NCLT dismisses BPSL insolvency petition against Nova Iron & Steel
The NCLT Cuttack Bench dismissed BPSL's insolvency petition against Nova Iron & Steel, ruling the ₹150 crore loan was project funding linked to strategic MoUs rather than financial debt. The tribunal cited BPSL's write-off of the amount in FY20 and its status as a related party investor holding 25.65% stake as key reasons for rejecting the claim of default.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Cuttack Bench dismissed the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) application filed by Bhushan Power & Steel Limited against Nova Iron & Steel Limited. The adjudicating authority ruled that the transaction did not qualify as a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, but was instead part of a broader strategic investment and project funding arrangement.
Ruling on Financial Debt Status
The tribunal examined an unsecured loan agreement dated July 20, 2011, under which Bhushan Power & Steel (BPSL) advanced ₹150 crore to Nova Iron & Steel. The lender claimed a default amount of ₹306.52 crore, comprising a principal outstanding of ₹125.83 crore and interest of ₹180.68 crore as on February 1, 2024.
However, the NCLT found that the loan was intrinsically linked to multiple Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) executed between the parties and the Government of Chhattisgarh for integrated steel and power projects. The tribunal noted that BPSL had acquired a substantial stake in Nova Iron & Steel, holding 25.65% shareholding as on March 31, 2022, making it a related party.
Key Findings
The adjudicating authority highlighted several factors supporting its decision:
- The loan was designated as "project funding" in BPSL’s balance sheets from FY18 to FY20.
- BPSL wrote off the entire loan amount from its books during the financial year ending March 31, 2020.
- No provision for interest or principal recovery was made by BPSL post-FY20.
- The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) investigation report identified the transaction as part of a collusive arrangement involving fund siphoning.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Loan Amount Advanced | ₹150 crore |
| Claimed Default Amount | ₹306.52 crore |
| Principal Outstanding | ₹125.83 crore |
| Interest Accrued | ₹180.68 crore |
| BPSL Shareholding in Nova | 25.65% |
Absence of Enforceable Debt
The tribunal further observed that since BPSL had written off the debt in its financial statements for FY20, no legally enforceable claim existed at the time of filing the petition in April 2024. The Resolution Plan approved for BPSL’s own CIRP in September 2019 explicitly terminated all previous agreements with Nova Iron & Steel unless specifically notified otherwise.
Additionally, the Record of Default issued by the National e-Governance Services Limited (NeSL) stated that "the debt is disputed." The NCLT concluded that without a subsisting right to payment reflected in the lender’s books, the essential ingredients of financial debt and default under the IBC were not established.
What the Numbers Show
The divergence between the claimed default amount of ₹306.52 crore and the complete write-off of the asset in BPSL’s FY20 balance sheet indicates a lack of contemporaneous recognition of the debt as recoverable. While interest accruals pushed the claimed liability more than double the original ₹150 crore disbursement, the lender’s own accounting treatment—classifying it as doubtful and subsequently removing it from assets—undermined the existence of a legally enforceable financial debt required to initiate insolvency proceedings.
Historical Stock Returns for Nova Iron & Steel
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.24% | +2.47% | +0.49% | -7.58% | -13.68% | -19.02% |
How might this ruling influence the strategy of other stressed asset holders attempting to revive written-off debts through IBC proceedings?
What are the potential implications for Nova Iron & Steel's operational stability and future funding prospects following the dismissal of this insolvency application?
Could this decision set a precedent for how NCLT benches evaluate 'project funding' versus 'financial debt' in cases involving related-party transactions?


































