https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285214 The Delhi HC held that a restructuring agreement and RBI restructuring framework did not create an enforceable obligation to release additional working capital beyond the contractual ceiling, because the approved JLF package and JLRA limited funding to the amounts expressly set out and left any further enhancement to lender discretion. Projected cash flows and later communications could not override those terms or create a statutory right to extra disbursement. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could not be used to compel specific performance of the financing arrangement or restrain recovery steps, especially after the borrower had moved to the S4A route and recovery or insolvency proceedings had already begun. The claim for mandamus was therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jan 2020 16:17:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285214 The Delhi HC held that a restructuring agreement and RBI restructuring framework did not create an enforceable obligation to release additional working capital beyond the contractual ceiling, because the approved JLF package and JLRA limited funding to the amounts expressly set out and left any further enhancement to lender discretion. Projected cash flows and later communications could not override those terms or create a statutory right to extra disbursement. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could not be used to compel specific performance of the financing arrangement or restrain recovery steps, especially after the borrower had moved to the S4A route and recovery or insolvency proceedings had already begun. The claim for mandamus was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285214