Debt assignment and Article 14 challenge fail where no legal right of the borrower is infringed and no mala fides is shown.

Assignment of a company's debt by a financial institution was held not to be vitiated by mala fides or breach of fiduciary duty where the alleged bad faith was unsupported by the timing of payment, the acceptance of the bid, or settlement conduct, and where non-disclosure of the asset's identity in the public notice was treated as a prudent commercial measure. The debtor could not invoke Article 14 to defeat the assignment because fairness in State action applies only when a legally protected right is affected; in an assignment of a non-performing asset, the borrower's liability remains unchanged and there is no enforceable right to insist on the identity of the creditor or to prevent transfer. The challenge therefore failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assignment of the company's debt by IFCI to Kotak Mahindra Bank was vitiated by mala fides or breach of fiduciary obligation. (ii) Whether the debtor could invoke Article 14 to challenge the assignment on the ground that fair and reasonable State action required the assignee bid to be accepted by the creditor.

Issue (i): Whether the assignment of the company's debt by IFCI to Kotak Mahindra Bank was vitiated by mala fides or breach of fiduciary obligation.

Analysis: The alleged mala fides were founded on later events, the timing and manner of acceptance of the bid, and the conduct of the parties during settlement discussions. The Court found no substance in the allegations. It held that IFCI's non-disclosure of the identity of the asset in the public notice was a prudent commercial measure, that the timing of receipt of payment did not establish bad faith, and that the grant of time to complete payment did not, by itself, prove mala fides. The Court also held that Kotak Mahindra Bank had expressly kept open the option to participate in the auction or assignment process, so the facts did not show any clandestine concert between the parties or breach of fiduciary obligation.

Conclusion: The assignment was not vitiated by mala fides or breach of fiduciary duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the debtor could invoke Article 14 to challenge the assignment on the ground that fair and reasonable State action required the assignee bid to be accepted by the creditor.

Analysis: The Court held that fairness and reasonableness in State action apply where a legal right of the aggrieved party is affected. In the case of assignment of a non-performing asset, the debtor's liability remains unchanged and the transfer does not affect the borrower's rights in law. The Court distinguished between an interest and a legal right, holding that the debtor may have an interest in knowing who the creditor is, but no enforceable right to insist on the identity of the creditor or to prevent assignment. Since no legally protected right of the company was infringed, the Article 14 challenge could not succeed.

Conclusion: The debtor had no enforceable right to the assignment, and Article 14 was not attracted to invalidate the transaction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assignment failed on merits, and the dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Assignment of a debt or non-performing asset by a financial institution does not affect the borrower's legal rights, and absent infringement of a legal right, a challenge based on Article 14 fairness or alleged mala fides cannot invalidate the assignment.

---