IBC rules under review after scrapping of JSW Steel's BPSL acquisition
India is examining its insolvency rules after a Supreme Court ruling. The review focuses on adherence to processes and timelines by stakeholders. This follows the JSW Steel-Bhushan Power & Steel case. The goal is to prevent violations of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The IBBI may review the role of resolution professionals.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
CoC Code of Conduct
The verdict
India is reviewing its insolvency regulations to ensure strict adherence to stipulated processes and timelines by key stakeholders to prevent cases like JSW Steel 's acquisition of Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL), said people close to the development.On Friday, the Supreme Court (SC) scrapped the ₹19,700-crore acquisition completed four years ago, citing "gross violation" of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The top court has observed violations of norms or processes by key stakeholders-JSW Steel, the committee of creditors , and the resolution professional.Guidelines around the code of conduct for the committee of creditors (CoC) may be up for scrutiny, the people told ET."Both the corporate affairs ministry and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) are seized of the matter. A final decision will be made soon after detailed deliberations," said one of the people cited above. They are in the process of consulting stakeholders "for the best way forward", said the person.The IBBI could also review regulations around the role of resolution professionals in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), the people said.The idea is to ensure all the stipulated processes are strictly adhered to and the CoC, too, uses its commercial wisdom , remaining within the confines of the law, they said.However, an amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for this purpose seems unlikely at this stage, one of the people said. This is because the apex court has, in fact, "upheld the integrity and intent of the Code" and underscored the need to maintain the sanctity of prescribed legal processes.The SC's verdict could prompt authorities to stipulate an enforceable code of conduct for the CoC. It could also expedite a decision on whether to set up an oversight body to gauge financial creditors' conduct, one of the persons said.In the Jet Airways liquidation case, the Supreme Court last year observed whether an oversight committee was required to better enforce the CoC's code of conduct.The IBBI had, in August last year, issued guidelines for the CoC, stipulating how they need to conduct themselves, but these were essentially self-regulatory in nature.Yogendra Aldak, partner at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, said it is now important for the CoC to apply its commercial wisdom to assess feasibility of the resolution plan and protect the interests of creditors. "In the absence of the same, the resolution plan may be reopened or set aside by courts opening Pandora's Box of Judicial Reviews, if procedural errors are discovered at a later stage," Aldak said.The Supreme Court last week said JSW's intention was "malafide and dishonest" as it took undue advantage of pending Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings and did not implement its resolution plan for BPSL for two years. This delay frustrated the IBC objective, it said.JSW last week said it would review the order and decide on its further course of action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Will Karisma Kapoor's Children Inherit Sunjay Kapur's Rs 10,000 Crore Fortune? Here's What Law Says
Last Updated: Sunjay Kapur's death has triggered a swirl of speculation regarding the succession of his business empire and personal wealth The untimely death of billionaire industrialist Sunjay Kapur has left a deep void in both the corporate boardrooms and celebrity circles he straddled with equal ease. The 57-year-old chairman of Sona Comstar, a leading global player in automotive components, died suddenly on June 12, 2025, while playing polo in London. Medical reports suggest a rare and fatal anaphylactic shock, reportedly triggered after he accidentally swallowed a bee during the match. While tributes continue to pour in for the visionary businessman who took his father's company global, the spotlight has now shifted to the inevitable and complicated question: Who inherits his estimated Rs 10,300 crore ($1.2 billion) fortune? Sunjay Kapur's death has triggered a swirl of speculation regarding the succession of his business empire and personal wealth. At the time of his passing, Sona Comstar had a market capitalisation of approximately Rs 31,000 crore ($4 billion). Under his leadership, the company expanded rapidly with operations in India, China, Mexico, Serbia, and the United States, becoming a major supplier to global electric vehicle manufacturers. Following the tragedy, Sona Comstar issued a public statement assuring stakeholders of business continuity and respect for Kapur's legacy. However, no official announcement has been made regarding a successor, and the company now stands at a delicate crossroads. Kapur leaves behind a complex family tree and a potentially contentious estate. He was married three times and is survived by three children: Samaira (20) and Kian (14) from his second wife, actress Karisma Kapur, and six-year-old Azariyas from his third and current wife, Priya Sachdev. He also acted as a stepfather to Priya's daughter from a previous marriage. Indian inheritance law adds another layer to the unfolding drama. As per the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, children are entitled to a share of their father's property – regardless of the parents' marital status at the time of death. While a legally drafted will can override typical inheritance rules, sources close to the family suggest no public confirmation has been made regarding such a document. If a will does exist, it could designate specific allocations – possibly even excluding some heirs. But in the absence of one, the estate would be distributed among his legal heirs, including all biological children and his surviving spouse, Priya Sachdev. Kapur's high-profile marriage to Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor ended in 2016, but not without legal safeguards for their two children. According to divorce settlement details reported at the time, Sunjay Kapur had already set aside bonds worth Rs 14 crore each for Samaira and Kian, along with a monthly income of Rs 10 lakh. Karisma was also awarded his father's Mumbai residence under the Supreme Court-monitored alimony agreement, and she received full custody of both children. Still, these arrangements pertain only to child support and post-divorce alimony. Whether Samaira and Kian will receive a larger portion of Kapur's corporate and personal wealth remains uncertain and could depend on the existence and contents of a valid will. Priya Sachdev, Kapur's third wife, is widely expected to be a principal beneficiary of his estate. Not only is she the mother of his youngest son, Azariyas, but she was also his spouse at the time of death. In the eyes of the law, she holds a strong claim over the late tycoon's assets. Before marrying Kapur, Sachdev was married to businessman Vikram Chatwal, with whom she had a daughter. Sunjay Kapur was known to have embraced both children as part of his family. As of now, some media reports suggest that Kapur's sisters may be considered for management roles within Sona Comstar, though the company has made no official announcement. In the meantime, the boardroom remains without its captain, and the estate, without a publicly named heir. The case surrounding Sunjay Kapur's inheritance is expected to become clearer in the coming weeks, once legal proceedings and probate processes begin. Until then, his multi-crore legacy hangs delicately between bloodlines, boardrooms, and legalities. First Published:
Deccan Herald
6 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
SC lawyers controversy: ED directs investigators to not summon advocates in case against clients
The statement from the federal probe agency came in the wake of the lawyer-client privilege linked controversy that erupted after the ED issued back-to-back summons to senior Supreme Court lawyers Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for giving legal advice to Care Health Insurance Limited (CHIL) on the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) given to Rashmi Saluja, former chairperson of Religare Enterprises.
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Indian Express
L&T yet to respond after Supreme Court hearing over elevated road and tunnel projects: MMRDA officials
Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has not yet replied to a formal request by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority requesting the country's largest infrastructure company to provide financial estimates and rationale that it presented in the Supreme Court in a recent case, said MMRDA officials Friday. The email sent on June 10 gave L&T seven working days to respond, but there was no reply as of Friday. 'We are awaiting L&T's reply to our request. Once that is received, we intend to verify the information provided and rework the estimates, with the help of top experts in the field to be aligned with the spirit of transparency and fairness,' an MMRDA official said, requesting anonymity. L&T did not comment when reached out by The Indian Express. L&T had approached the Supreme Court challenging its disqualification for two major infrastructure tenders issued by MMRDA for elevated road and tunnel projects in Mumbai. During hearings in the Supreme Court, L&T claimed it had bid for the underground tunnel between Gaimukh and Fountain Hotel Junction at Rs 6,498 crore, and for the elevated road from Fountain Junction to Bhayander at Rs 5,554 crore. The Supreme Court subsequently rejected the petition as 'infructuous' following MMRDA's decision to cancel and re-tender the two projects. After the court hearing, MMRDA asked L&T for the same documents backing cost claims, such as rate justifications and supporting calculations. An MMRDA official said these figures would enable its Tender Review Committee to assess and, if the need arose, adopt them as benchmarks in re-estimating the project before launching the new bidding process. Officials said that even after publicly announcing the numbers before the Supreme Court, L&T did not respond to MMRDA. 'L&T's quietness has questioned the validity of its court affidavits and its willingness to be cooperative in an open and transparent tender process,' added the official. According to the official, L&T was disqualified by MMRDA for multiple reasons, including its failure to disclose the structural collapse of the Medigadda barrage in Telangana — a project it executed and which was later verified as failed by IIT Bombay and the Telangana Government. Additionally, the company did not submit key documents required as part of the bidding process. As a result, MMRDA declared the bid 'non-responsive,' a decision that was subsequently upheld by both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court
