Category Archives: Activities

The article examines two Supreme Court rulings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that reveal troubling inconsistencies. In the BPSL case, JSW Steel’s ₹19,350 crore resolution plan—initially approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and NCLT—was overturned by the Supreme Court in May 2025, citing procedural lapses such as delay, improper financial instruments, and non-compliance with Section 29A. The judgment criticized the CoC and Resolution Professional for dereliction of duty, raising concerns over investor trust. Conversely, in the DHFL case, where Piramal Capital’s resolution plan addressed ₹87,248 crore in claims, the Court upheld the plan in April 2025 despite allegations of illegality, irregularity, bias and the exclusion of retail investors or ex-promoters from decision-making. Praising the CoC’s conduct, the Court reaffirmed creditor rights but overlooked unequal stakeholder treatment. The article argues that these diverging judgments expose the fragility of the IBC, highlight unchecked CoC power, and underscore the urgent need for a more transparent, inclusive, and just insolvency framework.

The article strongly commends the NCLT (May 19, 2021) and NCLAT (January 27, 2022) for their bold rulings in the DHFL insolvency case, which criticized the exclusion of ex-promoters, exposed irregularities in the resolution plan by Ajay Piramal, and questioned the opaque conduct of the RBI-appointed Committee of Creditors (CoC). It highlights the lack of transparency in auditing, denied access to CoC audits under RTI, and systemic disregard for small depositors. The authors critique the Supreme Court’s April 1, 2025, judgment for upholding the resolution plan without adequately addressing these issues, while remanding the matter of avoidance transaction recoveries to the NCLT. Emphasizing a pro-people, constitutional ethos, the piece appeals to NCLT and NCLAT to uphold their earlier stances and protect public interest, calling for justice and restitution for DHFL’s small depositors.

The article critically examines the Indian judiciary’s handling of the DHFL insolvency case under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), questioning whether justice is becoming a mere formality. It highlights the overarching dominance of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in the insolvency resolution process, where their decisions are treated as final with minimal judicial scrutiny. This unchecked supremacy, the article argues, has allegedly led courts—including the Supreme Court—to endorse CoC decisions without thorough examination, thereby reducing judicial oversight to a ritualistic procedure. A major concern is the exclusion of the Wadhawan family from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), despite their offer to repay the entire debt, and the opaque handling of their final settlement proposal, which was not shared with Fixed Deposit and Non-Convertible Debenture holders who held considerable voting power. The piece further raises serious questions about potential biases within the CoC, particularly the preference shown toward a specific bidder, and criticizes the judiciary for failing to probe these allegations effectively. Ultimately, it calls for greater judicial accountability and intervention to uphold justice, transparency, and fairness, especially in high-stakes financial cases affecting a wide spectrum of stakeholders.

The article urges victims of the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) collapse to submit their grievances via the Leader of the Opposition’s portal, Awaaz Bharat Ki. It alleges the DHFL crisis was a politically orchestrated scam allegedly benefiting industrialist Ajay Piramal through a “quid pro quo” with the BJP. The article highlights the plight of fixed deposit and non-convertible debenture holders—especially vulnerable groups like senior citizens, widows, the disabled, and charitable trusts—who lost their savings due to DHFL’s fraud. A timeline traces events from the 2019 exposure of financial irregularities to ongoing legal proceedings in 2025, criticizing the RBI-appointed Committee of Creditors for a biased resolution process. The article proposes five remedies: (1) ending crony capitalism and dismantling BJP-industrialist collusions (Ambani, Adani, Piramal); (2) Supreme Court intervention to ensure justice; (3) launching mass protests and social media campaigns for accountability; (4) securing judicial autonomy by separating it from executive control; and (5) scrapping the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (2016), citing its misuse in DHFL’s case. It closes with a call for distributive justice through collective resistance and systemic reform.