sadalawpublications.com

Tushar Mehta

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 »

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others

Trending Today PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Supreme Court Petition Challenges SEBI Inquiry on Adani, Demands SIT Formation Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court The Supreme Court declines to step in to stop the implementation of the Haj Policy 2025. On May 8, the Supreme Court will consider arguments about the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. The issue of recovering money from an HC judge’s home is discussed by the Rajya Sabha. Delhi judge Yashwant Varma transferred amid cash row, Allahabad court says we are not trash bin: Senior Advocate Can’t Appear In Supreme Court Without An AOR; Non-AORs Can Argue Only If Instructed By An AOR : Supreme Court Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others MAHI SINHA 25 Mar 2025 Updated: 23th march,2025 Thirteen of the sixty-three Bangladeshi nationals held in the Matia transit camp in Assam have been deported, the Supreme Court was notified on Friday, March 21. The statement was taken from Assam’s affidavit in a case involving the detention and deportation of foreigners in Assam by a bench consisting of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. It is pointed out that on the basis of document at Annexure ‘B’ that out of the list which is referred in our order dated February 4, 2025, 13 Bangladeshi Nationals have been deported to Bangladesh”, the Court recorded in its order. Regarding 63 people in the transit camps whose nationality was verified, the Court had questioned the inaction on February 4, 2025. The Bangladeshi High Commission is now working on the verification procedure for the remaining detainees, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court on Friday. Nationality status verification (NSV) papers were typically given to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on February 14, 2025, with reminders sent on that same day, according to a chart included in an affidavit submitted by the Assam government. Annexed to the affidavit was a handing over and taking over letter that verified the deportation of 13 Bangladeshi citizens. By April 30, 2025, the Assam government was ordered by the court to provide a new affidavit outlining the NSVs’ current status and any upcoming deportations. On May 6, 2025, the case will be heard again. The fate of those whose nationality is still unknown is another important matter before the Court. The panel had previously ordered the Union of India to provide an explanation of its strategies for handling individuals whose nationalities are unclear but who have been proclaimed foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals. The Court gave the center until the end of April 2025 to respond, and on May 6, 2025, it will also be taken into consideration. BACKGROUND For neglecting to start the deportation procedure for people whose nationalities were known, the Assam government was chastised by the Court on February 4, 2025. The state might deport such people to the capital city of the respective country, Justice Oka said, expressing unhappiness with the state’s assertion that the inmates’ foreign addresses were unavailable. He highlighted that indefinite confinement without further action was inappropriate and chastised the state for its negligence. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat brought up the fact that deportations were halted because officials just concluded that people were not Indian nationals without verifying their true nationality throughout the hearing. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves went on to say that Bangladesh was illegally detaining and effectively stateless some people by refusing to recognize them as its nationals. According to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, there were two types of people: those whose nationality was known and those whose identity was yet unknown. Although the Court pointed out that deporting people in the first category was not difficult, it ordered the Union to make clear how it would handle the second category. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. PMLA | Supreme Court: The person who is accused in the complaint does not have to be named in order to keep the property that has been seized. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Notice on Habeas Corpus Plea for Arrested Farmer Leader Jagjit Singh Dhallewal sadalawpublications@gmail.com • March 24, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Assam Government Notifies Supreme Court of Deportation of 13 Bangladeshi Nationals; Verification Continues for Others Read More »