TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner-company also availed financial assistance from the Bank of Punjab since merged into Centurian Bank of Punjab and thereafter into HDFC Bank Limited. The account of the petitioner was declared Non- Performing Asset (NPA) in the year 2004. In the year 2007, one time settlement was arrived at for a sum of Rs. 7.40 crore and in furtherance of the said settlement, Rs. 40 lacs was deposited in the "No Lien Account" with the said Bank. Some where, in May 2006 the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1-Bank and desired fresh working capital funding for the 3rd company i.e M/s Pari Foods Pvt. Ltd. It was in February, 2007 the contract styled as "Indicative Terms Sheet for Fund Raising and Corporate Reconstructing" was entered upon by the petitioner with respondent No. 1- Bank whereby in terms of the said agreement, the respondent No. 1 was engaged to facilitate the one time settlement on behalf of the petitioner with the secured creditors. Lateron, vide notice dated 28.09.2007 (P-8), the petitioner was informed that by deed of assignment on 27.09.2007, the Centrurion Bank of Punjab has assigned the total debts due from the petitioner to respondent No. 1. The letter reads as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctober 15, 2007  Payment any time during 12 months  The interest will be charged on reducing balance  The Company shall be permitted to sell the securities now charged to Kotak with the prior consent from Kotak. The sale proceeds shall be used to pay the settlement amount of Kotak.  In addition to the above, the Company agrees to pay management fees of Rs. 16 lacs by 31st March, 2008 of the sanction of the aforesaid settlement by Kotak We request you to kindly approve the settlement on the above lines and issue us the sanction letter as well as file the consent terms." Since the petitioner failed to discharge the loan accounts, a notice was served culminating with the notice of possession (P-19), which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 is not registered with the Reserve Bank of India as provided under Section 3 in terms of Section 2(1)(z) and (za) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), therefore, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prohibition in the documents of loan prohibiting assignment of debt in favour of an another Banking company. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 is a Banking Company registered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with the Reserve Bank of India. We are not able to agree with the observations of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgment as the Court has proceeded on the assumption that assignment of debt could only be under the provisions of the Act. The Court has not examined the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, the Gujarat High Court has not noticed the judgment of Supreme Court reported as ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 1. The view as reproduced above, was set aside by the Supreme Court. We find that reliance on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in view of the Supreme Court order is rather unfortunate. The Supreme Court was examining the question as to "Whether the Gujarat High Court was right in holding that assignment of debts by the banks inter se is not an activity permissible under the BR Act, 1949 and consequently all executed contracts of assignment of debts were illegal?" The Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch of cases we are dealing with assets in the hands of the banks. NPAs are "account receivables". The impugned guidelines show that RBI considers inter se NPA assignment between banks to be a tool for resolving the issue of NPAs and in the interest of banking policy under Section 21 of the BR Act, 1949. The object is to minimise the problem of credit risk. The corporate debt restructuring is one of the methods for reducing NPAs. Thus, such restructuring as a matter of banking policy cannot be treated as "trading". One has to keep in mind the object behind enactment of the BR Act, 1949. Thus, the said guidelines fall under Section 21 of the 1949 Act. These guidelines are a part of credit appraisal mechanism. Thus, in our view the impugned guidelines are not ultra vires the BR Act, 1949. Dealing in NPAs as part of the credit appraisal mechanism and as a part of restructuring mechanism falls within Section 21 read with Section 35-A of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that "transfer of debts/NPAs" inter se between banks is an activity which is impermissible under the 1949 Act. The BR Act, 1949 is an Act enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. Thus, while interpre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gations of the assignor towards the assignee. xxx xxx 51. In view of the above exposition of law, we find that under the impugned deed of assignment only the account receivables in the books of ICICI Bank Ltd. has been transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The obligations of ICICI Bank Ltd. towards its borrower(s) (customer) under the loan agreement secured by deed of hypothecation/mortgage have not been assigned by ICICI Bank Ltd. to the assignee Bank, namely, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned deed of assignment is unsustainable in law. The obligations referred to in the impugned deed of assignment are the obligations, if any, of ICICI Bank Ltd. towards Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (assignee) in the matter of transfer of NPAs. For example, when an account receivable is treated as NPA and assigned to the assignee ....