JSW Steel has approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its May 2 judgment rejecting a resolution plan submitted by the company for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL).

The court had ordered the liquidation of BPSL to commence. However, subsequently, on May 26, the apex court ordered status quo in the liquidation proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal. The court had passed the order of status quo on liquidation to give JSW time to file a review petition.

The court had said a status quo ought to prevail for BPSL in the interest of justice and to avoid future complications.

JSW had argued for time to file a review petition, saying the case was complicated, and must not be rushed into liquidation.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for JSW, had informed the court that BPSL had an annual turnover of ₹28,000 crore in one year. Its production had increased from 2.5 tonnes to 4.5 tonnes. The concern employed 25,000 people.

JSW’s resolution plan in ‘flagrant violation and contravention’ of the law

On May 2, the Supreme Court had found JSW’s Resolution Plan for BPSL in “flagrant violation and contravention” of the law.

“The Resolution Professional had utterly failed to discharge his statutory duties contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations during the course of the entire CIR proceedings of the corporate debtor, BPSL,” the Supreme Court had concluded.

The court had invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the NCLT to initiate liquidation proceedings against the BPSL under the IBC.

The court had faulted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for accepting the Resolution Plan.

“The CoC had failed to exercise its commercial wisdom while approving the Resolution Plan of JSW… The CoC had failed to protect the interest of the creditors by taking contradictory stands before this court, and accepting the payments from JSW without any demurrer, and supporting JSW to implement its ill-motivated plan against the interest of the creditors,” the May 2 verdict had observed.

The CoC, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, too, had expressed their intention to file a review petition against the May 2 judgment.

Published on June 26, 2025