Latest news with #NeerajKishanKaul
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- Business
- 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.
Business Upturn
02-05-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
Supreme Court rejects JSW Steel's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel, orders liquidation
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday rejected JSW Steel's ₹20,000 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) and directed liquidation of the debt-ridden company, stating that the plan was illegal and should not have been accepted by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The apex court's decision comes nearly four years after JSW Steel's bid was approved, marking the end of a protracted legal tussle involving multiple government agencies and questions around clean slate immunity under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). In March 2020, JSW Steel's ₹20,000 crore bid for BPSL was cleared by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and later by the NCLAT. However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the plan, alleging that JSW Steel was a 'related party' to BPSL and therefore ineligible to benefit from Section 32A of the IBC, which grants immunity from prior offences once a resolution plan is approved. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing JSW Steel, argued before the court that all other government agencies—including the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), the CoC, and the resolution professional—supported the plan. He questioned the contradiction in the Centre's stance, with only the ED opposing the resolution. Despite these arguments and approvals from adjudicating authorities, the Supreme Court sided with the ED's objections, effectively blocking the implementation of JSW's takeover and directing liquidation of BPSL instead. The decision deals a major blow to JSW Steel and the lenders of BPSL, who were expecting resolution proceeds. It also sets a significant precedent regarding the applicability of Section 32A and the independence of enforcement agencies in insolvency cases. The liquidation process will now commence, marking a dramatic end to one of the most high-profile insolvency cases in India under the IBC framework. Disclaimer: The information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial or legal advice. Please consult with appropriate professionals before making any investment or legal decisions. Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
India Today
25-04-2025
- Politics
- India Today
International law allows India to suspend Indus Waters Treaty with Pak: Experts
Following the horrific terror attack on a group of tourists in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam by Pakistan-backed terrorists, India has announced a slew of diplomatic measures, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. In response, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said that pausing the agreement would "amount to an act of war".India Today TV takes a deep dive into the treaty and what the "holding treaty in abeyance" really means for the two INDIA UNILATERALLY SUSPEND THE TREATY?The Indian government had previously also warned of suspending the water-sharing pact as a retaliatory measure for the continued cross-border terrorism, threatening the security of the country. Now, following the Pahalgam attack, India has notified Pakistan of the suspension of the treaty. The treaty itself does not contain any provision for suspension. Article XII of the treaty says that it can be modified or terminated only "by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two governments".HOW HAS INDIA TAKEN THIS STEP?According to senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, international legal conventions, including the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, allow for "suspending the operation of the treaty" in the case of "fundamental change in circumstances".Former Indus Water Commissioner PK Saxena, in a comment to news agency PTI on Wednesday, also clarified that there were a number of steps available for India when it came to suspension of the treaty there is no explicit provision in the treaty for its abrogation, Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Law of the Treaties provides sufficient room under which the treaty can be repudiated in view of the fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of the treaty," Saxena DOES THE VIENNA CONVENTION SAY?Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties deals with the rules relating to the "fundamental change of circumstances".1. A fundamental change of circumstances, which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a pact, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless - (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty, and (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the agreement.2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty - (a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or (b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty, it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the IS THE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR INDIA ON THE GLOBAL STAGE?Speaking to India Today TV, advocate Kaul suggests that it may be argued by New Delhi, that the current situation where India is being repeatedly subjected to terror attacks, and that the economic and physical safety and sovereignty of India are at risk due to actions undertaken by Pakistan, are the "fundamental change" in the "circumstances".This would allow India to make the legal argument on the international stage that the Indus Waters Treaty text itself says that the agreement was signed to give effect to "a spirit of goodwill and friendship" between the two countries. Due to the actions undertaken by Pakistan, there was now a "fundamental change" in the situation, which allows India to suspend its operations, even under international don't know what legal argument or advice has been advanced by our government for now. But, this is certainly an argument that can be made if Pakistan chooses to involve the International Court of Justice or the International Court of Arbitration in this matter," Kaul said."India has been asserting the need for a review or modification of the treaty since 2023 on the basis of environmental challenges and terror attacks," he Vienna Convention also allows for negotiations and international arbitration through the UN, which further means that the international community could call on the Governments of India and Pakistan to resolve the situation and uphold the India has opposed any interference in the bilateral relationship and disputes between the two CAN INDIA DO ONCE OPERATION OF TREATY IS SUSPENDED?Holding the treaty in abeyance does not mean that India would immediately stop the flow of water. The treaty governs several aspects of the sharing of the waters of the rivers Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej.A look at the provisions of the treaty itself shows the options available. These include both short and long-term steps. Most simply, India could refuse to share monthly reports of the water flow data or refuse to allow Pakistani officials to enter India for any joint inspections of the existing flow. This would allow India to take harsher steps, including restricting water choosing to escalate, India could close or reduce the flow of water into the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas or Sutlej, by diverting river water into the canals and channels, or increasing the storage levels of the waters in the existing dams and are a number of dams, barrages, and canals already existing on these river systems, and restrictions have been imposed under the treaty on maintaining minimum flow, maximum level of permitted water diversion, permitted uses for the water, storage and maintenance of the dams, barrages and reservoir example, India could choose to stop or reduce water flow levels into the Upper Bari Doab canal on Ravi, which is one of the oldest barrages on the Ravi-Beas river system, constructed before Independence. The Indus Waters Treaty, at the time of its signing, included specific provisions, barring India from closing the flow into the Upper Bari Doab Canal (UBDC) at its head without prior notice to the longer term, India could speed up the construction of ongoing or proposed hydropower projects, or construct more canals to divert a larger share of water from these rivers towards recently, India and Pakistan have been fighting a legal battle in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague over the Kishanganga Hydropower project on the river Kishanganga, which is a tributary of the Jhelum, and the Ratle Power project on river Chenab. Pakistan had raised concerns about the downstream water flow being impacted if India diverts water for these the Kishanganga project has been operational since 2018, the construction on the Ratle project started in 2022 and is ongoing. India could withdraw from the ongoing legal proceedings before the World Bank-appointed neutral expert while the treaty is under means that India could continue the construction and diversion of water for the Ratle project and disregard the agreements reached so far regarding the water storage at Kishanganga, which would affect the flow of the rivers Neelam and summer approaching its peak, any steps taken by India to restrict water flow towards Pakistan and increase flow towards the Indian channels could seriously affect the lives of Pakistanis who are dependent on the water supply for drinking, agriculture, electricity generation and transport. IN THIS STORY#Pakistan#Jammu and Kashmir
