Latest news with #IBC
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Supreme Court agrees to hear pleas for review of verdict on liquidation of Bhushan Steel
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 29, 2025) 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 p.m.," 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.
&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.
Mint
7 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
BluSmart follows Gensol group firms into insolvency after ₹1.28 cr default
The wheels have come off the fraud-hit BluSmart Mobility, once hailed as a pioneer in India's electric ride-hailing startup, as the company has been formally admitted into insolvency by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Ahmedabad. The move follows payment defaults totalling over ₹ 1.28 crore and adds BluSmart to a growing list of Gensol-linked entities now undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, including its parent Gensol Engineering Ltd and sister concern Gensol EV Leasing Pvt Ltd. In an order dated 28 July, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shammi Khan (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Sharma (Technical Member) admitted BluSmart into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. 'In light of the above findings, this Tribunal is satisfied that the Financial Creditor is entitled to the relief as sought. The Corporate Debtor's default justifies the admission of the petition and the initiation of CIRP under the Code,' the tribunal said in its order, reviewed by Mint. The dispute with the financial creditor began after BluSmart Mobility raised ₹ 15 crore through 15 non-convertible debentures (NCDs) on 20 April 2023, with Catalyst Trusteeship as the debenture trustee. Under the agreement, BluSmart was to start repaying the principal by 30 April 2023, but unilaterally deferred it to 31 May, which Catalyst viewed as a breach. In early 2025, BluSmart defaulted on payments due in February, March, and April—totalling ₹ 1.28 crore, prompting Catalyst Trusteeship to seek insolvency proceedings against the company. Supporting documents included default notices, bank records, and an email from co-founder Anmol Singh Jaggi admitting liability that led to the admission of insolvency plea. BluSmart opposed the insolvency plea, arguing that the defaults were temporary, the petition was premature and motivated and that procedural issues such as missing IRP details and vague timelines weakened the creditor's case. The company also pointed to the 15 April Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) order against Gensol Engineering and its promoters as background pressure behind the filing. However, the tribunal rejected all objections, holding that the defaults were material and proven, the promoter had admitted liability, and procedural gaps had been corrected. It also stated that the Sebi order had no bearing on BluSmart's contractual obligations to repay its lenders. The tribunal appointed NPV Insolvency Professionals Pvt Ltd as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), which will now take control of BluSmart's management, issue public notices and invite claims from creditors. A moratorium has also been imposed, halting all ongoing or new legal actions, asset transfers and recovery proceedings against the company. Under IBC timelines, the IRP must invite claims within three days and constitute a Committee of Creditors (CoC) within 30 days. The entire resolution process must be completed in 180 days, extendable by another 90 days. If no viable resolution plan is approved within that time, BluSmart may face liquidation. With BluSmart joining Gensol Engineering and Gensol EV Leasing in insolvency, legal experts believe the case may become a landmark test for group insolvency in India—a concept not yet formally codified in law. Courts have, however, allowed consolidated proceedings in rare cases like Videocon, where 13 related companies were treated as a single economic entity. 'This could set the stage for group insolvency. If operational and financial links between these firms are clearly established, it may prompt courts to adopt a similar approach,' said Raheel Patel, partner at Gandhi Law Associates. 'The real challenge ahead is determining whether their assets and debts should be resolved jointly or separately, and whether overlapping creditors and related-party transactions will be prioritized for scrutiny,' Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates, said. When BluSmart defaulted and suspended operations, those same vehicles used as collateral for Gensol loans became value at risk. Power Finance Corporation Ltd and the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd (Ireda) were thus exposed to defaults arising from both entities, effectively making them overlapping creditors, she added. Parth Contractor, founder, Chambers of Parth Contractor, said, "When one entity has a financial crunch, its ripple effects are noticed in sister concerns or associated entities. But the decision to admit a company into insolvency, does not depend on the position of the sister concerns or the group company, but solely on the transaction/issue between the specific debtor and the specific creditor, which in this case was BluSmart and Catalyst Trusteeship". BluSmart's insolvency is the latest and perhaps the most visible blow to the Gensol Group, which has been under intense regulatory scrutiny. In June, Ireda revealed that Gensol Engineering had defaulted on loans worth ₹ 510 crore. On 15 April, the Sebi issued an interim order accusing Anmol and Puneet Jaggi of diverting investor funds meant for electric vehicle purchases towards personal luxuries, including a $5 million apartment and high-end golf equipment. Sebi also found that Gensol had procured only 4,704 electric vehicles despite claiming funding for 6,400. Both promoters resigned from Gensol's board on 6 May. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), on 7 May, declined to stay Sebi's order and asked the company to respond, with the market regulator expected to issue a final decision thereafter.
News18
7 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.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Supreme Court agrees to hear JSW Steel's review plea in Bhushan Power case
In a relief for JSW Steel Ltd, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a review petition in open court against its 2 May verdict quashing the company's ₹ 19,350 crore acquisition of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd and ordering BPSL's liquidation. A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order during a closed-chamber review hearing, allowing the matter to be heard in open court and issuing notice on the plea. 'Application(s) for listing review petition(s) in open Court and application for oral hearing are allowed. Issue notice. List these matters on 31.07.2025 at 03:00 p.m.,' the order stated. This development comes as a relief for JSW Steel, providing it one final legal opportunity to retain control of BPSL, which it acquired in March 2021 through the corporate insolvency resolution process. The court's decision also offers a breather to lenders such as State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, who filed separate review petitions in support of JSW Steel. The May ruling not only cancelled the acquisition but also made banks return ₹ 19,350 crore paid by JSW, putting nearly ₹ 34,000 crore of total bank exposure at risk. 'While it's still too early to predict the final outcome, the acceptance of the review petition shifts the narrative from JSW Steel having definitively lost BPSL to a more hopeful outlook. It's certainly a step in the right direction,' said Suman Kumar, vice president–metals and mining, Dolat Capital. JSW Steel did not immediately reply to emailed queries. In its plea, JSW Steel argued that it had significantly improved BPSL's operations since the acquisition. BPSL's production capacity has nearly doubled—from 2.3 million tonnes per annum in 2017 to 4.5 mtpa in 2025, JSW Steel said. Revenue rose from ₹ 8,701 crore in FY17 to ₹ 25,973 crore in FY25, and exports averaged ₹ 2,976 crore annually over the last four years, it added. Both JSW Steel and lenders have cautioned that liquidation would harm BPSL, which has been running as a profitable and viable business under the approved resolution plan. The Supreme Court had earlier granted interim relief on 26 May, ordering status quo on liquidation to allow JSW Steel to file the review petition. The 2 May ruling was based on petitions filed by dissenting financial creditors, including Kalyani Group's Torsteel and former BPSL promoter Sanjay Singal, who challenged delays in the resolution plan's implementation. The May ruling found that the acquisition violated provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly regarding adherence to strict timelines. BPSL was among the Reserve Bank of India's original list of 12 large defaulters flagged in 2017 for resolution under the IBC. At the time, the company owed over ₹ 47,000 crore to its lenders.
