The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the status quo on the liquidation proceedings of Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BPSL) before the National Company Law Tribunal.
A bench of Justice BV Nagrathana and Satish Chandra Sharma said that the liquidation review of BPSL could endanger the petition, which was to be filed by JSW Steel Limited.
“Without expressing any opinion at this stage, we are of the idea that it will be in the interest of justice if the status quo is maintained on the pending proceedings in NCLT.
The bench said, “We also record to submit a senior advocate to the appellant that the review petition will be filed before the end of the limit period and according to the law.”
During the hearing, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for JSW, said that the NCLT review was proceeded to appoint a liquidator ahead of time to file a petition.
“If a liquidator is appointed, we will be in great difficulty. It is a profitable company and the resolution plan was given four years ago,” Kaul said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appointed for the creditors’ committee, suggested that the matter be postponed by June 10.
He said, “I am not protesting. NCLT will have to listen to the matter. The question is on which date. Please ask them to take the matter on 10 June. Everyone’s interests are taken care of,” he said.
When the bench reported that review petitions are generally not listed during the summer holidays, Mehta told the court that the COC would have to return the money.
“This was a resolution plan that was implemented five years ago. We have taken money. Now, to reversed everything … they have taken money from other banks.
Mehta said, “Some of them are foreign banks. It will be difficult for them to deal with foreign banks. So some kind of detection will have to be found.”
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, who was present for former promoter Sanjay Singhal, argued that JSW’s petition filed against the order of NCLT was not eligible.
The apex court passed the order after hearing a petition filed by JSW Steel Limited, demanding that BPSL’s liquidity be kept in an absence.
JSW transferred to the apex court to prevent the liquidation of BPSL, stating that it would be harmful to the company, lenders and employees.
The petition follows the top court’s May 2 order to refund the payment of BPSL and JSW, prescribed to hear a petition to initiate liquidation proceedings with NCLT.
On 2 May, the apex court separated a proposal plan submitted by JSW Steel Limited for BSPL, illegally and in violation of bankruptcy and bankruptcy codes (IBC) and ordered the liquidation of BSPL under IBC.
This had criticized the conduct of all major stakeholders in the resolution process – Sankalp Professional, Committee of Creditors (COCs) and National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – to enable that it calls the IBC “flagged violation”.
The Apex court criticized several stakeholders, including successful resolution applicants (SRA) JSW Steel Limited, which are for procedural laps and failure to maintain the objectives of IBC.
After investigating the entire case completely factually and legally, we reach the following conclusions: Sankalp Professional failed to discharge his legal duties under IBC and CIRP regulations, which failed to discharge their statutory duties, which were said during the entire CIR proceedings of the Corporate Report, BPSL.
The court admitted that the COC failed to use its commercial knowledge, approving JSW’s resolution plan, which was in full violation of the compulsory provisions of IBC and CIRP rules.
The verdict declared the NCLT orders of September 5, 2019 and the NCLAT decision of 17 February 2022 as “deformed” and lack of jurisdiction, and as a result, separated those people.
The bench rejected JSW’s resolution plan, as approved by COC, for non-transportation with IBCs.
The NCLT was later directed to initiate liquidation proceedings against BSPL under Section 33 (1) of IBC, using the powers of the court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The apex court said that the COC should not have accepted the Sankalp Yojana.
In the practice of powers under Section 33 (1) of IBC and Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench directed NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against corporate debtor BPCL.
The verdict declared the NCLT orders of September 5, 2019 and the NCLAT decision of 17 February 2022 as “deformed” and lack of jurisdiction, and as a result, separated those people.
The bench rejected JSW’s resolution plan, as approved by COC, for non-transportation with IBCs.
The NCLT was later directed to initiate liquidation proceedings against BSPL under Section 33 (1) of IBC, using the powers of the court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The apex court said that the COC should not have accepted the Sankalp Yojana.
In the practice of powers under Section 33 (1) of IBC and Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench directed NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against corporate debtor BPCL.
