In a landmark ruling on December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court quashed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) notice against JSW Steel (๐ฆ๐ข๐ณ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ณ ๐/๐ด ๐๐๐ ๐๐ด๐ฑ๐ข๐ต ๐๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ต๐ด ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ช๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ), the successful resolution applicant for Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. The court determined that the ED's demand for payment of penalties related to the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) was not maintainable against JSW Steel, which had acquired Monnet Ispat through a legally sanctioned resolution plan.
The ruling emphasized that under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), successful resolution applicants are insulated from liabilities arising from actions taken by the corporate debtor prior to their acquisition. Once a resolution plan is approved, statutory dues existing before that approval cannot be pursued against new owners. This decision aligns with previous judgments, including the Ghanshyam Mishra case, which reinforced that all creditors must adhere to an approved resolution plan.
This judgment is expected to bolster investor confidence in acquiring distressed assets, as it clarifies that successful bidders will not face claims from statutory authorities for past liabilities. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the resolution process, allowing companies like JSW Steel to focus on revitalising acquired businesses without the burden of historical legal issues.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Actโwhich extends deadlines when courts are closedโapplies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.