Today, On 21st July, The ex-promoters of BSPL have approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its verdict ordering the company’s liquidation. They urged the court to grant an open court hearing on their review petition challenging the decision.
New Delhi: The former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd (BSPL) requested the Supreme Court on Monday to grant an open court hearing for their plea to review the May 2 ruling that ordered the liquidation of BSPL under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The Supreme Court had previously cancelled the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel, deeming it illegal and in violation of the IBC.
A bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi (who has since retired) and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ordered the liquidation of BSPL under the IBC.
Also Read: Supreme Court Scraps JSW Steel’s Rs 19,700 Cr Deal, Orders Bhushan Power Liquidation
The former promoters include Sanjay Singhal and his family, notably his father Brij Bhushan Singal and brother Neeraj Singal.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the former promoters, On Monday, urged a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran to consider the review plea for an open court hearing.
Singh argued that the tribunal had set the company’s liquidation asset values too low and that the remaining liabilities would fall on the former promoters.
The Chief Justice responded,
“Let me constitute a bench,”
Typically, review petitions against Supreme Court judgments are handled in chambers by the judges through circulation.
In its earlier verdict, the Supreme Court criticized the actions of all key stakeholders involved in the resolution process, including the resolution professional, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), labeling it a “flagrant violation” of the IBC.
Justice Trivedi, in his remarks, pointed out procedural failures and lapses by multiple stakeholders, including the successful resolution applicant, JSW Steel Limited, for not adhering to the objectives of the IBC.
The verdict stated,
“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 bench determined that the CoC did not exercise its commercial judgment appropriately when it approved JSW’s resolution plan, which was in direct violation of the mandatory provisions of the IBC and CIRP regulations.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
