&w=3840&q=100)
SC to hear pleas seeking review of verdict on Bhushan Steel liquidation
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
SC stays Rajasthan HC order restraining rape accused's US-based wife from travelling abroad as ‘collateral'
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Rajasthan High Court order asking a rape accused's wife, employed in the US, to remain in India as a 'collateral' if he wished to travel abroad for a job. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the Rajasthan government in the matter on the appeal filed by a software engineer, accused of raping a woman on the promise of marriage. The SC further directed the man to deposit Rs 2 lakh as surety for foreign travel. According to the prosecution, the man was booked on rape charges by the Christianganj police station in Ajmer after it was alleged that he met a woman on a matrimonial website and maintained close acquaintance with her for four years on the promise of marriage. Advocate Ashwani Dubey, appearing for the engineer, submitted that the wife was neither an accused nor a party to the case. He said no notice was issued by the Rajasthan HC and yet it passed an order restraining the petitioner. 'The wife, who is neither accused nor heard, is restrained from travelling abroad, purely to offset a hypothetical apprehension that the husband will abscond,' Dubey argued. The plea said the high court, in a violation of the 'procedural impropriety' and without hearing or impleading his wife, who is currently employed in the US, and ignoring the fact that she was not a part of the criminal case, directed her to remain in India. It was also argued that the HC direction was 'erroneous' and violative of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
News18
2 days ago
- News18
SC delivers split verdict on income tax appeal involving foreign firm
New Delhi, Aug 8 (PTI) A Supreme Court bench on Friday gave a split verdict on an appeal of the assistant commissioner of Income Tax, dealing with international taxation, against a 2023 Bombay High Court judgment. The case involved foreign drilling companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. The bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered divergent opinions on the legal interpretation of Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These provisions relate to the timelines and procedures for assessment in cases involving non-resident assessees. The dispute centred on whether the time period provided under Section 144C for the issuance of draft assessment orders should be treated independently or subsumed within the overall limitation period prescribed under Section 153 for completing assessments. Justice Nagarathna rejected the appeal of the revenue department and concluded that the high court was correct in holding that assessment proceedings initiated under Section 144C in these cases were time-barred, as the final orders could not be passed within the extended deadline of September 30, 2021. He noted that rigid interpretation of timelines under Section 153 could result in a denial of fair opportunity to the assessees and breach the principles of natural justice. With the judges delivering conflicting decisions, the matter would now be placed before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for taking appropriate directions of listing the matter before a larger bench. The pleas arose from a batch of petitions filed by non-resident assessees before the Bombay High Court, which were allowed via a common judgment dated August 4, 2023. The assessees, engaged in offshore drilling activities, had opted out of the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44BB for the assessment year (AY) 2014–15 and declared significant losses in their returns. The Revenue's challenge to these decisions brought the matter before the apex court. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK view comments First Published: 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.
NDTV
2 days ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Stays High Court Order Restricting Rape Accused's Wife From Leaving India
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an order asking a rape accused's wife, employed in the US, to remain in India as a "collateral" if he wished to travel abroad for a job. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the Rajasthan government in the matter on the appeal filed by a software engineer, accused of raping a woman on the promise of marriage. The top court further directed the man to deposit Rs 2 lakh as surety for foreign travel. Advocate Ashwani Dubey, appearing for the engineer, submitted that the wife was neither an accused nor a party to the case. He said no notice was issued by the Rajasthan High Court and yet it passed an order restraining the petitioner. "The wife, who is neither accused nor heard, is restrained from travelling abroad, purely to offset a hypothetical apprehension that the husband will abscond," Dubey argued. The plea said the high court, in a clear violation of the "procedural impropriety" and without hearing or impeaching his wife, who is currently employed in the US, and ignoring the fact that she was not a part of the criminal case, directed her to remain in India. It was further argued that the high court direction was "erroneous" and violative of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The direction was stated to suffer from procedural irregularity and legal perversity, having been passed without affording a hearing to the person affected. "The petitioner is an Indian passport holder and an Indian citizen and not the citizen of any other country and he will be under the control of Consulate General at USA and there are no chances of his absconding as he is willing to go abroad to earn his livelihood on work visa and therefore, there is no question of his absconding," the plea said. The bench was informed that the petitioner would travel for a specific period and was ready to state on oath that he would be available for trial as and when directed. "There is no question of delay in trial and also there is no question of his absconding," the plea added. The man was booked on rape charges by the Christianganj Police Station in Ajmer after it was alleged that he met a woman on a matrimonial website and maintained a close acquaintance with her for four years on the promise of marriage. Section 69 of BNS deals with the offence of "sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.", and defines deceitful means to include "false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marring after suppressing identity". Apprehending arrest, he moved an anticipatory bail application, which was allowed. He then moved an application before the trial court to allow him to go abroad for a job. The trial court dismissed his plea following which he challenged it before the high court. The high court allowed him to go abroad but imposed a condition that his wife must remain in India.
