Bhushan Power case: Supreme Court to hear JSW Steel's review plea on 29 July
A special bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma will take up the matter.
Justice Sharma, along with Justice Bela M. Trivedi, was part of the two-judge bench that delivered the May verdict.
However, following Justice Trivedi's retirement in June, a reconstituted bench will now hear the review plea.
The review will be heard in chambers. Review petitions are typically heard behind closed doors by the same bench and without oral arguments, per Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules.
However, in matters of significant public importance, the court may allow an open court hearing.
Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the committee of creditors (CoC), had urged the court to permit an open hearing, citing broader implications.
The review petition represents JSW Steel's last legal opportunity to retain control of BPSL, a company it took over through the corporate insolvency resolution process in 2021.
Lenders such as State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have also filed separate review petitions, supporting JSW's stance.
JSW Steel has argued that since taking over BPSL in March 2021, it has turned around the company's operations.
The company claims that production capacity has nearly doubled—from 2.3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) in 2017 to 4.5 MTPA in 2025. Sales have nearly tripled, from ₹ 8,701 crore in 2016-17 to ₹ 25,973 crore in 2024-25, and exports have averaged ₹ 2,976 crore annually over the past four years.
Both JSW and the lenders have warned that liquidation would be detrimental to BPSL, which has been running as a profitable and viable enterprise since the resolution plan was implemented.
JSW made an upfront payment of ₹ 19,350 crore under the approved resolution plan, which was completed in March 2021.
The Supreme Court earlier granted interim relief to JSW on 26 May by ordering a status quo on the liquidation proceedings, allowing the company to file for review of the 2 May judgment.
The May ruling came in response to pleas filed by dissenting financial creditors, including Kalyani Group's Torsteel and former promoter Sanjay Singal.
The court had invalidated JSW Steel's acquisition, citing non-compliance with key provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly delays and deviations from the approved resolution timeline.
BPSL was among the original 12 large non-performing accounts flagged by the Reserve Bank of India in 2017 for resolution under the IBC.
At the time, the company owed lenders over ₹ 47,000 crore.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Running on gensets for 2 years': Mohali bus terminal developer hits out at GMADA
Mahakram Developers told the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday that the Mohali Bus Terminal-cum-Commercial Complex has been forced to run on diesel generators for two years because the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) wrote to the state power utility blocking an electricity connection, citing a pending appeal against the project's resolution plan. 'There is no stay in their favour. If we default, the concession agreement provides for termination—why stop us from even starting?' Mahakram's counsel Amit Jhanji submitted, seeking a direction to GMADA and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to restore supply and let the project operate. GMADA, for its part, has pressed the High Court for urgent intervention against what it calls a 'dangerous dilution' of safeguards meant to protect public safety in large infrastructure projects. Its writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the application of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, to the public-private partnership it originally awarded in 2009, arguing that the IBC framework allows new developers to take over without meeting the stringent technical norms embedded in the concession agreement. The authority wants the High Court to set aside the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT) October 2023 approval of Mahakram's plan and remand the case for a technical re-evaluation of bidders, insisting that the IBC's financial creditor–centric process sidelined GMADA's statutory mandate and allowed entities 'disqualified at the tender stage' to control a critical public asset. The integrated bus terminal and commercial hub was awarded to C&C Towers Limited through a two-stage tender requiring bidders to have executed similar ₹50 crore projects. C&C defaulted on milestones, and GMADA moved to terminate the contract. However, insolvency proceedings admitted by the NCLT in September 2019 triggered a moratorium under the IBC, halting GMADA's action. Classified merely as an 'operational creditor,' the statutory authority lost its vote in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) despite owning the land. In January 2020, the Resolution Professional issued an Expression of Interest cutting the net worth requirement for resolution applicants to ₹25 crore and dropping sector-specific experience altogether. Mahakram Developers' plan was later cleared by the CoC and approved by the NCLT in 2023, prompting GMADA's challenge. Appearing before Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Mahakram's counsel stressed that all obligations and penalties are contained in the concession agreement. 'If we fail, terminate our concession—but don't paralyse the project. For two years, the bus stand has run on generators, imposing unnecessary costs,' he said. GMADA countered that its NCLAT appeal against the NCLT approval was pending and sought liberty to raise fresh statutory and constitutional grounds, including alleged conflicts between the IBC's overriding effect and the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. The bench questioned GMADA's justification for blocking operations without an interim stay. 'Your objections to the resolution plan were dismissed in 2023. Grounds not raised earlier may now be barred by res judicata,' the Chief Justice noted, referring to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Expressing dissatisfaction with arguments from both sides, the court said the factual record needed clarity. It directed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to respond and posted the case for detailed hearing alongside a related PIL highlighting the deteriorating condition of the terminal and the approach roads. GMADA maintains that the IBC, in its current form, subverts statutory safeguards for public infrastructure by letting financial creditors select resolution applicants solely on financial metrics. It has asked the High Court to remand the case for a technical re-evaluation, restore its statutory role in setting qualification standards, and declare that such projects cannot bypass original eligibility norms.
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
With new energy, JSW gets ready to disrupt EV market
Sajjan Jindal-led JSW Group has set up a dedicated automotive vertical-JSW Motors. This will be an umbrella platform under which the group will launch passenger cars focussed on new energy vehicles at an investment of up to $3 billion over the next five years with launches set to begin in the second half of FY26. It will be separate from the group's joint venture with China's SAIC, JSW MG Motor India. JSW Motors is in talks with three-four companies across Italy, Germany, South Korea and China for collaborations to design and develop these cars, which will be sold under the JSW brand, newly appointed chief executive officer Ranjan Nayak told ET in his first media interview. All vehicles will be made in India, with the earmarked resources deployed for commissioning the manufacturing facility, research and development. JSW's automotive hub, spread across 630 acres, is coming up at Bidkin in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Maharashtra. Elaborating on the expansion strategy, Nayak said JSW Motors is aiming to disrupt the domestic electric vehicle (EV) market by manufacturing "world class automotive products in the country" by leveraging the best technologies from across the globe, including Italy, Germany, South Korea and China, and combining that with India's own strengths in robust supply chain and digital integration. "We are looking at rapidly scaling up our in-house automotive technology, and not remain dependent on any external entity. Our integrated approach allows us to combine global excellence with local relevance, ensuring high performance, affordability and sustainability," Nayak said, adding, "Our first New Energy Vehicle (NEV) under the JSW badge will hit the roads in the second half of FY2026." Nayak said JSW Motors is drawing on "the unique strengths of industry-leading partners" from around the world, without specifying details of the companies it is collaborating with. "We will be combining the craftsmanship and aesthetics of Italian designers and the German precision in manufacturing and engineering with the advanced welding technologies from South Korea and China's expertise in electric propulsion systems, battery innovation and New Energy Vehicle (NEV) technologies with that of the Indian IT sector's deep capabilities in software and digital integration," said Nayak. He declined to share details of the investments the JSW Group has scheduled for its automotive venture. However, industry sources said the group has lined up an investment to the tune of $2-3 billion in its automotive business over the next five years. Similar to its strategy in the steel sector, JSW intends to "energize the auto ecosystem-spurring suppliers and competitors to rise with us" to accelerate India's shift to clean mobility and reduce its dependence on oil, said Nayak, who is also executive vice president and head, corporate strategy, JSW Group. "Our aim is to push New Energy Vehicle penetration to 50per cent, offering affordable, world-class electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicles," he said. Nayak said China is at the forefront of EV and hybrid vehicle innovation and has become an integral part of the global automotive supply chain. As the world rapidly shifts toward sustainable mobility, technologies such as Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), pioneered by Chinese automakers, are redefining the industry landscape. By combining the best global technologies with India's own strengths, JSW Motors intends to bring high-quality, technologically advanced, energy efficient and environmentally responsible vehicles. This approach will deliver "unmatched value to Indian customers and propel the country towards a more secure, sustainable and self-reliant automotive future," he said. "Like global industry leaders-including those from Europe, America (like Tesla and GM), and Japan-we embrace relevant advancements from China and other innovation hubs, integrating them within India's ecosystem. Promoting EV, PHEV and hybrid technologies is also critical from an energy security standpoint." he said.
Mint
a day ago
- Mint
Bhushan Power case: Supreme Court to hear JSW Steel's review plea on 29 July
The Supreme Court will hear JSW Steel Ltd's review petition on 29 July, challenging its 2 May judgment that quashed the company's ₹ 19,350 crore acquisition of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) and ordered the firm's liquidation. A special bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma will take up the matter. Justice Sharma, along with Justice Bela M. Trivedi, was part of the two-judge bench that delivered the May verdict. However, following Justice Trivedi's retirement in June, a reconstituted bench will now hear the review plea. The review will be heard in chambers. Review petitions are typically heard behind closed doors by the same bench and without oral arguments, per Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules. However, in matters of significant public importance, the court may allow an open court hearing. Earlier, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the committee of creditors (CoC), had urged the court to permit an open hearing, citing broader implications. The review petition represents JSW Steel's last legal opportunity to retain control of BPSL, a company it took over through the corporate insolvency resolution process in 2021. Lenders such as State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have also filed separate review petitions, supporting JSW's stance. JSW Steel has argued that since taking over BPSL in March 2021, it has turned around the company's operations. The company claims that production capacity has nearly doubled—from 2.3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) in 2017 to 4.5 MTPA in 2025. Sales have nearly tripled, from ₹ 8,701 crore in 2016-17 to ₹ 25,973 crore in 2024-25, and exports have averaged ₹ 2,976 crore annually over the past four years. Both JSW and the lenders have warned that liquidation would be detrimental to BPSL, which has been running as a profitable and viable enterprise since the resolution plan was implemented. JSW made an upfront payment of ₹ 19,350 crore under the approved resolution plan, which was completed in March 2021. The Supreme Court earlier granted interim relief to JSW on 26 May by ordering a status quo on the liquidation proceedings, allowing the company to file for review of the 2 May judgment. The May ruling came in response to pleas filed by dissenting financial creditors, including Kalyani Group's Torsteel and former promoter Sanjay Singal. The court had invalidated JSW Steel's acquisition, citing non-compliance with key provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly delays and deviations from the approved resolution timeline. BPSL was among the original 12 large non-performing accounts flagged by the Reserve Bank of India in 2017 for resolution under the IBC. At the time, the company owed lenders over ₹ 47,000 crore.
