# M/S Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Varsha & Anr.

> SC judgment dated 2026-07-17. Citation: TCN-2026-SC-00102. M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (Appellant-Successful Resolution Applicant or 'Appellant-SRA') filed Civil…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 17 Jul 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-SC-00102
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/ms-tata-steel-ltd-vs-varsha-anr-s1i2k

## Summary

### Background

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (Appellant-Successful Resolution Applicant or 'Appellant-SRA') filed Civil Appeals challenging orders from the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated March 28, 2019, and July 9, 2019. These orders had dismissed the Appellant-SRA's Writ Petition and Review Application, and crucially, permitted a recovery suit (Civil Suit No. 153 of 2011) filed by Respondent No.1-Varsha, an Operational Creditor, to proceed despite the approval of the Resolution Plan. Additionally, Masyc Projects Private Limited ('Intervenor-Masyc'), another Operational Creditor, had initiated six separate arbitral references against the Corporate Debtor, Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL). Both Varsha and Masyc had submitted claims as Operational Creditors during the Corporate Insolvency

…

## Facts

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. (Appellant-SRA) filed Civil Appeals challenging High Court orders dated March 28, 2019, and July 9, 2019.

The High Court orders dismissed the Appellant-SRA's Writ Petition and Review Application and permitted a recovery suit (Civil Suit No. 153 of 2011) by Operational Creditor Varsha to proceed despite the Resolution Plan's approval.

On August 27, 2021, the Supreme Court permitted Masyc Projects Private Limited (Intervenor-Masyc), another Operational Creditor, to make submissions on whether OCs can enforce claims by civil suit/arbitration after Resolution Plan approval.

Prior to the CIRP against Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL), Varsha initiated Civil Suit No. 153 of 2011 for recovery of ₹38,89,674.14 plus 18% interest against BSL.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether claims of Operational Creditors (including sub-judice claims) that are not fully quantified …

**Ratio:** All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional and

…

**Reasoning:** The Court cited JSW Steel Ltd. vs. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal & Ors. and Ghanashyam

…

**Interpretation:** Sections 31(1), 18, 25, and Regulations 13, 36 of the IBC mandate that the

…

**Application:** Varsha's Civil Suit No. 153 of 2011 and Masyc's arbitration proceedings

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** MANMOHA…; MANOJ MIS…
- **Appellants:** M/S TATA STEEL…
- **Respondents:** Bhushan Steel…; Vars…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Analysis co…; Committee of…; +2 more
- **Advocates:** Ramji Srin…; Garvesh…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2011 — Civil Suit in…**: Respondent No.1-Varsha instituted a summary Civil Suit against Bhushan Steel Limited…
- **2018-01-17 — Interim List of…**: The Resolution Professional compiled an Interim List of Creditors, admitting claims of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 60(6) — Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-60)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/ms-tata-steel-ltd-vs-varsha-anr-s1i2k