The former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd (BSPL) on Monday urged the Supreme Court to grant an open court hearing to their review petition challenging the apex court’s May 2 judgment, which ordered the company’s liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the former promoters — including Sanjay Singhal, his father Brij Bhushan Singal, and brother Neeraj Singal — submitted before a bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that the review petition warranted an open hearing due to serious concerns over asset valuation and liability implications.
Singh argued that the liquidation value of BSPL’s assets had been fixed at an “unreasonably low” level by the tribunal, placing the burden of unpaid liabilities on the shoulders of the former promoters.
In response, Chief Justice Gavai remarked, “Let me constitute a bench,” indicating a willingness to consider the request. Notably, review petitions in the Supreme Court are typically decided in chambers by circulation among judges rather than through public hearings.
The May 2 judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi (since retired) and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, had set aside the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel, terming it illegal and contrary to the provisions of the IBC. The court simultaneously directed the liquidation of BSPL, citing grave procedural lapses.
In its strongly worded ruling, the court castigated the resolution professional, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for facilitating what it called a “flagrant violation” of the IBC’s core principles.
Justice Trivedi had noted that the resolution professional had “utterly failed” to discharge statutory obligations under the IBC and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) regulations. Further, the CoC was found to have exercised its “commercial wisdom” in a manner that contradicted the mandatory legal framework.
The verdict also criticised JSW Steel, the successful resolution applicant, for failing to uphold the IBC’s objectives and for procedural irregularities that compromised the integrity of the resolution process.
