Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeCompany & PMLASupreme Court Rejects JSW Steel's Resolution Plan for Bhushan Power & Steel,...

Supreme Court Rejects JSW Steel’s Resolution Plan for Bhushan Power & Steel, Orders Liquidation

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a major setback for JSW Steel, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected its resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), ordering the liquidation of the debt-ridden steelmaker. The apex court found the resolution plan to be illegal and unfit for approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.

A Bench led by Justice Bela M. Trivedi strongly criticised the conduct of JSW Steel, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the Resolution Professional (RP), stating that they collectively attempted to “sweep many seminal issues under the carpet” in a bid to cover up serious violations of the Code during both the pre-approval and post-approval stages of the resolution process.

The court held that JSW Steel acted with “malafide and dishonest” intent by exploiting the ongoing Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings against BPSL to delay the implementation of the resolution plan for over two years. The Bench observed that this deliberate inaction frustrated the core objectives of the IBC, which aims for timely resolution of stressed assets.

The judgment noted that JSW Steel misrepresented facts before the court to secure the highest bid score, and thereafter failed to implement the plan, citing ED proceedings as a pretext. The court also found grave lapses on the part of the Resolution Professional, who it said failed in fulfilling his statutory responsibilities under the IBC.

Case Details

Case Title: KALYANI TRANSCO v/s M/S.BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. & ORS.

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1808 of 2020

Read More: Diversion For 460 KL HSD: CESTAT Upholds Penalty Against Business Development Associate & Quashes Penalty Against Customs Broker

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 15 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 15, 2026.GSTGSTAT UPHOLDS ITC REVERSAL FOR...

Investigation Deposit Can’t Be Treated as Excise Duty After Demand Is Set Aside: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has directed the tax...

FinMin Guarantees Zero Charges on RuPay Debit Card Payments and UPI Transactions Up to Rs. 2,000

The Finance Ministry has notified a no-charge rule for payments made through RuPay-powered debit...

Gold Without Foreign Markings Can’t Be Confiscated on Suspicion of Smuggling: CESTAT 

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside the...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 15 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 15, 2026.GSTGSTAT UPHOLDS ITC REVERSAL FOR...

Investigation Deposit Can’t Be Treated as Excise Duty After Demand Is Set Aside: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has directed the tax...

FinMin Guarantees Zero Charges on RuPay Debit Card Payments and UPI Transactions Up to Rs. 2,000

The Finance Ministry has notified a no-charge rule for payments made through RuPay-powered debit...