Court denies writ petition challenging NPA classification, upholds denial of moratorium benefits under COVID-19 Relief Policy.

The court rejected the writ petition, finding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate bona fides and that the classification of Loan Transaction No. III as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) was justified. The court upheld IFIN's decision to deny the moratorium benefits based on the Petitioner's ineligibility under the COVID-19 Relief Policy. The broader context of fraud and mismanagement within the IL & FS group further undermined the Petitioner's claims of innocence. The issue of maintainability was left open for future consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Loan Transaction No. III as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
2. Denial of Moratorium Benefits under IFIN COVID-19 Relief Policy.
3. Alleged Mismanagement and Fraud within IL & FS Group.
4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Loan Transaction No. III as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA):
The Petitioner, a private limited company, contested the classification of Loan Transaction No. III (Rs. 100 Crores) as an NPA by IFIN. The Petitioner argued that this loan was a back-to-back transaction between IL & FS and its subsidiaries, and the Petitioner was merely an innocent intermediary. The Petitioner claimed that the loan was wrongfully classified as NPA due to the default of Respondent No. 2 and sought to challenge the communication dated 7 May 2019, which declared the account as NPA.

The court, however, found that the Petitioner received Rs. 100 Crores from IFIN and transferred the same amount to ITNL as per IFIN's instructions. The Petitioner’s contention that it was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the transaction was not accepted. The court noted that the Petitioner could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in challenging the NPA classification and found substance in the Respondent's contention of delay and latches by the Petitioner.

2. Denial of Moratorium Benefits under IFIN COVID-19 Relief Policy:
The Petitioner sought the benefit of the moratorium for Loan Transactions No. I and II under the IFIN COVID-19 Relief Policy. IFIN rejected this request on the grounds that the Petitioner’s account for Loan Transaction No. III was already classified as NPA before 1 March 2020, making the Petitioner ineligible for the moratorium.

The court upheld IFIN's decision, noting that the moratorium policy explicitly excluded accounts classified as NPA before the specified date. The Petitioner’s argument that the classification of Loan Transaction No. III as NPA was arbitrary and unreasonable was not accepted by the court.

3. Alleged Mismanagement and Fraud within IL & FS Group:
The court examined the broader context of alleged mismanagement and fraud within the IL & FS group, as highlighted by various investigations, including those by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court noted that the SFIO report indicated that IFIN deceptively lent loans to external parties, including the Petitioner, which were then transferred to IL & FS group companies to circumvent RBI directives.

The court found that the Petitioner’s involvement in the back-to-back transaction was part of a larger fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the IL & FS group. The Petitioner’s claim of innocence was not supported by the evidence, and the court refused to accept the Petitioner’s version of events.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not be considered state instrumentalities and that the Board of Directors was appointed by the NCLT, not the government.

The court decided to consider the merits of the case first and kept the argument of maintainability open to be urged in other cases. Ultimately, the court found that the Petitioner failed to establish a bona fide case and refused to exercise its equity jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the writ petition, finding that the Petitioner did not demonstrate bona fides and that the classification of Loan Transaction No. III as NPA was justified. The court also upheld IFIN's decision to deny the moratorium benefits based on the Petitioner’s ineligibility under the COVID-19 Relief Policy. The broader context of fraud and mismanagement within the IL & FS group further undermined the Petitioner’s claims of innocence. The issue of maintainability was left open for future consideration.

---