Bank restructuring and revival plans remain within lenders' commercial judgment, not a matter for mandamus.
A writ court will not compel banks to accept a borrower's resolution plan, restructure debt, or support a revival proposal where the lenders have already considered and rejected the proposals in their commercial judgment. The Court treated restructuring and rehabilitation decisions as matters within the lenders' discretion under the applicable reserve bank framework, and held that no enforceable legal right existed to demand mandamus for acceptance of the plan or for issuance of continuation guidelines. The requests for directions to devise or back a business continuation strategy were therefore rejected, and judicial interference in the lenders' debt-resolution and recovery choices was declined.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the banks to accept the petitioner's resolution plan and restructure the debt. (ii) Whether the banks could be directed to provide guidelines or resolution plans to enable continuation of the petitioner's business.
Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the banks to accept the petitioner's resolution plan and restructure the debt.
Analysis: The banks had considered the petitioner's proposals in the joint lenders' forum and had rejected them. The decision whether to restructure financial assistance or accept a rehabilitation proposal lies within the lenders' commercial judgment. The Court found that no enforceable legal right existed to compel the banks to restructure the account through writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The prayer for a mandamus directing acceptance of the resolution plan and restructuring of debt was not maintainable and was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the banks could be directed to provide guidelines or resolution plans to enable continuation of the petitioner's business.
Analysis: The banks had already examined the matter within the framework of the applicable reserve bank circulars, which included recovery as one of the permissible corrective action options. The Court held that it could not compel the banks to devise or support a business continuation plan for the petitioner.
Conclusion: The prayer for directions to provide guidelines or resolution plans was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit, and the Court declined to interfere with the lenders' decision-making on debt resolution and recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not compel banks to restructure debt or accept a revival proposal, as such decisions fall within the lenders' commercial wisdom and are not amenable to mandamus.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
