during the course of the entire CIR proceedings of the corporate debtor, BPSL," the verdict had said.
The top court had held that the CoC had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving JSW's resolution plan, which was in absolute contravention of the mandatory provisions of the IBC and CIRP regulations. PTI MNL RC
view comments
First Published:
July 29, 2025, 20:15 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to revisit order on JSW's Bhushan deal
The Supreme Court on Thursday recalled its order scrapping JSW Steel's ₹19,700 crore deal in 2021 to acquire Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, noting serious 'error apparent' in the judgment which was decided contrary to settled decisions of the top court. The apex court's Thursday decision also comes as a relief to lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, which filed separate review petitions supporting JSW Steel's position. The May ruling ordered the banks to return ₹ 19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel (HT File) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice SC Sharma said, 'Prima facie we are of the view that the impugned judgment [of May 2] does not correctly consider the legal position as laid down by this court. Apart from that, it is pointed out [by CoC and JSW] various incorrect factual submissions have been taken on record, and arguments which were not advanced were considered by the court. We find it a fit case for the judgment under review to be recalled and the matter needs to be heard afresh.' The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel disputed this position. The order was passed on a review petition filed by JSW Steel. Posting the matter for further hearing on August 7, the top court agreed to hear all sides, including the erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel, on all issues. The May 2 decision — it said he acquisition violated provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), especially those on timelines — shocked corporate and banking circles; the JSW deal was often cited as a success of IBC, allowing companies that had been run to the ground by their promoters, usually at a great cost to banks that had loaned them money, to be revived under new owners. The apex court's Thursday decision also comes as a relief to lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, which filed separate review petitions supporting JSW Steel's position. The May ruling ordered the banks to return ₹19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel. JSW's acquisition was approved by the committee of creditors (CoC), the national company law tribunal (NCLT) and national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT). Review petitions are taken up by the court in chambers and only when the court feels satisfied that the case needs to be re-heard, the matter is placed for hearing in open court. On Wednesday, the petition was taken up in chambers and a decision was taken to list it in open court. Appearing for CoC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, assisted by a team of lawyers from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas led by advocate Raunak Dhillon, pointed out that the plan of JSW Steel was approved with a 99% majority. He said that the CoC had presented elaborate minutes of meeting before the court showing detailed discussion on the pros and cons of accepting JSW's plan. He referred to earlier decisions by the top court on IBC which lay down the law that the courts will not sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of CoC. For JSW, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, assisted by a team of lawyers from Karanjawala & Co, pointed out that since 2021, the company has been running Bhushan Steel . In the process, it has infused over ₹20,000 crore, cleared all dues incurred by the previous management, and doubled the production of steel. From 18,000 employees, the company's workforce has swelled to 25,000. He added that the judgment of May 2 also has had a debilitating effect on IBC and needs to be set aside. Mehta told the court that the top court 's May ruling on timelines not being observed were not even argued. The May 2 judgment was pronounced by a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi (since retired) and SC Sharma, who is the other member on the bench with CJI hearing the review plea. CJI Gavai said, 'My brother (justice Sharma) has been kind enough to be candid. He has told me that the points argued have not been considered by the judgment. I am grateful to my brother. How could the court go into the issue that was not argued and suggest this is suppressed, that is suppressed.' The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel represented by senior advocate Dhruv Mehta objected to the submissions made by CoC and JSW. But the SG pointed out that the erstwhile promoters of the company, who landed it in serious serious financial trouble cannot be allowed to raise a finger on the correctness of a plan by which the company stands revived. 'They were part of the dirty dozen that left the company in financial doldrums and now want to drag a successful company into liquidation,' he said. Shares of JSW rose 1.93% apiece to close the day at ₹1057.90, on a day when BSE's benchmark Sensex closed 0.36% down.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Well Judged
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. LESS ... MORE SC right in withdrawing own order on Bhushan Steel. But GOI must finetune aspects of insolvency law SC's recall of its order from May that reversed JSW Steel's $2.3bn acquisition of the bankrupt Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd in 2021, is wholly welcome. The May order had considered two technical grounds: one, the eight-year timeline and two, fact that JSW completed the takeover with a mix of equity and optionally convertible debentures, when it should have used equity alone. SC had also found adjudicatory bodies NCLT and NCLAT lacked jurisdiction and set aside their approvals – IBC's Section 32A that says that on approval of a plan, new investors would not inherit criminal liabilities of previous promoters & directors was a key sticking point. But SC's position was that such immunity could not override statutes like PMLA. SC's focus was entirely on statutory compliance of the takeover process. As TOI and our columnists wrote, SC's reversing the revival of a mismanaged corporate entity was a big blow to India's insolvency framework. Not only would it hurt JSW lenders and workers, but it would also affect investor sentiment and prospects of finding buyers for other insolvent companies. Investors would run scared. On Thursday, SC said the May order had not correctly considered precedents. IBC, introduced in 2016, is one of India's most significant reforms – enacted to revive distressed assets, protect employment and maximise stakeholder value. SC reversing its own order is an opportunity to also finetune jurisdictions and boundaries. As the case proceeds, GOI should also explore legislative or institutional redress for a clarity of roles for NCLT and NCLAT, especially in light of SC's questions on application of Section 32A. Finality of insolvency proceedings is IBC's fundamental base. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
SC recalls own order directing liquidation of Bhushan Steel
NEW DELHI: In a dramatic yet decisive reversal, Supreme Court Thursday annulled its May 2 judgment ordering liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd, which had been revived in 2021 by the Sajjan Jindal-led JSW through a Rs 20,000 crore plan concurrently upheld by NCLT and NCLAT under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code process. Unabashedly admitting that its earlier decision militated against the settled law on inviolability of the decision of Committee of Creditors, a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recalled the verdict and posted the matter for fresh hearing next Thursday. The bench also frowned upon the use of Article 142 by the earlier bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi, who has since retired, to order liquidation of the revived company despite it being in the pink of health. "Powers of Article 142 are meant to do complete justice and not cause injustice to 25,000 employees," the apex court said Thursday. SC's role in IBC proceedings limited, says CJI In an open court hearing on the review petitions filed by Punjab National Bank, the lead creditor for bankrupt Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd, and JSW, solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul told a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma that IBC proceedings aim to revive sick companies and liquidation is only the last resort. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mini House for 60 sqm for Seniors with Toilet and Bath (Price May Surprise You) Pre Fabricated Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo The CJI said he has, as an SC judge, authored many judgments crystallising disparate rulings on IBC proceedings to lay down the cardinal principle that concurrent approval by NCLT and NCLAT of a revival plan accepted by the CoC cannot be interfered with by SC unless the petitioner challlenging it establishes a perversity. The verdict in the Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd case appears to be in the teeth of SC rulings. Mehta said IBC proceedings were followed to the T and it was the decision of the CoC to approve the revival plan of successful resolution professional, which was concurrently upheld by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the appellate tribunal (NCLAT) leaving little scope for SC interference. "Liquidating a viable and profit-making entity will be in the interest of none and would create many difficulties for the creditors as well as the successful resolution applicant," he argued. Kaul said JSW has infused an additional Rs 8,000 crore apart from the Rs 20,000 crore, and the company is now in robust health nearly tripling its productions. It now employs 25,000 people in the revived plant. On May 26, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Sharma had stayed the liquidation process and ordered status quo after learning that petitions seeking review of the May 2 judgment are pending consideration.
