&w=3840&q=100)
Ex-promoters seek hearing in SC against verdict on liquidation of BSPL
The top court had on May set aside the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel for the BSPL, holding it illegal and in violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi (since retired) and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had also ordered the liquidation of BSPL under the IBC.
The former promoters of BSPL were Sanjay Singhal and his family, specifically including his father Brij Bhushan Singal and brother Neeraj Singal.
On Monday, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for former promoters of the ailing firm, told a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that the review plea be listed before a bench for an open court hearing.
The senior lawyer said the value of the assets of the company under liquidation have been fixed at a very low price by the tribunal and the remaining liability will have to be cleared by former promoters.
Let me constitute a bench, the CJI said. Usually, the review petitions against the apex court judgements are decided in chambers by the judges concerned by way of circulation.
The top court, in its verdict, had criticised the conduct of all key stakeholders in the resolution process, the resolution professional, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), for enabling what it termed a "flagrant violation" of the IBC.
Justice Trivedi, since retired, criticised multiple stakeholders, including successful resolution applicant (SRA) JSW Steel Limited, for procedural lapses and 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 bench held that the CoC 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
8 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
SC to re-examine judgment scrapping JSW Steel's resolution plan for BPSL
The petitioners sought review of the judgment, which found Rs 14,300 Cr resolution plan of the BPSL, was not in conformity with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cash discovery row: Uploading of burnt cash video on website doesn't mean process is vitiated: SC to Justice Varma
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed with Justice Yashwant Varma 's submission that the video of burnt wads of currency notes found at his residence should not have been uploaded on the apex court a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said just because tapes have been published on the website, it does not mean the process is vitiated and Justice Varma can go "scot-free".The top court said the impeachment proceedings will be held independently in the Parliament, without reference to the in-house the question of delay in approaching the top court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Justice Varma, said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged."Tape was released. It was already released, my reputation already damaged. What would I come to court for?" Sibal Datta remarked, "We are with you on this for the time being. It should not have been done."However, Justice Datta said, "It does not mean that there has been some lapse in the procedure, which affects the powers of the Parliament to take action against you, because Parliament, I need not to say with any emphasis, it has its own powers."Parliament is not supposed to be guided by what judiciary says or what CJI recommends. They are supposed to act independently and if, at all, Parliament admits the motion and if an inquiry committee is set up, you know who can be the members of the committee."Do you think those members, people of high calibre, would be influenced by preliminary report where you will have whole opportunity to demolish what are the findings," he top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge In an unprecedented move, the top court on Mach 22 uploaded on its website an in-house inquiry report, including photos and videos, into the discovery of a huge stash of cash at the residence of Justice Varma who was then Delhi High Court report contains photos and videos of the cash discovered at a storeroom at Justice Varma's house during a firefighting operation on the night of Holi, March 14.
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Supreme Infrastructure sets Rs 2,200 crore debt resolution in motion
Construction and engineering company Supreme Infrastructure India (SIIL) has moved ahead with the resolution of its ₹2,200 crore debt exposure under a court-approved settlement plan involving 13 lenders. The company has repaid ₹387.92 crore as part of the resolution scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, in March under Sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, which allow companies to restructure debt and settle with creditors through a court-monitored process outside the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The approved plan provides for a full and final settlement of ₹464 crore to financial creditors including State Bank of India, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, HDFC Bank, Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India, Bank of India and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company, among the total amount, ₹183.29 crore was raised through monetisation of assets owned by the company and its promoters. Another ₹147.23 crore came from preferential allotment of equity shares to new and existing investors, including promoter contributions. An additional ₹133.48 crore was paid through monetisation of assets exclusively charged to certain lenders, who released their claims following receipt. While a portion of non-fund-based liabilities, mainly bank guarantees, remains pending, the company expects to address these in the coming weeks. MDP Associates represented SIIL, with the transaction team led by managing partner Ashok Paranjpe and partner Radhika Dixit. Saraf and Partners, led by partner Satyadarshi Kunal, with support from his team, represented the facilitate the settlement and ensure structured repayment, SIIL and the lenders entered into nine escrow agreements, resulting in the creation of 11 transaction escrow accounts. State Bank of India acted as the escrow agent, while SBICAP Trustee Company served as the escrow documentation agent. The accounts managed inflows from asset sales and equity issuances and routed repayments to creditors as per the to the scheme were initially raised by ICICI Bank, SRS Private Investment Powai and Central GST & Central Excise Department. ICICI Bank later withdrew its objection following a settlement, while the tribunal clarified that the GST department's claims were outside the scope of the scheme.
