New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday made scathing observations on the conduct of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd’s (BPSL) former promoters, led by Sanjay Singal, accusing them of systematically attempting to stall the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
The observations were made in a judgment delivered by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran while upholding JSW Steel’s Rs 19,700-crore resolution plan for debt-ridden Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.
It upheld the February 17, 2020 verdict of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), allowing JSW Steel to acquire BPSL by providing it immunity from prosecution by the ED.
Writing the judgment, the CJI underscored that the former BPSL promoters’ actions were not aimed at constructive participation in the resolution process, but rather at frustrating its timely conclusion.
“The entire attempt of the appellants has been to thwart the CIRP and not to permit the same to be taken to its logical end,” the judgment read.
The bench drew attention to the records placed before it, including the findings of the NCLT, which had earlier censured the promoters for adopting dilatory tactics.
The court took note of the submissions made by the successful resolution applicant, JSW Steel, that Sanjay Singal attended only one of the 46 Committee of Creditors (CoC) meetings in person and just two more through his representatives. His wife and co-promoter, Aarti Singal, did not attend a single CoC meeting.
The judgment noted that Sanjay Singal and the erstwhile management filed applications before 48 forums after detailed NCLT hearings, delaying approval of the resolution plan. The tribunal observed their intent was to obstruct insolvency proceedings rather than aid resolution, reflecting frustration and lacklustre participation. In its 2019 order approving JSW’s plan, the NCLT had already highlighted their disinterest and procedural manoeuvring. It also imposed a Rs 1 lakh penalty for a frivolous plea seeking copies of the resolution plan, stressing the promoters were “moving places to delay proceed-ings” instead of engaging constructively in the process aimed at taking the matter to its logical
conclusion.