JSW Steel seeks review of Supreme Court verdict ordering liquidation of BPSL
JSW Steel has approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its May 2 judgment, which rejected the resolution plan submitted by the company for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL) and directed the initiation of liquidation proceedings.
Also Read | NCLT defers hearing on Bhushan Power and Steel case, post SC status quo order on liquidation proceedings
The top court had subsequently, on May 26, ordered status quo in the ongoing liquidation process before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), granting JSW Steel time to file a review petition. The Bench had observed that status quo should prevail 'in the interest of justice and to avoid future complications'.
JSW Steel, represented by senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, had argued that the matter was complex and should not be rushed into liquidation. Mr. Kaul had submitted that BPSL had posted an annual turnover of ₹28,000 crore in one year and had increased production capacity from 2.5 to 4.5 metric tonnes. The company, he noted, also employed approximately 25,000 workers.
In its May 2 verdict, the Supreme Court had found JSW's resolution plan to be in 'flagrant violation and contravention' of the law. The Bench had held that the Resolution Professional 'had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations' throughout the proceedings concerning BPSL.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court had directed the NCLT to commence liquidation proceedings under the IBC framework.
The court had also criticised the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for approving the resolution plan, observing that the CoC had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom adequately. 'The CoC had failed to protect the interest of the creditors by taking contradictory stands before this court, and accepting the payments from JSW without any demurrer, and supporting JSW to implement its ill-motivated plan against the interest of the creditors,' the court had noted.
The CoC, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had also expressed its intention to file a review petition against the May 2 decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
5 hours ago
- Mint
Kirloskar cos drag Sebi to court—say key disclosure rules are ‘unconstitutional'
Mumbai: In a dramatic escalation of the long-running Kirloskar family dispute, five listed Kirloskar Group companies have moved the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of a regulation that mandates disclosure of private agreements by promoters, directors, and other stakeholders. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd (KOEL),Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd,Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd,Kirloskar Industries Ltd, and GG Dandekar Properties Ltd have individually filed writ petitions challenging regulations laid down by the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Mint has seen a copy of the petitions. The companies said Sebi's disclosure rules were 'manifestly arbitrary', 'disproportionate', and 'impermissibly retrospective'. They argued that the regulator had overstepped its mandate by effectively compelling listed companies to treat third-party agreements—including those they may not have signed or ratified—as binding and material. The Bombay High Court has sought Sebi's response and is expected to hear the matter on 20 August. The outcome could have wide-ranging implications for corporate disclosures, particularly for companies with complex ownership or family-led structures. The petitioners have contested Regulation 30A and Clause 5A of Para A of Part A of Schedule III of the Sebi (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, as well as Sebi circulars dated 13 July 2023 and 11 November 2024, which operationalised these rules. Regulation 30A and Clause 5A require listed companies to disclose certain types of agreements even if the entity is not a direct party, if such agreements impact the company's management, control, or impose any restriction or liability. The petitioners have also challenged Regulation 30(13), which requires listed entities to promptly disclose significant communications received from regulatory, statutory, enforcement, or judicial authorities. 'The regulations run contrary to the basic principle of 'consent' or 'consensus ad idem'—a pre-condition to formation of a contract under the Indian Contract Act,' the companies have stated in their petitions. The legal actions come amid the ongoing Kirloskar family feud over a 2009 'Deed of Family Settlement' (DFS), a private arrangement that outlined the distribution of control, management, and ownership across various Kirloskar companies among family branches. Sanjay Kirloskar-led Kirloskar Brothers Ltd, a listed entity from the Kirloskar Group, has demanded that Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd (KOEL) and other group firms disclose the DFS under Regulation 30A. KOEL maintains it is not a party to the DFS and therefore should not be compelled to disclose it. Sebi, in a communication issued in December 2024, had advised KOEL to disclose the DFS, stating that the document 'remains subsisting in nature and indirectly imposes restrictions' on the company. In their petitions, the listed Kirloskar Group companies have argued that Sebi's disclosure rules violated well-established principles of company law and contract law, including the doctrine of privity and a board's exclusive authority over decisions binding a company. Sebi's move also raised concerns over unintended consequences and unreasonable outcomes, such as being forced to disclose agreements made by unrelated or disgruntled individuals, they said. 'It envisages absurd and unreasonable circumstances where… any employee (at whatever post or even a disgruntled employee)… can bind a listed entity to an agreement… merely upon informing the listed entity of such agreement,' the petitioners stated. They also argued that Sebi was encroaching on the domain of civil courts. 'By interpreting disputed agreements which are in fact sub judice… Sebi is assuming the role of a civil court… and encroaches on the jurisdiction of the civil court,' the petitions state. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL) has filed an intervention application arguing that several other listed companies—such asHikal Ltd,DCM Ltd,TVS Motor Co. Ltd, andAdani Wilmar Ltd—have already complied with Sebi's disclosure requirements without challenging the regulation's legality. "Given that the regulation has already been acted upon and complied with by multiple listed entities… there exists no justifiable basis for the companies for challenging its constitutional validity at this belated stage apart from the petitioners' mala fide motives,' KBL's application states. Vishwanath Iyer, partner at law firm Anand Sharma and Associates, said calling Regulation 30A as 'unconstitutional' was a stretch. 'Courts have repeatedly affirmed Sebi's wide rule-making power over listed companies. Earlier precedents make it clear that a mere requirement to place a decades-old family deed on the stock exchange website is nowhere near a violation of fundamental rights,' Iyer said. 'It is unusual that a listed company is claiming Sebi's LODR guidelines as unconstitutional. The Bombay High Court is likely to ask why a company that benefits from public markets thinks it can opt out of the transparency bargain that every other issuer accepts,' he added.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
JSW Steel seeks review of Supreme Court verdict ordering liquidation of BPSL
JSW Steel has approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its May 2 judgment, which rejected the resolution plan submitted by the company for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL) and directed the initiation of liquidation proceedings. Also Read | NCLT defers hearing on Bhushan Power and Steel case, post SC status quo order on liquidation proceedings The top court had subsequently, on May 26, ordered status quo in the ongoing liquidation process before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), granting JSW Steel time to file a review petition. The Bench had observed that status quo should prevail 'in the interest of justice and to avoid future complications'. JSW Steel, represented by senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, had argued that the matter was complex and should not be rushed into liquidation. Mr. Kaul had submitted that BPSL had posted an annual turnover of ₹28,000 crore in one year and had increased production capacity from 2.5 to 4.5 metric tonnes. The company, he noted, also employed approximately 25,000 workers. In its May 2 verdict, the Supreme Court had found JSW's resolution plan to be in 'flagrant violation and contravention' of the law. The Bench had held that the Resolution Professional 'had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations' throughout the proceedings concerning BPSL. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court had directed the NCLT to commence liquidation proceedings under the IBC framework. The court had also criticised the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for approving the resolution plan, observing that the CoC had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom adequately. 'The CoC had failed to protect the interest of the creditors by taking contradictory stands before this court, and accepting the payments from JSW without any demurrer, and supporting JSW to implement its ill-motivated plan against the interest of the creditors,' the court had noted. The CoC, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had also expressed its intention to file a review petition against the May 2 decision.
News18
10 hours ago
- News18
BSE Shares Down Over 1% As Sebi Slaps Rs 25 Lakh Penalty For Flouting Regulatory Norms
Last Updated: Shares of BSE declined over 1 per cent on Thursday morning after markets regulator Sebi slapped a Rs 25 lakh penalty on the stock exchange. BSE Share Price Shares of BSE declined over 1 per cent on Thursday morning after markets regulator Sebi slapped a Rs 25 lakh penalty on the stock exchange for failing to provide equal access to corporate disclosures to all stakeholders and take action against brokers with frequent modifications during trades. After a flat beginning to the trade, the stock later dropped by 1.47 per cent to Rs 2,748 on the NSE. The market regulator passed the order after an inspection conducted between February 2021 and September 2022. In a 45-page order on Wednesday, Sebi found that BSE's system architecture allowed its paid clients and internal listing compliance monitoring (LCM) team to access corporate announcements before the same were made public through its website, resulting in a breach of norms. The regulator also observed that the data dissemination process lacked safeguards to ensure simultaneous and equal access to all stakeholders, which is critical to maintaining market integrity and preventing unfair information advantage. Accordingly, Sebi concluded that BSE failed to comply with Regulation 39(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) SECC (Stock Exchange and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2018, which mandates stock exchanges to ensure fair and transparent access to all users. It also noted that BSE did not establish a really simple syndication feed, which could have mitigated the risk of unequal access to corporate disclosures. Although the exchange later created a time gap to address the issue, Sebi held that such corrective action was taken only after the inspection highlighted lapses. Sebi also flagged serious shortcomings in BSE's monitoring of client code modifications, which are permitted only in case of genuine errors. BSE failed to initiate disciplinary action against brokers with frequent modifications and did not adequately monitor 'error accounts', raising concerns over the possibility of misuse and lack of due diligence in trades between unrelated institutional clients.
