Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – SC Clears JSW Steel’s Acquisition of BPSL

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Latest News

  • The Supreme Court of India has approved JSW Steel’s $2.3 billion (₹19,350 crore) acquisition of Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL), reversing its earlier decision of liquidation. 
  • This judgment strengthens the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, by prioritising revival of distressed firms over liquidation.

Understanding Insolvency and Bankruptcy and the IBC

  • Insolvency vs Bankruptcy: While insolvency results from an inability to pay debts due to a lack of assets, bankruptcy occurs when an application is presented to an authority declaring insolvency and requesting to be declared bankrupt, which will last until discharge.
  • About the IBC 2016: 
    • It is the bankruptcy law of India which seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy. 
    • It is a one stop solution for resolving insolvencies which previously was a long process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement. 
    • It aims to protect the interests of small investors and make the process of doing business less cumbersome.
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI):
    • It is the regulator for overseeing insolvency proceedings and entities like Insolvency Professional Agencies (IPA), Insolvency Professionals (IP) and Information Utilities (IU) in India. 
    • It was established on 1 October 2016 and given statutory powers through the IBC 2016. 
    • It functions under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and covers Individuals, Companies, Limited Liability Partnerships and Partnership firms. 

Process Followed under the IBC

  • Initiation of CIRP:
    • Corporate Debtor (CD): A company that has taken loans and defaults on repayment.
    • Who can Apply: Either the creditor or the debtor can initiate proceedings.
    • Relevant Section: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is governed by Section 6 of the IBC.
  • Threshold for default:
    • Earlier limit: ₹1 lakh default.
    • Revised limit: Raised to ₹1 crore during the pandemic to reduce undue stress on companies.
  • Adjudicating Authority (AA):
    • Designated authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) benches across India.
    • Role: Receives insolvency applications from creditors or debtors.
    • Timeline: Must admit or reject application within 14 days, with reasons for delay if not disposed within this period.
  • Commencement of CIRP:
    • Trigger point: CIRP begins once NCLT admits the application.
    • Resolution timeline: As per amendment, the process must be completed within 330 days (including litigation period).
  • Outcome of CIRP:
    • Resolution: Revival of the corporate debtor through restructuring or takeover by a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA).
    • Liquidation: If no resolution plan is approved within the stipulated period.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

  • Revival of BPSL: JSW Steel has invested in modernisation, safeguarded thousands of jobs, and ensured that the company will continue to operate.
  • IBC objective fulfilled: The court emphasised that the essence of IBC is to convert loss-making firms into profitable entities.
  • On claims: Creditors’ demand for an additional ₹6,100 crore was dismissed. The Court stated that once the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves a plan, reopening claims undermines the law.
  • CCDs as equity: Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) issued by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) must be treated as equity.

Background

  • The SC had earlier ordered liquidation, citing JSW Steel’s delay in implementing the plan and failure of CoC to exercise its commercial wisdom.
  • The court criticised the Resolution Professional (RP) and CoC for failing to protect creditors’ interests and supporting JSW despite violations.
  • The (May 2024) order unsettled investors and cast doubts on the effectiveness of IBC reforms.

Importance of BPSL to JSW Steel

  • BPSL contributes significantly to JSW’s revenue and profitability. FY25 performance - Profit of ₹300 crore (Q1), loss of ₹93 crore (Q2), profit of ₹11 crore (Q3).
  • BPSL increased capacity from 3.5 MTPA to 5 MTPA, operating advanced facilities across India.
  • Analysts estimate an 8–10% revenue and EBITDA decline in FY26 if BPSL is liquidated.

Liquidation Trends and Broader Implications of Judgment

  • Rising liquidations: FY24 witnessed 2,476 cases ending in liquidation with total claims of ₹11 lakh crore. Recovery rate remained only 6.33% of admitted claims (₹69,634 crore).
  • Example of Jet Airways: Earlier, Jet Airways faced liquidation due to a failed resolution plan (₹15,723 crore admitted claims).
  • Liquidation of BPSL: This would have been the largest in corporate history.
  • The judgment: This is expected to restore investor confidence in IBC and discourage frivolous delays.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court’s reversal aligns with the spirit of the IBC by prioritising corporate revival over liquidation. 
  • The ruling will likely strengthen creditors’ trust in resolution plans, reduce litigation uncertainties, and boost investor confidence in India’s insolvency ecosystem. 
  • Going ahead, stricter accountability for Resolution Professionals and CoCs is essential to prevent delays and safeguard creditors’ interests.

Source: IE

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code FAQs

Q1: How does the recent Supreme Court ruling on JSW Steel’s acquisition of Bhushan Power and Steel reinforce the objectives of the IBC?

Ans: It upholds IBC’s core objective of reviving distressed assets into going concerns while protecting jobs and maximising asset value.

Q2: Why did the Supreme Court dismiss creditors’ additional demand in the BPSL case?

Ans: This would undermine the finality of resolution plans and violate IBC provisions.

Q3: What role does Bhushan Power and Steel play in JSW Steel’s revenue profile?

Ans: BPSL contributes significantly to JSW’s revenue and profits, with liquidation projected to cause an 8–10% decline in revenue in FY26.

Q4: What was the SC’s earlier criticism in the JSW–BPSL case?

Ans: The SC highlighted CoC’s failure to exercise commercial wisdom, protect creditors’ interests, and ensure compliance with IBC norms.

Q5: What do the liquidation trends under IBC indicate?

Ans: The data highlights systemic delays and weak enforcement in the resolution process.

India-US Nuclear Energy Talks Face Hurdles Over Liability Laws

India-US Nuclear Deal

India-US Nuclear Deal Latest News

  • During renewed trade negotiations in New York, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal highlighted India’s energy security vision, which will involve strong collaboration with the United States, especially in small modular reactor (SMR) technologies and broader nuclear energy cooperation.
  • However, progress faces hurdles due to unresolved legal issues, particularly India’s nuclear liability framework, which has long discouraged US firms from entering the Indian nuclear market. 
  • Addressing these liability concerns is essential but remains a complex challenge, making expansion in nuclear cooperation easier said than done.

US Regulatory Clearance Boosts Indo-US Nuclear Prospects

  • In March, the US Department of Energy (DoE) granted Holtec International regulatory clearance under the restrictive 10CFR810 rule, a long-standing hurdle in Indo-US nuclear cooperation.
  • The approval conditionally permits Holtec to transfer unclassified small modular reactor (SMR) technology to its subsidiary Holtec Asia, as well as Indian firms Tata Consulting Engineers and Larsen & Toubro.
  • Previously, 10CFR810 regulations barred US companies from manufacturing nuclear equipment or conducting nuclear design work in India, blocking New Delhi’s aim to co-produce SMRs for domestic needs. 
  • The clearance removes this roadblock, paving the way for collaboration.
  • Now, the onus shifts to India, which must pass pending legislative amendments — particularly to its liability law and the Atomic Energy Act — to unlock foreign investment.

Key Amendments to India’s Nuclear Liability Framework

  • India is working on a set of 11 amendments to its Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLNDA) to attract foreign investment and ease vendor concerns.

Section 17(b) – The Main Obstacle

  • Section 17 of CLNDA allows nuclear plant operators to seek compensation from suppliers after paying damages for an accident. 
  • Specifically, Section 17(b) gives operators a “right of recourse” if an incident results from defective or substandard equipment supplied.
    • Foreign vendors like Westinghouse Electric (US) and Framatome (France) argue this provision is stricter than global norms, exposing them to unlimited liability.
    • Since its enactment, no foreign company has invested in India’s nuclear projects, fearing financial risks.
    • Even domestic sub-suppliers like L&T and Walchandnagar Industries are wary, as the term “supplier” is too broad and could include small vendors.

Proposed Amendments

  • The government is considering:
    • Diluting Section 17(b) to bring it in line with international nuclear liability laws.
    • Clarifying the definition of “supplier” to exclude sub-suppliers from automatic liability.
    • Capping vendor liability, both in monetary terms (limited to contract value) and by time frame, so risks do not extend indefinitely.

Regulatory Safeguards

  • Officials note that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) already vets all projects and can ensure right of recourse is explicitly written into contracts. 
  • This safeguard could balance accountability while easing investor fears.

Opening India’s Nuclear Sector to Private Participation

  • India is preparing sweeping reforms to allow private and potentially foreign companies to participate in nuclear power generation — a sector long reserved for state-owned operators. 

Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962

  • The government plans to amend the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, which currently restricts nuclear plant operations to public sector entities like NPCIL and NTPC Ltd. 
  • The proposed reform would:
    • Enable private firms to enter nuclear power generation.
    • Allow for minority equity stakes by foreign companies in upcoming nuclear projects at a later stage.
    • Expand the sector’s capacity by leveraging private investment and technology.

Link to Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal

  • Nearly two decades after the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement, these reforms are seen as crucial to unlocking its commercial potential. 
  • New Delhi also hopes to present this move as part of its broader trade and investment partnership with Washington, complementing ongoing India–US trade negotiations.

Aligning India’s Nuclear Laws with Global Norms

  • India is moving to amend its Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) to align more closely with the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). 
  • These changes are aimed at easing investor concerns, clarifying ambiguities, and bringing India fully into the global nuclear liability regime.

Compliance with the CSC

  • India signed the CSC in 2010 and ratified it in 2016, despite not being a member of the Vienna (1963) or Paris (1960) Conventions. 
  • The proposed amendments to CLNDA will:
    • Harmonise India’s framework with CSC provisions and annexures.
    • Strengthen India’s standing as a CSC-compliant state party, ensuring compatibility with international liability norms.

Clarification of “Supplier”

  • A major issue has been ambiguity in the definition of “supplier” under Rule 24 of CLND Rules. The rules state a supplier may include:
    • A manufacturer providing systems, equipment, or structures.
    • A vendor responsible for design and quality assurance.
    • Providers of quality assurance or design services.
  • However, uncertainty remains on whether this applies only to reactor suppliers like Westinghouse or also to small vendors, such as an electrical package provider in a Rs 1 crore contract. 
  • The amendments seek to clearly define supplier responsibilities, easing fears of unlimited liability for smaller sub-vendors.

Conclusion

  • These amendments are an economic necessity to attract foreign and domestic investment into India’s nuclear sector. 
  • Still, the biggest challenge will be forging political consensus in Parliament to pass the reforms, which may now be delayed beyond the monsoon session.

Source: IE

India-US Nuclear Deal FAQs

Q1: What did Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal highlight in US talks?

Ans: He flagged India’s energy security vision, stressing collaboration with the US in nuclear energy and small modular reactor (SMR) technologies.

Q2: What regulatory clearance did the US grant recently?

Ans: The US DoE cleared Holtec International to share SMR technology with Indian firms, removing a key hurdle under restrictive 10CFR810 regulations.

Q3: Why is Section 17(b) of CLNDA controversial?

Ans: It gives operators a right of recourse against suppliers for defective equipment, deterring foreign vendors like Westinghouse from investing in India’s nuclear sector.

Q4: What reforms are planned under the Atomic Energy Act?

Ans: Amendments would allow private and possibly foreign companies to enter nuclear generation, breaking the state monopoly of NPCIL and NTPC Ltd.

Q5: Why are these amendments considered urgent?

Ans: They are seen as an economic necessity to attract foreign investment, align India with global nuclear norms, and unlock the potential of the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Enquire Now