&w=3840&q=100)
Lenders, JSW to file review petition in SC on Bhushan Power & Steel case
Dev Chatterjee Mumbai
Listen to This Article
JSW Steel is preparing a review petition before India's Supreme Court after its resolution plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) was struck down last month. The steelmaker is expected to cite a 2019 order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which acknowledged the resolution professional's submission of Form H—certifying JSW's eligibility under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Separate review petitions will also be filed by the lenders and the resolution professional, people familiar with the matter said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC allows M3M Group plea for substitution of provisionally attached property
Jul 02, 2025 08:26 PM IST New Delhi, Jul 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court has allowed realty firm M3M Group's plea for substitution of the provisionally attached property by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court has allowed realty firm M3M Group's plea for substitution of the provisionally attached property by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.(HT photo) A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan, however, said the substitution of the property would be subject to nine conditions as suggested by ED. "We have heard Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and considered the matter in detail. The petitioners, namely, M/s. M3M India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. M3M India Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. have also filed an affidavit agreeing to the conditions. While we allow the substitution of the property as same shall be subject to the conditions...." the bench said. The top court's order came on a plea filed by M3M Group challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order refusing to substitute their provisionally attached property. One of the conditions submitted by ED before the top court states that M3M Group should establish clear and marketable title along with undisputed ownership of the assets proposed for substitution, supported by verifiable documentary evidence, to the satisfaction of the court. "The substituted assets must be free from all encumbrances, including mortgages, liens, pledges or any third-party claims or security interests and a certificate to this effect must be submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner must provide a notarised undertaking that the substituted property will not be sold, transferred, or otherwise alienated during the pendency of proceedings," the condition said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
NCLT approves Adani Properties' bid for two HDIL assets in Mumbai
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has approved the resolution plans of Adani Properties for two HDIL assets, including Project BKC in Bandra Kurla Complex and Shahad Maharal Lands in Thane district as part of its insolvency process. This was part of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), with Adani Properties being the sole bidder meeting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) requirements for the two assets of Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL). The Mumbai bench of NCLT approved the resolution plans under Section 31 of the IBC, 2016, on June 27. The committee of creditors (CoC) had cleared both plans, which are valued at over Rs 2,000 crore, with a 66.08 per cent voting share in November 2022. Initially, HDIL's resolution professional sought interest in resolving the entire company in February 2020, but received no proposals. Due to unfinished residential properties, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed a project-wise resolution plan. The CoC initially rejected this proposal, however, reversed its stance in September 2021 after objections from home buyers. Home buyers sought a stay on liquidation proceedings and a consideration of project-wise resolution, after which CoC authorised the RP to explore project-wise resolution. The resolution amount for the BKC project is Rs 3 crore, while the resolution amount for Shahad Maral project is Rs 64 crore. HDIL has been undergoing insolvency since August 2019, with liabilities of around Rs 7,800 crores. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
SBI marks Reliance Com loan as 'fraud', reports Anil Ambani to RBI
Reliance Communications has disclosed to the exchanges that the country's largest lender, State Bank of India (SBI), has decided to classify its loan account as 'fraud' due to irregularities in the conduct of the account. It has also decided to report both the account and Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, who was a director at the company, to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in accordance with the central bank's guidelines. 'We have taken cognisance of the responses (wherever received) to our SCN (show-cause notice) and after due examination of the same it is concluded that sufficient reasons have not been provided by the respondent to explain the non-adherence to the agreed terms and conditions of the loan documents or the irregularities observed in the conduct of the account of Reliance Communications to the satisfaction of the bank,' SBI said in a letter to Reliance Communications on June 23, which the company received on June 30. The company, however, clarified that the classification of 'fraud' by SBI is not expected to have any impact on its operations. It is also seeking legal advice on the way forward with respect to this development. The company, which is currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and has a resolution plan approved by its Committee of Creditors—currently awaiting approval from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)—said the credit facilities referred to by the bank pertain to the period prior to the CIRP. As per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), such claims are required to be resolved as part of the resolution plan or during liquidation, as the case may be, it said. Meanwhile, Anil Ambani's lawyers, responding to SBI's notice classifying Reliance Communications' account as fraud, said the bank had not responded to Ambani's communication challenging the validity of the SCN for almost a year, and had also not granted him a personal hearing to make submissions against the allegations. Additionally, they stated that the bank had withdrawn SCNs issued to other non-executive and independent directors of the company, but had not done so for Ambani despite his being a non-executive director not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The account was declared a non-performing asset (NPA) by the bank in August 2016. Following this, in October 2020, the bank had identified the account as 'fraud' and reported the name of the borrowing entity and its promoters, directors and guarantors to the RBI. However, this classification was challenged in court and subsequently reversed. The bank later reinitiated the process of fraud identification and served SCNs to the borrower and its promoters, directors and suspended directors in December 2023. In March 2024, SBI sent the forensic audit report to the promoters, directors and suspended directors, offering them an opportunity to make submissions, if any. Meanwhile, Anish Nanavaty, resolution professional (RP) of Reliance Communications, responding to the bank's SCN on behalf of the corporate debtor in January 2024, said the bank could pursue any action against the erstwhile management, employees and personnel of the corporate debtor for any fraudulent action committed prior to the cutoff date. Anil Ambani also responded to the bank's SCNs in January and March 2024, seeking documents and materials relied upon by the bank. In May 2024, Ambani, in his response, challenged the validity of the forensic audit report. According to the bank, Reliance Communications, RITL and RTL received Rs 31,580 crore from banks, of which 44 per cent was used for loan repayments and 41 per cent for payments to connected parties. 'Utilisation of funds obtained from banks was traced and its utilisation was mapped from the sanction letter. Instances were identified where utilisation of loan amount was not as per terms mentioned in the sanction letter,' the bank said. Additionally, there was potential rerouting of bank loan funds and internal transfer of funds among Reliance Communications, RITL and RTL. Further, large portions of the loan proceeds were invested in fixed deposits and mutual funds, among other instruments. Reliance Communications was admitted into CIRP in 2019. Lenders submitted claims amounting to around Rs 49,000 crore. Once among the largest telecom players in the country, Reliance Communications was the flagship firm of the Reliance Group.
