Latest news with #CoC
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
SC to hear pleas seeking review of verdict on Bhushan Steel liquidation
The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed July 31 for hearing pleas seeking a review of a May 2 verdict that set aside a resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel Limited for Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BSPL), holding it illegal and in violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 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.
News18
8 hours ago
- Business
- News18
SC agrees to hear pleas for review of verdict on liquidation of Bhushan Steel
New Delhi, Jul 29 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed July 31 for hearing pleas seeking a review of a May 2 verdict that set aside a resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel Limited for Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BSPL), holding it illegal and in violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 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.
Hans India
22-07-2025
- Business
- Hans India
No relief for BCCI in Byju's insolvency battle
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order rejecting the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings initiated against the embattled edtech company. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the joint appeals challenging the April 17 decision of the Chennai bench of NCLAT, which had affirmed the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bengaluru. The NCLT had on February 10 directed that the settlement proposal submitted by BCCI and Raveendran be placed before the newly constituted Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Byju's parent entity, Think & Learn Pvt the heart of the dispute was whether the withdrawal application for insolvency under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was filed before or after the formation of the CoC. Section 12A provides that withdrawal of insolvency requires the consent of 90% of the CoC if filed after the committee's constitution. BCCI and Raveendran had argued that the application — submitted via Form FA — was made before the CoC's formation and thus did not require such approval, invoking Regulation 30A(1)(a) of the IBBI regulations. However, the NCLAT noted that Form FA was submitted on November 14, 2024 — after the CoC was formed — making the application subject to the requirements of Section 12A and Regulation 30A(1)(b), thereby necessitating 90% creditor approval. The tribunal rejected the claim that the delay was caused by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), holding that the statutory timelines had already lapsed. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Byju's was triggered on July 16, 2024, based on BCCI's Rs 158.9 crore operational creditor claim arising out of a 2019 team sponsorship deal. A settlement between the two parties was later reached, prompting Raveendran to seek withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings.
India Today
21-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Supreme Court dismisses Byju's and BCCI pleas against insolvency withdrawal
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order rejecting the appeals of the BCCI and Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran seeking withdrawal of insolvency proceedings against his company.A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the appeals filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Raveendran challenging the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict on April thoughts on the verdict, the counsel representing Byju's founders expressed disappointment. An official statement issued by Byju's read, "The termination would have benefitted millions of students who are being deprived of BYJU'S learning system, and thousands of employees."It added, "We are examining the implications of today's order and will decide the future course of action after due consideration. BYJU'S Founders will not stop their efforts to terminate the company's bankruptcy and remain confident that eventually justice will be found through the courts."The BCCI and Raveendran had previously challenged an order of the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which on February 10 directed to place their settlement offer before the new Committee of Creditors (CoC), in which US-based Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes USD 1.2 billion, is a Chennai bench comprising Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Jatindranath Swain upheld the directions passed by the NCLT and said the settlement proposal was filed after the formation of the CoC, hence as the provisions of Section 12 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, it requires the approval of the lender's BCCI and Raveendran contended that since the application under Section 12A was filed before the constitution of the CoC, the provisions of Section 12A coupled with Regulation 30A(1)(a) shall apply and not Regulation 30A(1)(b).Section 12 A of the IBC prescribes an exit route from insolvency. It mandates that NCLT may allow the withdrawal of insolvency initiated by any financial or operational creditor under Sections 7,9 or section 10, based on an application made with the approval of 90 per cent voting share of the 30A(1)(a) deals with the provision of filing Section 12 A proceedings through the interim resolution profession before formation of CoC, whereas 30A(1)(b) deals with provision of filing after formation of BCCI and Byju's contending Form FA, which is an application for withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was submitted before the formation of CoC of Byju' rejecting the plea, NCLAT said, "Form FA, admittedly having been filed on November 14, 2024, is post (formation of) CoC.""If the application under Section 12A is filed under Regulation 30A(1)(a) before the constitution of the CoC, then Section 12A, which mandates the approval of such an application for withdrawal by a 90 per cent voting share of the CoC, shall not apply, but if the application is filed after the constitution of the CoC then the provisions of Section 12A shall apply with full force," said CIRP against Byju's was initiated on July 16, 2024 by NCLAT admitting a Rs 158.90 crore claim from BCCI as an operational creditor of edtech major. An IRP was also appointed by the NCLT in this a settlement arrived between the parties and Raveendran approached appellate tribunal set aside the insolvency proceedings against Byju's on August 2, 2024 after approving dues settlement with the BCCI, which had entered into a Team Sponsor Agreement with the cricket body in was challenged by Glas Trust before the Supreme Trust, a financial creditor, also filed a separate petition before NCLT seeking resolution of its debt of USD 984.3 million (approximately Rs 8,200 crore).advertisementThe apex court on October 23, 2024, set aside the NCLAT order staying the CIRP against Think & Learn, which owns edtech brand Byju's and asked BCCI to approach NCLT for the BCCI submitted Form FA to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) on August 16, 2024, it had instructed the IRP to file it only after the resolution of an appeal pending before the Supreme contended before NCLAT there was a delay on the part of the IRP in filing the withdrawal NCLAT, however, rejected the plea.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court rejects BCCI, Byju's plea to withdraw insolvency case
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an appeal by the Board of Control for Cricket in India, an operational creditor, seeking withdrawal of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Think & Learn, the parent company of online education services company Byju's. The apex court also dismissed another appeal of Byju's co-founder Riju Raveendran, who also wanted withdrawal of the insolvency proceedings against Think & Learn. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Artificial Intelligence Finance Product Management Data Science Healthcare Digital Marketing MBA Project Management others CXO Management Public Policy Leadership Data Analytics Design Thinking Operations Management Cybersecurity Data Science Others Technology Degree PGDM healthcare Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Bengaluru bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had directed the resolution professional to present the withdrawal application before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the debt-laden company. The cricket board told the SC that the NCLAT had erred in not appreciating the uncontested fact that the settlement culminated prior to the constitution of the CoC of Think & Learn. Besides, the tribunal could not have shifted the responsibility of deciding the withdrawal application to the lenders, it added. Supporting BCCI's stand, Raveendran argued that the NCLAT order was 'erroneous and perverse' as the SC, despite setting out various scenarios in which the filing of the withdrawal application arises, had not held that the parties are relegated to post-CoC constitution stage in the present case. 'On the contrary, it states that when the settlement was permitted before the NCLAT, it was a situation where there was a withdrawal before the constitution of the CoC. However, while finally remitting the parties to the NCLT to seek such remedies as available to them in law, the SC (August 14 order) has specifically not held that such a withdrawal can only be after approval of CoC,' Raveendran said, adding the BCCI's claims stand fully settled as per the settlement terms of July 30. He further submitted that the SC stay on settlement proceedings last year did not automatically revive the CIRP. Stating the purported constitution of the CoC was wholly illegal and perverse, the appeal contended that ICICI Bank, which had nil dues, could not have been included. 'Even US lender GLAS Trust Co. LLC is not a financial creditor. It is an alleged agent of a consortium, and under Section 21(6) of the IBC, the IRP should have received authorisation from each member of the consortium before permitting it to be part of the CoC, and the first CoC was provisional and not final,' the appeal added. The entire CIRP process has been vitiated by fraud, first on the part of the erstwhile IRP in connivance with Glas, Raveendran said, adding that the erstwhile IRP has now filed an affidavit admitting that he was pressured by Glas to take a series of decisions and the whole process was 'premeditated.' In an earlier round in October, the Supreme Court had set aside the NCLAT order that approved a Rs 158 crore settlement between Think & Learn and the BCCI. It also overturned the appellate tribunal's August 2 order and restored the insolvency proceedings on an appeal made by Aditya Birla Finance and Glas Trust, the trustee for lenders owed $1.2 billion, which had opposed the settlement and had sought a halt to the insolvency proceedings. Subsequently, the BCCI filed a fresh application to withdraw its insolvency plea against Think & Learn, but this was again rejected by both the tribunal and the appellate tribunal.
