Comments
Tata Steel has moved the Supreme Court against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal decision to consider revised bids for stressed asset Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL).
Tata Steel was earlier verbally declared the highest bidder.
Moving the petition in the Apex Court on Friday, Tata Steel asked for an urgent hearing as the lenders will consider the revised bids by August 6.
However, the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra turned down the urgent hearing plea and posted the hearing for August 10.
Earlier, Tata Steel had written a letter to Bhushan Steel’s Committee of Creditors not to consider the ₹19,000-crore revised bid placed by JSW Steel.
Revised bids
When the CoC conveyed NCLAT about the revised higher bid of JSW Steel, the Tribunal asked all the three bidders including Liberty House to revise their bids by August 6 and scheduled the next hearing for August 17.
In a surprise move late last month, JSW Steel revised its bid to about ₹19,000 crore from ₹11,000 crore previously, way ahead of Tata Steel’s ₹17,000 crore, which was any way lower than Liberty House’s offer of ₹18,600 crore.
Already in court
Interestingly, BPSL Chairman and Managing Director Sanjay Singal has filed a petition in the Supreme Court and obtained an interim order against a decision to sell the company’s asset without the final judgement of the Apex Court.
Singal has challenged various sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code including Section 29A, which disqualifies defaulting promoters from bidding for their own companies, as being ultra vires a few articles of the Constitution.
BPSL promoters also indicated that, if allowed to bid, they would come out with an offer better than the ones received so far.
As per information in the public domain, the petition said resolution applicants Liberty House has offered ₹18,600 crore; Tata Steel ₹17,000 crore; and JSW Steel ₹11,000 crore.
“This is much lower than the fair value of the corporate debtor. If the petitioner is allowed to be a resolution applicant, the petitioner would have provided a plan as per the fair value of the corporate debtor,” Singal said in the petition.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.