Latest news with #BelaMTrivedi
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Ex-promoters of Bhushan Steel seek open court hearing on liquidation review; CJI to form bench
The former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd on Monday urged the Supreme Court to accord an open court hearing to their plea seeking review of the May 2 verdict ordering liquidation of BSPL under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Ex-promoters seek hearing in SC against verdict on liquidation of BSPL
The former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd on Monday urged the Supreme Court to accord an open court hearing to their plea seeking review of the May 2 verdict ordering liquidation of BSPL under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 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.
Hindustan Times
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
6 years, no closure in child rape PIL: SC revives key issue it wrapped up days earlier
The Supreme Court last month disposed of a suo motu public interest petition it had initiated in 2019 to address the alarming rise in child rape cases across the country -- only for another bench to revive a key unresolved aspect of the same matter barely a week later, providing a telling commentary on institutional memory and follow-through. When it resurfaced in March 2021 under a new bench, the compensation issue, which was once central to the court's intervention, never came up again. (HT Photo) The petition, registered as 'In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents', was formally closed on May 15 by a bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi, as one of her last orders before retiring. Justice Trivedi retired on June 9 but her last working day was May 16, owing to an overseas trip But on May 23, another bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna admitted a new writ petition that brought back to centre stage a long-forgotten issue in the same case -- the framing and implementation of a dedicated compensation, rehabilitation, welfare and education scheme for Pocso (protection of children from sexual offences) victims. The near-immediate revival of the compensation issue, which was left unattended despite explicit directions by the top court five years ago, lays bare a systemic lapse -- a PIL that lasted six years was wrapped up without taking one of its most vital components to its logical conclusion. The 2019 suo motu proceedings were triggered by intense public concern and media reporting on rising incidents of sexual violence against children. On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court took cognisance and registered the case to formulate urgent judicial directions. By July 25, the court had appointed senior advocate V Giri as amicus curiae and directed the creation of exclusive Pocso courts across India to address delays in trials. Giri was assisted by advocate Uttar Babbar (now designated as a senior counsel). On December 16, 2019, noting an 'extremely high' pendency of Pocso cases in some states, the court issued state-specific directions. The bench, then headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, also expressed its intention to formulate a national compensation scheme for Pocso victims -- a task deemed necessary for their psychological and financial recovery. In March 2020, the court went a step further and summoned a joint secretary from the Ministry of Women and Child Development to assist in designing the scheme. 'On the next date of hearing, we shall consider the issue of framing a national scheme for payment of compensation to victims of offences under the Pocso Act,' the order read. But that next date took more than a year to arrive. Following Justice Gupta's retirement in May 2020, the matter fell into procedural limbo. When it resurfaced in March 2021 under a new bench, the compensation issue, which was once central to the court's intervention, never came up again. Over 15 hearings took place between March 2021 and May 2025, but not one order addressed the proposed scheme. Instead, the focus narrowed to timelines for investigation and trial under the Pocso Act. By the time Justice Trivedi's bench finally decided to close the matter on May 15, 2025, the compensation issue had effectively vanished from judicial radar. 'Since the timelines have been stipulated under the Pocso Act... the same must be adhered to as far as possible,' the May 15 order recorded, urging Union and state governments to create more exclusive Pocso courts and sensitise investigating officials. 'Subject to the above, the suo moto proceedings are hereby closed.' On May 23, just eight days after the disposal, the Supreme Court admitted a fresh writ petition filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance, that pointedly noted the unfinished business of the 2019 case. Senior counsel Pragyan Pradip Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that while the Registry of the Supreme Court had indeed drafted a 'Scheme for Compensation, Rehabilitation, Welfare and Education of POCSO Victims, 2019' pursuant to earlier orders, the scheme was neither discussed nor adopted by the Union government or the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The new petition now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Union government and NALSA to formally notify and implement a compensation framework tailored to the needs of child victims of sexual abuse. It also seeks immediate disbursement of compensation to individual victims already identified, as well as uniform implementation of the existing NALSA 2018 scheme in the interim. Justice Nagarathna's bench has issued notice to the Union of India, NALSA and the Ministry of Women and Child Development, with the case now slated for further hearing on August 18, 2025. The swift succession of the two orders, one closing the book and the other reopening a forgotten chapter, highlights the ironies and inefficiencies that can sometimes plague long-drawn PILs in the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, the revival of the issue by a new bench not only re-emphasises its importance but also underscores the need for institutional continuity in PIL monitoring, especially in cases driven by the court's own conscience (suo motu).
News18
26-05-2025
- Business
- News18
JSW Steel-Bhushan Power & Steel Case: What's The Issue And Why It Matters?
Last Updated: The Supreme Court orders a status quo on the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, halting NCLT proceedings, thus providing relief to JSW Steel. In a major development that impacts India's corporate and insolvency landscape, the Supreme Court on May 26, 2025, ordered a status quo on the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL), halting all further proceedings in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). This case, involving JSW Steel, one of India's leading steelmakers, has been under the spotlight due to its size, legal complexity, and implications for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Here's is everything what this case is about and why it's important: What Is the JSW Steel-Bhushan Power Case? Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, a major player in India's steel sector, defaulted on large bank loans. In 2017, Punjab National Bank initiated insolvency proceedings under the IBC. JSW Steel, one of India's leading steel companies, submitted a Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan in 2019, which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). JSW Steel completed the acquisition in March 2021 and began operating BPSL. What Did the Supreme Court Say on May 2? Four years after the acquisition, the Supreme Court on May 2, 2025, had scrapped JSW Steel's acquisition of BPSL, on the grounds that the resolution plan violated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This become a major issue within the industry as it indicated uncertainty in the IBC system despite after years of acquisition. A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled JSW Steel's resolution plan illegal and a 'flagrant violation" of the IBC, criticising the Resolution Professional, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the NCLT. The apex court directed the NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings while ensuring refunds of payments made to financial and operational creditors, along with JSW's equity contributions, within two months. What Happened on May 26? A separate Supreme Court bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on May 26 ordered a status quo on all liquidation proceedings, following a petition by JSW Steel, thus giving respite to JSW Steel that faced uncertainty after the previous SC order. JSW argued it still has time till June 2 to file a review petition. It informed the Supreme Court that it was considering filing a review under Article 137 and requested a pause on any NCLT move to start liquidation until all legal remedies were exhausted. JSW contended that the erstwhile promoters acted in haste and lacked locus standi. The Court agreed that no irreversible steps should be taken during the review period. Why It Matters? The case is one of the landmark cases in the IBC proceedings. This case has become a major issue within the industry as it indicated uncertainty in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), even years after a resolution plan has been fully implemented. JSW Steel had acquired Bhushan Power & Steel following all necessary approvals, yet the Supreme Court's decision on May 2 to reject the resolution plan and order liquidation shook industry confidence. It raised concerns about the finality and enforceability of approved resolution plans, potentially discouraging future bidders and investors from participating in distressed asset deals under the IBC framework. However, the latest May 26 Supreme Court judgment to maintain the status quo has boosted industry confidence. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN News18. Stay updated with all the latest business news, including market trends, stock updates, tax, IPO, banking finance, real estate, savings and investments. Get in-depth analysis, expert opinions, and real-time updates—only on News18. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: May 26, 2025, 17:35 IST
Business Standard
26-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
JSW Steel gains on buzz of SC relief on BPSL resolution
JSW Steel climbed 2.13% to Rs 1,030 after the Supreme Court reportedly allowed it to file a review petition against the scrapping of its Rs 19,300 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL). According to the media reports, the court also put BPSL's liquidation on hold, giving JSW temporary breathing room. The earlier May 2 verdict had cancelled JSWs resolution plan citing delays under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), even though JSW had already taken over BPSLs operations and invested heavily. Now, the apex court has reportedly instructed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to pause proceedings until it rules on the review plea, which JSW must file within 30 days. BPSL is a key asset for JSW, with its Odisha plant contributing 4.5 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to JSW's total domestic capacity of 34.2 MTPA. JSW has also served demand notices to banks, seeking refunds on payments made under the now-invalidated deal. BPSL was one of the 12 major loan defaulters flagged by the RBI in 2017, with total dues exceeding Rs 47,200 crore. By the time insolvency proceedings began, it owed over Rs 45,000 crore. In 2019, JSW Steel acquired the company for Rs 19,700 crore after the NCLT approved its resolution plan. However, the Supreme Court later struck down the resolution plan, calling it illegal and a violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A bench led by Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma slammed the conduct of key stakeholders, citing a "flagrant violation" of the IBC, and ordered BPSL's liquidation. Despite legal hurdles, mainly from ex-BPSL promoter Sanjay Singhal, JSW went ahead with the acquisition and revived the plant. With the review petition now allowed, the company may still reclaim the asset or at least recover its investment. JSW Steel, the flagship business of the diversified JSW Group, is India's leading integrated steel company. On a consolidated basis, net profit of JSW Steel rose 15.70% to Rs 1503 crore while gross sales declined 2.86% to Rs 44341 crore in Q4 March 2025 over Q4 March 2024.
