The demand was made during the rehearing of challenges to JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan. The Supreme Court had earlier recalled its 2 May judgment, which had cancelled the plan and ordered the liquidation of BPSL.
The hearing will resume on Friday.
“Interest and Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation) —these two things must come. There should be fairness for creditors because we are banks. We deal with public money,” said solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the lenders.
Mehta did not specify the exact amount of interest and Ebitda that the lenders had sought for the insolvency period.
According to JSW Steel’s filings, BPSL contributes about 10% to its consolidated Ebitda and 12.5-13% to its 37.5 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) total steel-making capacity.
JSW Steel, in its plea highlighted operational improvements at BPSL since acquiring the company in March 2021. Production capacity, it said, had nearly doubled from 2.3 MTPA in 2017 to 4.5 MTPA in 2025.
Revenue rose from ₹8,701 crore in FY17 to ₹25,973 crore in FY25, with average annual exports of ₹2,976 crore over the past four years.
During Thursday’s hearing, former BPSL promoters, including Sanjay Singal, said if JSW’s resolution plan is ultimately found flawed, BPSL should not be liquidated, but a fresh corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) be initiated to allow new bidders.
The matter is being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and justices Satish Chandra Sharma, and Vinod Chandran.
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing the promoters, argued that once the plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Committee of Creditors (CoC) cannot reopen or alter it. “The law is about legality, not profits,” Mehta said, arguing that post-approval improvements in the company’s performance are irrelevant.
SG Mehta firmly opposed the promoters’ stand, accusing them of misusing company funds and being legally disqualified from re-entering the process.
“The law permits defaulting creditors, not defaulting promoters, to be part of CIRP. They may act as guarantors, but they have no right to question a resolution plan,” he stated.
Other dissenting creditors
Petitions against JSW’s resolution plan also came from dissenting financial creditors, including Kalyani Group’s Torsteel, the State of Odisha, and former stakeholders. All cited delays in the implementation of the resolution plan and alleged irregularities in the process.
On 31 July, the Supreme Court recalled its 2 May 2025 ruling, which had quashed JSW Steel’s resolution plan and directed liquidation under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The earlier ruling by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had stunned stakeholders by setting aside a fully approved and partially implemented resolution plan.
The recall came after the Court acknowledged possible misapplication of IBC principles and reliance on factual inaccuracies and arguments not raised during original hearings.
(Background of BPSL’s Insolvency
JSW Steel acquired Bhushan Power & Steel through a corporate insolvency process initiated in July 2017, following petitions by Punjab National Bank and other lenders over unpaid dues exceeding ₹47,000 crore.
JSW, which offered over ₹19,000 crore, emerged as the successful bidder, beating out rival Tata Steel. The resolution plan was approved by the CoC in October 2018, the NCLT in 2019, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in 2020.
However, challenges were filed by dissenting creditors and former promoter Sanjay Singal, leading to the May 2, 2025 ruling, which temporarily scrapped the plan—until it was recalled by the apex court last week.
BPSL was one of 12 large defaulters identified by the RBI in 2017 for resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). At that time, it owed over ₹47,000 crore to lenders.
