The former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd. (BSPL) on Monday requested the Supreme Court to grant an open court hearing for their review petition, challenging the May 2 verdict that ordered the liquidation of the company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Earlier, apex court ruled to invalidate the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel, declaring it illegal and in breach of the IBC. The court also ordered the liquidation of BSPL, a decision that the former promoters now seek to overturn.
Background
On May 2, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the resolution plan proposed by JSW Steel, which had been intended to resolve the insolvency of BSPL. The court found that the plan violated key provisions of the IBC and directed that the company be liquidated.
BSPL’s former promoters—Sanjay Singhal, his father Brij Bhushan Singal, and his brother Neeraj Singal—had led the company before it entered insolvency proceedings. The liquidation order has now sparked a legal battle over the fairness of the valuation of the company’s assets and the potential burden on the promoters.
Promoters’ Appeal For An Open Court Hearing
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the former promoters, appeared before the Supreme Court’s bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, urging the court to hear the review petition in open court.
Singh argued that the tribunal had significantly undervalued the assets of BSPL, potentially compromising the interests of all parties involved. He also raised concerns that the remaining liabilities would likely fall upon the former promoters, which could result in severe financial implications for them.
“The tribunal has fixed the asset values at a very low price, and now, the remaining liabilities are to be settled by the promoters. This is a serious concern,” Singh stated.
CJI Gavai responded by expressing willingness to constitute a bench to address the review petition, though it was noted that review petitions are typically decided in chambers without open hearings.
Court’s Strong Criticism Of The Insolvency Process
In its May ruling, the Supreme Court did not shy away from criticizing the conduct of multiple parties involved in the insolvency resolution process. The Court directed harsh words at the resolution professional, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), accusing them of enabling a “flagrant violation” of the IBC.
Justice Trivedi, in particular, pointed out significant lapses in the process. The Court criticized the resolution professional for failing to fulfill statutory obligations under the IBC and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) regulations.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the CoC had not exercised its “commercial wisdom” properly when approving JSW Steel’s resolution plan, which it found in direct violation of IBC regulations.
“Upon a thorough examination of the facts and legal framework, we conclude that the resolution professional failed in his duties, and the CoC did not exercise the commercial wisdom expected of them under the IBC,” the court’s ruling stated.
Road Ahead For BSPL
As the former promoters prepare to challenge the liquidation decision, the outcome of the review petition remains crucial for the future of BSPL and its remaining liabilities. The case underscores the complex nature of corporate insolvency and highlights concerns about transparency and fairness in the process.
Court’s review will not only determine the fate of BSPL but could also serve as a benchmark for how the insolvency process is handled in politically sensitive or high-profile cases going forward.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
