New Delhi, Aug 8 (PTI) The committee of creditors (CoC) of ailing Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) on Friday opposed in the Supreme Court the plea by former promoters by questioning the maintainability.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CoC, made submissions before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran.

The bench is hearing afresh on a batch of pleas related to its May 2 judgment ordering liquidation of BPSL while setting aside JSW Steel’s resolution plan.

The CJI-led bench on July 31 recalled the verdict and decided to hear afresh the pleas in the matter.

The verdict had criticised the conduct of all key stakeholders in the resolution process, the resolution professional, the CoC and the NCLT for enabling what it termed a "flagrant violation" of the IBC.

A bench headed by former top court judge Bela M Trivedi on May 2 ordered liquidation of BPSL while setting aside a resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited for the ailing firm.

Mehta on Friday said the former promoters of the BPSL had no locus standi in the case as they were the ones who "brought the company to dust".

“This is one of the worst cases of siphoning (off) I have come across among the cases I have done. Now they are finding fault with the person who has come up with the best resolution plan,” he said.

Mehta added, “We are supporting our resolution plan approved by us and NCLT. However, subject to certain conditions being met by the erstwhile promoters.” Resuming his submissions, he raised the issue of maintainability of appeals filed by former promoters.

He also dealt with the issue regarding the sanctity of the CoC's commercial wisdom under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

He maintained that the CoC remained a legal entity until the top court conclusively decided the matter under Section 62 of the IBC and retained the right to revisit its decisions in light of evolving circumstances.

He reiterated the CoC’s claim of Rs 3,569 crore in EBITDA and approximately Rs 2,500 crore in delay-related interest, arguing these claims are consistent and justifiable.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for JSW Steel which was the successful resolution applicant, asserted JSW was not responsible for the delays in plan implementation, attributing the two-year holdup to the ED’s provisional attachment of BPSL’s assets, which was only lifted in December 2024.

JSW Steel was represented by law firm Karanjawala & Co and its lawyers including Tahira Karanjawala.

Kaul also challenged the locus standi of the former promoters, saying that their intervention at this stage could undermine the IBC framework.

Citing the landmark Essar Steel judgment, Kaul argued the silence of the RFRP on EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation) obligations meant that no such payments were owed to creditors.

He warned permitting former promoters to intervene could jeopardise the integrity and finality of the IBC process.

The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) for BPSL was initiated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in July 2017 and in October 2018, the CoC approved a Rs 19,000 crore resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel.

On August 7, the law officer said the resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC and the NCLT, and that further delays were detrimental to creditors.

“The CoC has become a functus officio once the resolution plan is approved. Their role ends there. Now, implementation must proceed,” he added.

Mehta said over Rs 2,500 crore was lost due to delays in implementing the plan. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK

Locus standi challenge to former promoters may bar intervention, upholding CoC commercial wisdom and plan finality under IBC. The CoC contests the maintainability of former promoters' intervention, asserting the promoters lack locus standi, defending the sanctity of the CoC's commercial wisdom under the insolvency framework, and supporting the resolution plan it approved while claiming quantified EBITDA and delay-related interest losses; the resolution applicant disputes promoter standing and blames external asset attachment for implementation delays.