Latest news with #Nagarathna
Mint
26-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
SC orders status quo on Bhushan Power liquidation, allows JSW Steel to file review
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a status quo on the liquidation proceedings of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), granting relief to JSW Steel Ltd and allowing the company to file a review petition against the court's 2 May verdict that had quashed its ₹ 19,300 crore resolution plan. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to keep the matter pending until the apex court decides on JSW Steel's review plea. 'Without expressing any opinion at this juncture, we find that the interest of justice will be served if status quo is maintained in the proceedings pending before the NCLT,' Justice Nagarathna said. 'We clarify that this order of status quo will operate until the consideration of the review petition.' The court asked JSW Steel to file the petition within the prescribed limitation period, which is 30 days. The court's decision came in response to a plea filed by JSW Steel seeking a stay on the liquidation process initiated by Bhushan Power and Steel's former promoter Sanjay Singhal. Singhal had approached the NCLT urging immediate commencement of liquidation proceedings following the Supreme Court's 2 May judgment cancelling JSW Steel's resolution plan and directing BPSL's liquidation. JSW Steel, in its application, had requested the Supreme Court to defer the liquidation process for 60 days to give it time to file a review petition. The top court's interim relief now enables the steelmaker to approach the court with a review plea without parallel liquidation proceedings continuing before the NCLT. The Supreme Court indicated that the matter will likely be heard after the court's summer vacation, and after JSW Steel files its review petition challenging the court's earlier judgment. The Supreme Court's 2 May ruling was a major setback for JSW, which acquired BPSL through the corporate insolvency resolution process more than five years ago and has since made substantial investments in the company. The apex court had set aside the resolution plan on grounds of non-compliance with key provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, particularly the failure to adhere strictly to the plan's approved timeline. The review petition is significant for JSW Steel, not just from a legal standpoint but also due to the financial and strategic importance of Bhushan Power and Steel to its domestic operations. As of 31 March 2024, JSW Steel carried net assets worth ₹ 14,091 crore related to BPSL on its consolidated balance sheet. BPSL's Odisha-based plant has a capacity of 4.5 million tonnes per annum (MTPA), forming a key part of JSW Steel's total domestic capacity of 34.2 MTPA—the highest in India. Appearing for JSW Steel before the Supreme Court on Monday, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul questioned the locus standi of Singhal, pointing out that he is under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged malpractices. Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, appearing for BPSL's committee of creditors, also questioned Singhal's locus standi in the case. 'They are already under a chargesheet. Having left the company years ago, they are now pressuring the NCLT. You are the creator of the problem,' Mehta said. Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Singhal, opposed JSW Steel's plea, arguing that the steelmaker's petition against the NCLT order was not maintainable since the appellate remedy had not been availed. He added that the Supreme Court had in its 2 May judgment acknowledged Singhal's locus standi and highlighted several faults of BPSL's committee of creditors. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested deferring the NCLT proceedings until 10 June, emphasizing the need to avoid further complications. 'This was a resolution plan implemented five years back. We have taken the money. Now, to reverse everything… they have taken money from other banks. Some of them are foreign banks. It will be difficult for them to deal with foreign banks. So some way will have to be found out,' Mehta said. Bhushan Power and Steel was among the first 12 large defaulters identified by the Reserve Bank of India in 2017 for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, with total dues of over ₹ 47,200 crore. At the time of its insolvency admission, the company owed more than ₹ 45,000 crore. JSW Steel's ₹ 19,300 crore resolution plan was the highest bid received and was approved by the NCLT in September 2019, and later upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in February 2020. Despite ongoing litigation, including legal challenges mounted by Sanjay Singhal, JSW Steel went ahead with the resolution plan, making substantial payments and taking operational control of the BPSL plant in Odisha. In a post-earnings call last week, JSW Steel's joint managing director Jayant Acharya said the company had 'implemented the resolution plan of BPSL in compliance with the law and taken steps to successfully revive the company to its present state today'. He added that JSW Steel expected its compensation rights to be upheld following the Supreme Court 2 May decision. JSW Steel has also issued demand notices to a group of banks, seeking refunds of the funds disbursed as part of the now-invalidated resolution plan.
New Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
SC orders status quo on Bhushan Power liquidation
The Supreme Court of India ordered a status quo on liquidation proceedings of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), pending the verification of the review petition to be filed by JSW Steel. The court asked JSW Steel to file the petition within the prescribed limitation period. A Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, passed an order directing status quo in the liquidation proceedings of BPSL, currently pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The direction was issued in Special Leave Petition filed by JSW Steel Ltd bearing Diary No. 29406/2025, seeking abeyance of any further hearing applications filed before the erstwhile promoter to expedite liquidation proceedings pending before Ld. NCLT. The Apex Court observed that as the limitation period for filing a review petition against the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated May 2, 2025 (which rejected JSW's Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for BPSL) was still running, and in light of this, a status quo on proceedings before the Ld. NCLT was required so that practical ramifications of the judgment may not be further complicated.
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Dual taxation on broadcasting services permissible in law: Supreme Court judgment
The Supreme Court has held in a judgment that broadcasting through television for the purpose of the entertainment of the subscribers can be separately taxed by the Centre and the State concerned A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh said The Centre can impose service tax on the broadcasting service while the State concerned can, on the other hand, make cable operators and entertainment providers liable to pay entertainment tax. 'Broadcasting service being a taxable service under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, read along with the amendments made from time to time would enable both the Parliament to impose service tax on broadcasting service and the State Legislatures having the legislative competence to levy entertainment tax on those who provide entertainment to the recipients [television viewers],' the top court interpreted the law. Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgment dated May 22, said imposition of two different taxes on two separate aspects of the same activity - broadcasting service - was permissible in law. There was no danger of overlapping taxation. 'There is no overlapping in fact or in law, inasmuch as different aspects of the same activity are being taxed under two different legislations by two different legislatures. This is because the activity of broadcasting is a service and liable to service tax imposed by the Parliament (Entry 97 – Union List) and the activity of entertainment is a subject falling under (Entry 62 - State List),' Justice Nagarathna held. The court said the expression 'entertainment' came within the ambit of 'luxury' defined in Entry 62 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 'Advances in technology have resulted in varied forms of entertainment through various media and in a variety of ways, not only in a public place but also in the confines of private space such as a home, through mobile or a cell phone or smartwatch and other personal devices, etc. The expression 'entertainments' must be given a broad, liberal and expansive meaning,' the court said.
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Greater women participation in judiciary will improve quality: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 22, 2025) said a greater representation of women in the judiciary would "greatly improve" the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts in cases affecting women. The apex court said advancing women's greater participation in judiciary also played a role in promoting gender equality in broader ways and the country would greatly benefit from a judicial force that is competent, committed and most importantly, diverse. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, as a result, ordered the reinstatement in service of a woman judicial officer in Rajasthan who was appointed in February 2019 on probation for a period of two years. The Bench observed she was not issued any posting order and in May 2020, she was discontinued from service by holding that she was not fit for confirmation in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The woman, who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category, cleared the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination in 2017 when she was also suffering from a medical condition. The top court's verdict came on her appeal against an August 2023 order of the Rajasthan High Court, declining her relief against the showcause notice and the discharge order. "The appellant has been awarded capital punishment for a minor irregularity (omission)," the court said. The Bench said to holistically understand women's effective participation in judiciary, it was important to look at three main phenomena -- their entry into legal profession, retention and growth of their numbers in profession and advancement of women, in numbers, to senior echelons of profession. Many have stressed that an increased diversity within the judiciary and ensuring judges were society's representatives enabled it to better respond to social and individual contexts and experiences, it added. "It is a recognition of this fact that a greater representation of women in the judiciary, would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting women," the Bench said. Observing judicial appointments of women, particularly at the senior level, could shift gender stereotypes, thereby, changing attitudes and perceptions on what was appropriate for men and women. The women's visibility as judicial officers could pave the way for women's greater representation in other decision-making positions, such as in legislative and executive branches of government, the verdict noted. The Bench said higher numbers and greater visibility of women judges can increase the willingness of women to seek justice and enforce their rights through courts. In the case at hand, the court noted there was an omission on the woman's part in informing the employer about her past government record but she provided a reasonable explanation. The woman started her service career in December 2014 by joining as a government teacher in the education department of Rajasthan government. The Bench said she resigned from the teacher's post in October 2018 and her resignation was accepted in December 2018. The woman, it came on record, submitted her resignation on October 25, 2018, much prior to her interview which was conducted on November 2, 2018, the question of disclosing the past government service was certainly not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service. "This is certainly not a case where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary," the Bench said. The top court said it was nobody's case that her performance during probationary period was unsatisfactory. "The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him," the Bench said.
Hans India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
SC rejects Nagam Janardhan Reddy's please on Palamuru-Rangareddy Project
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by former minister Nagam Janardhan Reddy, which alleged financial irregularities in the Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS). A bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and including Justice Satish Chandra Sharma found no merit in the case to warrant interference with a prior ruling from the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Nagam on 3rd December 2018. The Supreme Court noted that four similar cases filed by Dr. Nagam concerning the same project have either been dismissed or disposed of, attaining finality with no pending appeals. The court highlighted the findings of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), who stated that the allegations made by Dr. Nagam were unsubstantiated. During the hearing, the bench questioned senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, representing Dr. Nagam, on the grounds for claiming that a revision of rates was fraudulent. Mr. Bhushan requested the bench to focus on the second part of the petition, which sought a directive for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged fraud. However, Justice Nagarathna expressed scepticism, suggesting that revisions of rates may simply reflect the state's commercial discretion and that courts cannot oversee every government action. Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General and counsel for Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd (MEIL), raised concerns about the maintainability of the SLP, stating that Dr. Nagam had filed numerous cases over the past decade as a form of harassment. He pointed to the CVC's prior findings regarding Dr. Nagam's complaints. After thorough consideration of the arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's discretion to decline the CBI investigation request. The bench concluded that the High Court had justified reasons for its decision, leading to the dismissal of the SLP on the grounds that it lacked merit.
