sadalawpublications.com

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC

Trending Today Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC CCPA Finds Drishti IAS Misrepresented Success Stories of Candidates Advocate Rakesh Kishore Attempts Shoe Throw at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai in Supreme Court Why the Delhi High Court Is the Preferred Forum for Protecting Celebrity Personality Rights Plea Filed in Bombay High Court Challenging SEBI’s Approval for WeWork India’s IPO Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Tribunals’ Power to Direct Share Transfers in Joint Ventures Kerala HC Judge Questions Division Bench Interference; Refers Issue to Larger Bench Vedanta Moves Delhi High Court Over Denial of Cambay Basin Block Extension Sahara Seeks Supreme Court Nod for Property Sale to Adani; Requests Protection from Authorities India and Canada Diplomatic Row Escalates Over Alleged Involvement in Sikh Leader’s Killing Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA Sep 29, 2025 Introduction The case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (PVVNL) vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. raised crucial questions on the treatment of electricity dues in the insolvency and liquidation framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The dispute centered on whether PVVNL’s electricity dues could override the waterfall mechanism prescribed under Section 53 of the IBC or be treated as government dues. Background PVVNL supplied electricity to Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. under a 2010 agreement. The debtor defaulted on electricity payments, leading PVVNL to attach its assets in 2016. Raman Ispat entered insolvency proceedings, which eventually led to liquidation. The liquidator sought release of the attached property to sell it and distribute proceeds as per IBC. NCLT and NCLAT ruled against PVVNL, treating it as an operational creditor. PVVNL appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking priority treatment for its dues under the Electricity Act, 2003 and UP Supply Code, 2005. Key Developments PVVNL argued its dues were “secured” and had priority over other claims. The NCLT and NCLAT held that PVVNL was merely an operational creditor under IBC. Supreme Court examined whether electricity dues could be treated as government obligations or override the IBC waterfall. Issues Can PVVNL’s dues be treated as “secured” under IBC? Do the Electricity Act, 2003 and UP Supply Code, 2005 override Section 53 of IBC? Should PVVNL’s dues be treated as government dues with lower priority? Current Status (Judgment) PVVNL as Secured Operational Creditor: Due to the charge created under the 2005 UP Supply Code and contract, PVVNL was recognized as a secured operational creditor. Not Government Dues: PVVNL, though government-owned, is a corporate entity. Its dues are not government obligations under Section 53(1)(e). IBC Prevails: Section 238 of IBC overrides provisions of the Electricity Act. The waterfall mechanism under Section 53 is binding. Options for Secured Creditors: PVVNL can either (a) relinquish security and claim priority under Section 53(1)(b), or (b) enforce security outside liquidation, with leftover dues ranking lower. Rainbow Papers Distinguished: Court clarified Rainbow Papers applied to statutory government dues (VAT), not to dues of state-owned companies like PVVNL. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of IBC over conflicting laws. PVVNL was recognized as a secured operational creditor but not a government creditor. The ruling ensures: Clear distinction between government dues and dues of government-owned companies. Consistency in applying the IBC waterfall mechanism. Predictability and fairness in asset distribution during liquidation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Anbazhagan v. State (2023): Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC Sadalaw • October 8, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Determination of Control over Administrative Services between the Elected Delhi Government and the Union Government under Article 239AA Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Sada Law • September 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Defines Status of Electricity Dues in Corporate Liquidation under IBC Read More »

Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition

Trending Today Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Kerala High Court Seeks State’s Reply on ED Officer’s Bail in ₹2 Crore Bribery Case Bombay High Court Halts Mumbai Airport’s Bid to Replace Turkish Ground Handler Celebi Amid Security Clearance Dispute Supreme Court Allows Prosecution to Submit Omitted Evidence After Chargesheet Under Certain Conditions Supreme Court Upholds ‘One-State-One-Unit’ Policy, Dismisses Vidarbha Hockey Association’s Membership Plea Karnataka to Challenge Rs 3,011 Crore TDR Compensation to Mysuru Royal Family in Supreme Court Can Lokayukta Challenge Administrative Tribunal Rulings? Supreme Court Leaves Legal Question Open JOB OPPORTUNITY AT COGNYTE, GURUGRAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ADV CHAND CHOPRA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Prabhat Kumar biltoria 27 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has directed the maintenance of status quo on the liquidation proceedings of Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd (BPSL), giving JSW Steel an opportunity to submit a review petition. This development comes after JSW Steel’s resolution plan for BPSL was rejected by the Supreme Court on May 2, 2025. Supreme Court’s Order on Bhushan Steel Liquidation A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Sharma issued the order, emphasizing fairness and justice. The court noted that advancing the liquidation process before JSW Steel files a review petition could jeopardize their legal rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court halted the liquidation proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), allowing JSW Steel time to challenge the earlier ruling. JSW Steel’s Legal Position and Timeline Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing JSW Steel, highlighted that the NCLT had initiated the appointment of a liquidator even before the deadline for submitting JSW’s review petition, set for June 2, 2025. Kaul stressed that the case is complex and requires careful examination since the resolution plan was proposed four years ago and the company remains profitable. The NCLT is scheduled to hear the matter shortly, with the Supreme Court’s status quo order aimed at preventing further complications if a liquidator is appointed prematurely. Insights from the Solicitor General and Other Legal Representatives Indian Solicitor General Tushar Mehta proposed postponing proceedings until June 10, 2025, to accommodate the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and all parties involved. Justice Nagarathna noted that review petitions typically aren’t considered during judicial vacations, underlining procedural challenges. Mehta also criticized past financial irregularities tied to the case, pointing to complications involving foreign banks and prior fund misappropriations. Meanwhile, Sanjay Singhal, former promoter of BPSL, faced scrutiny over alleged malpractices, with his legal team opposing JSW Steel’s petition. Supreme Court’s Clarification on Review Petition and Status Quo Justice Nagarathna clarified that the court’s status quo order does not comment on the merits of the case but solely serves justice and procedural fairness. JSW Steel committed to filing its review petition within the stipulated legal timeframe. The Supreme Court emphasized maintaining the current state of liquidation proceedings before the NCLT to avoid further legal conflicts. Background: JSW Steel’s Rejected Resolution Plan JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for BPSL was rejected by the Supreme Court for violating Sections 30(2) and 31(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) acted unlawfully by approving the plan. Following this, the Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Steel under Section 33 of the IBC. Sanjay Singhal petitioned the Delhi NCLT to implement the liquidation, urging the tribunal to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision fully. Conclusion: What’s Next for Bhushan Steel and JSW Steel? The Supreme Court’s order to maintain status quo temporarily halts Bhushan Steel’s liquidation, offering JSW Steel a vital window to submit a review petition. This ongoing legal battle highlights significant aspects of India’s insolvency process and the enforcement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for stakeholders, creditors, and the Indian steel industry. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Halts BPSL Liquidation to Allow JSW Steel Review Petition Read More »

NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute

Trending Today NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute Actor Hansika Motwani files a motion in the Bombay High Court to quash a FIR after being booked in a Section 498A case. Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Union Minister Kiren Rijiju: The Waqf Amendment Bill Is Prospective Rather Than Retrospective Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute NITU KUMARI 04 Apr 2025 Update: 03 Apr 2025 Summary The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed a petition seeking to initiate insolvency proceedings against food delivery giant Zomato for alleged non-payment of dues. The plea, filed by B2B apparel manufacturer Nona Lifestyle, was rejected on grounds of being “not maintainable.” A lawsuit seeking corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Zomato for alleged non-payment of dues was dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Thursday. Context of the Conflict For Zomato’s workers and delivery partners, Nona Lifestyle provided uniforms and merchandise, including ICC World Cup 2023 jerseys. Zomato allegedly pushed Nona for lower prices, refused to accept delivery, and delayed payments even though it completed a portion of the contract, according to the business. In order to provide uniforms for its workers and delivery partners, as well as items for the ICC World Cup 2023, Nona Lifestyle had partnered with Zomato. During the World Cup, the business had a campaign prepared. The Respective Parties’ Arguments According to the petition, during 2023, Zomato placed many orders for a variety of clothing goods, such as World Cup jerseys, rider t-shirts, and pants. Nona Lifestyle asserted that by producing and partially delivering the ordered goods, it had fulfilled its duties. Nonetheless, the business claimed that Zomato routinely missed payments and neglected to deliver a sizable amount of the ordered goods. Nona claims that Zomato used “threats and warnings” to pressure Nona Lifestyle into providing discounted prices, frequently postponed payments, and returned goods due to a shortage of storage space. Zomato allegedly declined to take delivery of the remaining World Cup jerseys, according to Nona Lifestyle, who also claimed that the campaign had failed since the clothing was custom-made and hence useless for other uses. Zomato refuted these allegations, arguing that Nona Lifestyle had repeatedly missed delivery deadlines and that penalties had been imposed in accordance with their contract. Zomato claims that Nona Lifestyle’s unilateral alteration of delivery timetables was the reason the campaign failed. Zomato stated that these delays caused “substantial reputational and goodwill damage” to our company. In November 2024, the insolvency plea was dropped for non-prosecution, even though it was scheduled for hearing in October 2024. A petition to restore the insolvency plea was then submitted. Advocate Tanu Singhal, who represented Nona Lifestyle at the hearing of the restoration petition today, informed the NCLT that she was unable to attend because of a mix-up. Singhal countered that a request could not be rejected on such extremely technical grounds because this was a technical one. The NCLT’s Ruling Before submitting the plea, Nona Lifestyle neglected to provide the required legal notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri dismissed the petition filed by B2B apparel manufacturer Nona Lifestyle seeking restoration of the insolvency plea filed by it last year. “Having heard the petitioner on two different dates, we satisfied ourselves regarding the maintainability of the plea. Since we are satisfied that the petition itself is not maintainable we are not inclined to entertain the IA,” the NCLT held. The case had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution, but the NCLT refused to restore it because the petition did not comply with procedural criteria. Nona’s attorney referred to the objection as a “hyper-technical” issue, while Zomato’s legal team contended that the petition was unlawful because it lacked adequate notice. Nonetheless, the tribunal dismissed the plea because it upheld the legal requirement to follow due process. This decision emphasizes how crucial it is to follow the IBC’s procedural requirements when starting insolvency proceedings. The Bench however noted that “a perusal of the precedents and law revealed that an operational creditor must issue notice in a prescribed manner to the corporate debtor. It is clear that the notice shall be in a prescribed format. In the absence of a notice in a prescribed format.” Thus, it ruled that in the absence of a notice in a prescribed manner, the plea is not maintainable. The NCLT noted that since the CIRP plea is itself not maintainable, they are not inclined to entertain a petition to restore it. Thus, the tribunal dismissed the plea. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Actor Hansika Motwani files a motion in the Bombay High Court to quash a FIR after being booked in a Section 498A case. Actor Hansika Motwani files a motion in the Bombay High Court to quash a FIR after being booked in a Section 498A case. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for “making mockery” of anti-defection law sadalawpublications@gmail.com •

NCLT Rejects Insolvency Plea Against Zomato Over Payment Dispute Read More »