three-judge bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. dismissed the appeals filed by the erstwhile promoters-cum-directors of BPSL and upheld the NCLAT’s judgment dated 17-02-2020. The Court strongly rejected the arguments raised by the appellants and the CoC regarding post-approval claims, particularly concerning Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (‘EBITDA’

three-judge bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. dismissed the appeals filed by the erstwhile promoters-cum-directors of BPSL and upheld the NCLAT’s judgment dated 17-02-2020. The Court strongly rejected the arguments raised by the appellants and the CoC regarding post-approval claims, particularly concerning Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (‘EBITDA’) The Court noted that: The Request for Resolution Plan (‘RfRP’) did not mention the treatment of EBITDA. The Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel was implemented after significant delays and had successfully turned BPSL from a loss-making into a profit-making entity. Thousands of jobs were preserved, and the business continues as a going concern, aligning with the core objective of IBC. The Court warned that allowing parties to raise new claims after the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC and NCLT would: Undermine the finality of the resolution process, Violate the sanctity of the approved Resolution Plan, and Potentially open a Pandora’s box of post-approval litigation. Citing the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta , (2020) 8 SCC 531 (Supreme Court Essar), the Court reaffirmed that claims not included in the RfRP or Resolution Plan cannot be raised later, and the Successful Resolution Applicant (‘SRA’) cannot be penalised for turning around a di