Latest news with #SCSharma
Hindustan Times
01-08-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
SC to revisit order on JSW's Bhushan deal
The Supreme Court on Thursday recalled its order scrapping JSW Steel's ₹19,700 crore deal in 2021 to acquire Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, noting serious 'error apparent' in the judgment which was decided contrary to settled decisions of the top court. The apex court's Thursday decision also comes as a relief to lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, which filed separate review petitions supporting JSW Steel's position. The May ruling ordered the banks to return ₹ 19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel (HT File) A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justice SC Sharma said, 'Prima facie we are of the view that the impugned judgment [of May 2] does not correctly consider the legal position as laid down by this court. Apart from that, it is pointed out [by CoC and JSW] various incorrect factual submissions have been taken on record, and arguments which were not advanced were considered by the court. We find it a fit case for the judgment under review to be recalled and the matter needs to be heard afresh.' The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel disputed this position. The order was passed on a review petition filed by JSW Steel. Posting the matter for further hearing on August 7, the top court agreed to hear all sides, including the erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel, on all issues. The May 2 decision — it said he acquisition violated provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), especially those on timelines — shocked corporate and banking circles; the JSW deal was often cited as a success of IBC, allowing companies that had been run to the ground by their promoters, usually at a great cost to banks that had loaned them money, to be revived under new owners. The apex court's Thursday decision also comes as a relief to lenders, including State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, which filed separate review petitions supporting JSW Steel's position. The May ruling ordered the banks to return ₹19,350 crore paid by JSW Steel. JSW's acquisition was approved by the committee of creditors (CoC), the national company law tribunal (NCLT) and national company law appellate tribunal (NCLAT). Review petitions are taken up by the court in chambers and only when the court feels satisfied that the case needs to be re-heard, the matter is placed for hearing in open court. On Wednesday, the petition was taken up in chambers and a decision was taken to list it in open court. Appearing for CoC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, assisted by a team of lawyers from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas led by advocate Raunak Dhillon, pointed out that the plan of JSW Steel was approved with a 99% majority. He said that the CoC had presented elaborate minutes of meeting before the court showing detailed discussion on the pros and cons of accepting JSW's plan. He referred to earlier decisions by the top court on IBC which lay down the law that the courts will not sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of CoC. For JSW, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, assisted by a team of lawyers from Karanjawala & Co, pointed out that since 2021, the company has been running Bhushan Steel . In the process, it has infused over ₹20,000 crore, cleared all dues incurred by the previous management, and doubled the production of steel. From 18,000 employees, the company's workforce has swelled to 25,000. He added that the judgment of May 2 also has had a debilitating effect on IBC and needs to be set aside. Mehta told the court that the top court 's May ruling on timelines not being observed were not even argued. The May 2 judgment was pronounced by a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi (since retired) and SC Sharma, who is the other member on the bench with CJI hearing the review plea. CJI Gavai said, 'My brother (justice Sharma) has been kind enough to be candid. He has told me that the points argued have not been considered by the judgment. I am grateful to my brother. How could the court go into the issue that was not argued and suggest this is suppressed, that is suppressed.' The erstwhile promoters of Bhushan Steel represented by senior advocate Dhruv Mehta objected to the submissions made by CoC and JSW. But the SG pointed out that the erstwhile promoters of the company, who landed it in serious serious financial trouble cannot be allowed to raise a finger on the correctness of a plan by which the company stands revived. 'They were part of the dirty dozen that left the company in financial doldrums and now want to drag a successful company into liquidation,' he said. Shares of JSW rose 1.93% apiece to close the day at ₹1057.90, on a day when BSE's benchmark Sensex closed 0.36% down.
Indian Express
31-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
SC recalls verdict on liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel, says ‘matter needs to be considered afresh'
The Supreme Court on Thursday recalled its May 2, 2025, judgment that ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL) after rejecting steel major JSW Steel Ltd's Rs 19,000 crore bid to acquire it through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) route. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice S C Sharma said it will consider the appeal challenging the resolution plan afresh. 'We…think that this is a fit case wherein the judgment under review needs to be recalled and the matter needs to be considered afresh. So needless to say that while we are allowing the review, we keep all the questions available to both parties open to be argued at the stage of hearing,' the bench said. A Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and S C Sharma had on May 2 quashed and set aside the September 5, 2019, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order and February 17, 2020, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order upholding JSW's resolution plan. It said, 'the Resolution Plan…as approved by the CoC (Committee of Creditors) stands rejected, being not in conformity with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 30, read with sub-section (2) of Section 31' of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Section 30 (2) deals with the resolution professional's duty to examine the resolution plans. Section 31(2) empowers the adjudicating authority (NCLT) to reject a resolution plan if it does not meet the requirements under IBC. Deciding a batch of appeals challenging the NCLAT decision, the Supreme Court said it was 'without any authority of law and without jurisdiction' and 'is perverse, coram non judice and liable to be set aside'. Exercising suo motu powers under Article 142, the court also directed NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against BPSL. Seeking its review, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CoC, submitted that BPSL was in severe financial stress but had become 'healthy' after the acquisition and has about 25,000 workers. The May 2 ruling said that 'JSW even after the approval of its Plan by the NCLAT, wilfully contravened and not complied with the terms of the said approved Resolution Plan for a period of about two years, which had frustrated the very object and purpose of the IBC, and consequently had vitiated the CIR proceedings of the Corporate Debtor-BPSL.' Countering this, Solicitor General Mehta said this timeline, the violation of which was flagged as something serious, is extendable. He wondered, 'Suppose for some justifiable reason which cannot be attributed to the parties, the timeline is breached, would the breaking of the timeline be so fatal that a successfully implemented plan can be set aside and a direction be issued under 142 to liquidate a company which has been revived in these 5 years?' Mehta said the May 2 ruling also concluded that CoC did not exercise its commercial wisdom. To this, the CJI said, 'We have consistently held that it is not open for this court or NCLT or NCLAT to sit in appeal over the wisdom of CoC.' Senior Advocate N K Kaul, who appeared for JSW, said the judgment 'will have a devastating effect on IBC'. Urging the court to recall the order and hear it afresh, he said, 'There is clear, glaring, palpable error, statutory provisions and law have been ignored. Wrong facts have been taken into account which should not have been taken into account which were not argued or pleaded.' CJI Gavai orally remarked that 'prima facie, we are inclined to allow the review. We will give a full-fledged hearing, but prima facie it appears that the view is not in consonance with earlier settled decisions.' He added that while hearing it afresh, the court 'will not go into any other documents, just the judgment'. The bench also said it cannot overlook the fact that it involved the livelihood of about 25,000 workers and thousands of crores in investments. 'We also have to take into account the ground realities….25,000 people cannot be thrown onto the road. Article 142 has to be utilised to do complete justice, not to do injustice to 25,000 workers…The purpose of IBC is to make a company functional,' CJI Gavai added.
Indian Express
14-07-2025
- Indian Express
‘Denotes lack of trust': Secretly recorded phone call by spouse can be used as evidence in divorce cases, says SC
The Supreme Court said Monday that spouses snooping on each other is a sign of a broken relationship as it set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling that secretly recorded telephonic conversations of parties in a marriage cannot be admitted as evidence in divorce proceedings. While hearing a divorce case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that recording the wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge amounts to a 'clear breach of the fundamental right of the petitioner-wife, ie, her right to privacy', and therefore, cannot be used as evidence before a family court. 'Some arguments have been made that permitting such evidence would jeopardise domestic harmony and matrimonial relationships as it would encourage snooping on the spouses, therefore, infringing the objective of Section 122 of the Evidence Act. We don't think such an argument is tenable. If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them,' the bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and S C Sharma observed while pronouncing the judgment. The Bathinda Family Court had allowed the husband to place reliance on recorded telephone calls with his wife to prove allegations of cruelty. The wife challenged this before the high court, arguing that their conversations were recorded without her consent, and allowing it to be used as evidence would breach her fundamental right to privacy.
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- General
- Indian Express
‘SC said declared foreigners should be deported, Assam govt has taken it to mean something very different and for push backs': Petitioner
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam government's move to 'push back' alleged illegal immigrants and those declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs) into Bangladesh. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma instead asked the petitioner, the All BTC Minority Students' Union (ABMSU), a social organisation based in the Bodoland Territorial region, to approach the Gauhati High Court. The Indian Express spoke to ABMSU president Taison Hussain on their attempt to challenge the Assam government's steps. Excerpts: * Why did you approach the Supreme Court over the issue? The foreigners' matter has been going on in Assam for a very long time. The FTs function in an arbitrary manner and many of the people declared foreigners are done so ex-parte (proceedings conducted and orders passed in their absence). Then last month we started seeing people getting picked up by the police – these people have been out on bail on the Supreme Court's orders, many have approached higher courts to appeal against their FT orders and have stay orders on action against them — and since then, no one knows where they have been taken. When relatives go to the police, the police say they don't know (anything). That means the people are missing. Then two days after all this first started, we started seeing videos of people stuck in the no man's land between Bangladesh and India. When we found out, our organisation demonstrated against this and contacted officers concerned, but we didn't get any positive results. There was a Supreme Court order that declared foreigners in Matia (Assam's dedicated detention camp) should be deported, which the state government has taken to mean something completely different and is now doing 'push backs'. Because of this, we approached the Supreme Court. * In what way do you think the state is acting differently from the Court's directions? The Supreme Court had said that if these people are Bangladeshi citizens and the state knows this, they need to be deported. We have never objected to anyone being deported in a legal manner. But these people were born here. If there is a mistake in their name in some records, if there is some irregularity in age, they are declared foreigners by FTs. Many have approached higher courts and others still have the option to do that. They can't just be picked up. They have not violated their bail ground rules. But they were picked up suddenly at night. We think this is a misinterpretation and violation of what the Supreme Court said. There is a proper procedure for deportation. But here, nothing has been done formally and these people were just pushed into no man's land. No notice was given to them before it was done and, till date, the government has not given an official statement on what exactly is being done. * Is this a new turn in the state's long-standing citizenship issue? At a recent press conference, the CM (Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma) said the process of detecting foreigners by the border police had been stopped for a few years because of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) updation process. Now we think that because the Assembly elections are coming (in 2026), this decades-old issue is being raised again. He (Sarma) has taken steps to deport alleged foreigners to gain political mileage. We support the completion of the NRC exercise, which has been on hold for more than five years now. This is the only solution to the foreigners' issue – not the arbitrary border police and Foreigners' Tribunals – and the only way to put an end to it for good. * Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear your plea, what will your next step be? The Supreme Court has not said that our case does not have merit. It has said that because there are some individual cases and that this is happening in the state, we should approach the Gauhati High Court. We will file a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court this week.
Indian Express
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC refuses to entertain plea against Assam govt's deportation of Bangladeshis, directs petitioner to move Gauhati HC
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam Government's move to deport Bangladeshis who have entered the country illegally. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma asked the petitioner, All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), to approach the Gauhati High Court. 'Sixty-nine people are being deported, please go to the Gauhati High Court,' the court said. On February 4, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had asked the state to do the needful to deport 63 declared foreigners. The government had then said that it was awaiting confirmation of their nationality. They were subsequently confirmed to be Bangladeshi nationals. The petition alleged that using this order as an excuse, the state 'has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners…' Citing some of the alleged deportations, the plea argued that 'these instances are not isolated, but part of an emerging pattern where individuals are detained and deported without Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification by the MEA, or even an opportunity to appeal.' 'These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court,' ABMSU claimed. In a related development, the court also agreed to take up next week a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who alleged that his mother had been picked up for deportation and since then, her whereabouts are not known. Initially, the bench said it will tag it with a pending plea on illegal immigrants. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, however, urged the court to issue notice, so that the state can reply. 'We don't know. Son doesn't know. Let them say. If she is in Bangladesh, it's another matter.' Sibal contended that the arrest of the petitioner's mother violated norms on arrest laid down by the Supreme Court in the D K Basu case. 'Your Lordships know she has to be produced within 24 hours. She is not produced. Picked up from the house. Directly in violation of the DK Basu judgment. SP goes to the house, picks her up and throws her. How can that be?' the senior counsel submitted. The court issued notice and fixed it for hearing early next week.
