Latest news with #InsolvencyandBankruptcyCode
Hans India
12 hours ago
- Business
- Hans India
Court orders restoration of assets worth Rs 952 crore in IL&FS case
Mumbai: In a major development in the IL&FS money laundering case, the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Mumbai has ordered the restoration of immovable assets worth Rs 952 crore to Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. The order, dated June 25, follows a no-objection submission by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), allowing the company to proceed with the implementation of its resolution plan for Vadraj Cement Ltd, the ED said in a statement on Saturday. The ED had earlier attached Vadraj Cement's Surat-based plant in January 2020, after investigations revealed that the company, formerly ABG Cement Ltd, had fraudulently obtained loans worth Rs 952 crore from IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. These loans were later classified as non-performing assets. The attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority in August 2021, and a prosecution complaint was filed seeking confiscation. Nuvoco Vistas, a subsidiary of the Nirma Group, had emerged as the successful resolution applicant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Its resolution plan, approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on April 1, 2025, involves a payment of Rs 1,706 crore to financial creditors in exchange for acquiring Vadraj Cement. The company subsequently filed an application before the Special Court seeking restoration of the attached property to facilitate the resolution plan's execution. Taking into account the objective of the PMLA to restore proceeds of crime to legitimate claimants, the ED submitted that it had no objection to the release of the attached assets, it said. The court, satisfied with the submission, directed the restoration of the property under Sections 8(7) and 8(8) of the PMLA, read with Rule 3A of the PML (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. The court also instructed Nuvoco Vistas to provide an undertaking to return or restore the property or its value if required in the future. The ED has been asked to prepare a detailed inventory before handing over possession, the statement said. This decision is seen as a significant step in enabling financial institutions to recover dues and in ensuring that productive assets are returned to legitimate stakeholders through lawful means.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
14 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Bhushan Steel's former resolution professional files review petition in SC
The former resolution professional (RP) for debt-laden Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL), Mahender Khandelwal, has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court (SC), which had earlier rejected the resolution plan of JSW Steel and ordered liquidation. Khandelwal filed the petition on Friday, arguing that the apex court had overlooked certain critical documents and procedural compliances and committed certain 'errors apparent' while recording the judgment. On the matter of verifying the eligibility of the successful resolution applicant (in this case JSW Steel) under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Khandelwal has claimed that a thorough and independent verification was conducted. A leading third-party consultancy firm was appointed to assess JSW Steel's eligibility, and the findings were shared with the committee of creditors (CoC) of BPSL, with no objections raised. On 2 May, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, pointing to 'an entire spectrum of lacunas and flaws' in the resolution plan of JSW Steel regarding non-compliance with mandatory requirements under the IBC. The verdict came four years after JSW Steel had acquired BPSL under the IBC. The apex court criticised both the RP and the CoC. It held that the RP had failed to discharge his statutory duties under the IBC and the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) regulations. The CoC, it said, had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom and approved a resolution plan that contravened mandatory IBC provisions. Lenders including the State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank have already filed review petitions before the Supreme Court. On 25 June, JSW Steel, too, filed a review petition. In his plea, Khandelwal contended that the joint shareholding of BPSL and JSW Steel in a joint venture entity had been disclosed in the resolution plan and formed part of the record before the Supreme Court. He also submitted that the required compliance certificate (Form H) was filed along with the application seeking approval of the resolution plan before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), and was part of the court record. Khandelwal further stated that an appropriate application had been made for the extension of the CIRP period beyond 180 days, and the relief was granted by the NCLT. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), he noted, had directed the exclusion of the time spent on litigation from the computation of the 270-day CIRP period. Therefore, the resolution plan approval application filed by the RP was submitted before the expiry of the 270-day CIRP period, Khandelwal said. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the review petition once it resumes after the summer recess on 14 July. JSW Steel is also expected to cite what it claims are factual errors in the original order in its review petition.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Bhushan Power liquidation will hurt all stakeholders, JSW Steel and lenders tell SC
New Delhi: JSW Steel has transformed Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) into a viable and going concern after acquiring it out of bankruptcy in 2021, and its liquidation would have adverse ramifications on all stakeholders, the Sajjan Jindal-led steelmaker and BPSL's lenders told the Supreme Court . They also sought an "open court" hearing of their petitions seeking a review of the top court's May 2 order scrapping JSW's acquisition of BPSL under the bankruptcy law. While JSW filed the review petition on Wednesday, the lenders that include Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India approached the top court with their plea last week. JSW said it transformed the bankrupt firm's financial health and that its operational capacity has almost doubled to 4.5 million tonnes per annum now from 2.3 MTPA in 2017. BPSL's sales have since increased almost three times to ₹25,973 crore in the last fiscal year ended March 31 and exports have resumed with an annual average of ₹2,976 crore in the last four years, the company said in the review petition. BPSL contributed ₹16,900 crore in taxes to the exchequer since 2021, the petition stated. Also, JSW Steel , which acquired BPSL under a ₹19,350-crore resolution plan, has made a capital investment of ₹5,788 crore in it. In its order on May 2, the top court had termed JSW's resolution plan for BPSL 'illegal' and 'in gross violation' of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court had also directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to initiate liquidation proceedings against BPSL. The SC later ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings, after JSW Steel and the lenders said they would file review petitions. About the allegation in the May verdict that JSW suppressed existence of a joint venture agreement with BSPL on the Rohne Coal block, the company's review petition said it had made due disclosures about it in the resolution plan and even the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had noted them. 'When the ED (Enforcement Directorate) first raised the issue before NCLAT to clarify the relationship further, the petitioner (JSW) voluntarily submitted the JV agreement before NCLAT, despite there being no requirement to do so under law, to explain the background of formation of the JV,' the review petition filed through Karanjawala & Company said. Supporting JSW's claims, the lenders said the resolution plan was successfully implemented by March 2021 and that the company had made an upfront payment of ₹19,350 crore. The banks in their review plea said the May 2 judgement suffered from 'patent errors' on the face of the record. '…the impugned judgment's observations with respect to the JSW's eligibility under Section 29A being doubtful, not being properly verified by inter alia the CoC (committee of creditors) or not being supported by documents on record constitute an error apparent on the face of the record,' the lenders said, adding that the issue was not argued before the SC and hence, the observations in relation that were in violation of the principles of natural justice. Section 29A of the IBC details conditions under which some individuals and entities are disqualified from submitting a resolution plan. With regard to the SC finding that equity infusion of ₹8,550 crore as mandated by the resolution plan was not complied with and there was no material on record to substantiate that, the banks submitted that this 'conclusion has been reached without adequately considering that there is in fact documentary evidence, particularly minutes of meeting of the reconstituted board on March 26, 2021, to substantiate infusion of ₹8,550 crore equity.' The May judgement failed to consider the factors that contributed to the delay in equity infusion, according to the banks' review plea filed through law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. The petition also noted that the ED order for provisionally attaching BPSL assets had been issued on October 10, 2019, about 35 days after the NCLT approved the dent resolution plan on September 5 that year. 'The attachment by the ED was effectively released approximately five years later' on December 11, last year, the banks said in the petition. The lenders told the SC that the May 2 judgement will likely have significant ramifications on future resolution plans because it might create uncertainty with respect to their implementation. Also, implementation of plans may effectively come to a standstill pending final adjudication of all legal challenges to the plan, which can take several years, they said. BSPL owed more than ₹47,000 crore to lenders when the Reserve Bank of India put it on a list of companies for bankruptcy resolution in 2017. The NCLT began the resolution process in July that year, based on a petition filed by lead lender Punjab National Bank , which also initiated criminal proceedings in 2019 against former directors of the company after unearthing a ₹3,800 crore alleged fraud. JSW Steel acquired BPSL in March 2021 after its proposal was approved by the CoC and the NCLAT. The NCLT had approved JSW Steel's offer in 2019, while holding that the successful bidder could not be held responsible for any alleged misdeeds of the previous promoters at any stage. The NCLAT upheld that decision in February 2020.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
JAL promoters file petition in SC over land cancellation in Noida
Noida: Jai Prakash Associates Ltd 's (JAL) promoters have filed a special leave petition (SLP) in Supreme Court, challenging the Allahabad high court's decision that upheld the cancellation of the group's Sports City land along the Yamuna Expressway by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). However, the court refused to grant any interim stay or relief on the plea filed on June 7. Instead, it issued notice and directed the current SLP be tagged with the already pending related case. The petitioners had requested the court to maintain the status quo on the land. YEIDA had argued there was no justification for granting relief to the promoters at this stage citing two other SLPs where "no stay or status quo was granted". You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida This development marks yet another legal twist in the protracted battle over the 1,000-hectare Sports City land, originally allotted to JAL for developing a mixed-use project with sports infrastructure, including the Buddh International Circuit. The land was cancelled by YEIDA in Feb 2020, citing non-payment of dues and violation of lease conditions. This led to multiple rounds of litigation. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for July 29. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The SLP — filed by Sunil Kumar Sharma and another suspended promoter in their personal capacity as guarantors to JAL's debt — came up for hearing on Monday before a bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. The counsel, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the resumption of the land by the Yamuna Authority following the cancellation order substantially increased their liabilities as guarantors under the insolvency process. They argued the 1,000-hectare land parcel in question — part of the Sports City project — is a key asset for JAL's financial recovery and revival under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, the legal team representing YEIDA objected to any interim relief. It submitted that two other SLPs — one filed by JAL through its insolvency resolution professional (IRP) and another by the committee of creditors (CoC) — were already heard by the court and no stay or status quo was granted. In March, Allahabad high court upheld YEIDA's cancellation order and directed the Authority to take over the land and complete the incomplete group housing projects. launched by JAL over a decade ago.
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
JSW Steel seeks 'open hearing' in BPSL liquidation review plea
New Delhi: JSW Steel has transformed Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) into a viable and going concern after acquiring it out of bankruptcy in 2021, and its liquidation would have adverse ramifications on all stakeholders, the Sajjan Jindal-led steelmaker and BPSL's lenders told the Supreme Court. They also sought an 'open court' hearing of their petitions seeking a review of the top court's May 2 order scrapping JSW's acquisition of BPSL under the bankruptcy law. While JSW filed the review petition on Wednesday, the lenders that include Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India approached the top court with their plea last week. JSW said it transformed the bankrupt firm's financial health and that its operational capacity has almost doubled to 4.5 million tonnes per annum now from 2.3 MTPA in 2017. BPSL's sales have since increased almost three times to ₹25,973 crore in the last fiscal year ended March 31 and exports have resumed with an annual average of ₹2,976 crore in the last four years, the company said in the review contributed ₹16,900 crore in taxes to the exchequer since 2021, the petition stated. Also, JSW Steel, which acquired BPSL under a ₹19,350-crore resolution plan, has made a capital investment of ₹5,788 crore in it. In its order on May 2, the top court had termed JSW's resolution plan for BPSL "illegal" and "in gross violation" of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court had also directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to initiate liquidation proceedings against BPSL. The SC later ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings, after JSW Steel and the lenders said they would file review petitions. About the allegation in the May verdict that JSW suppressed existence of a joint venture agreement with BSPL on the Rohne Coal block, the company's review petition said it had made due disclosures about it in the resolution plan and even the NCLAT had noted them. Supporting JSW's claims, the lenders said the resolution plan was successfully implemented by March 2021 and that the company had made an upfront payment of ₹19,350 banks in their review plea said the May 2 judgement suffered from "patent errors" on the face of the record. "...the impugned judgment's observations with respect to the JSW's eligibility under Section 29A being doubtful, not being properly verified by inter alia the CoC (committee of creditors) or not being supported by documents on record constitute an error apparent on the face of the record," the lenders said.
