AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Partners for respondent No.7 in WP/1893/2019. Mr. Y.R.Mishra with Mr.A.S.Singh for respondent No.1 (UOI) in WPL/223/2020. JUDGMENT (Per S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) :- 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. These two petitions were heard together and as they involve similar questions and issues, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Writ Petition No.1893 of 2019 has been filed by GTL Infrastructure Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It has been filed against five Banks and Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited by impleading them as respondent Nos.1 to 6. The seventh respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It has been impleaded because it is an Asset Reconstruction Company 4. The relief claimed in the writ petition is that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent Nos.1 to 6 to forthwith comply with paragraph 6.4 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forwarded by the Union Bank of India to CNIL under a cover letter dated 14th June, 2017, copy of which alongwith the term sheet for the SDR scheme is annexed as Exhibit 'D' to the petition. 7. The petitioner submits that the total outstanding dues of the petitioner to its lenders as on the Review and Reference date was Rs. 3357,13,19,841 (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven Crores Thirteen Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty One Only). A table detailing the dues owed by the petitioner to each of its lenders as on the Review and Reference Date is annexed as Exhibit 'E' to the petition. Similarly, the total outstanding dues of CNIL to its lenders, as on the Review and Reference date, were Rs. 5158,10,36,665 (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Eight Crores Ten Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Five Only). A table detailing the dues owed by CNIL to each of its lenders as on the Review and Reference Date is annexed as Exhibit 'F' to the petition. 8. The petitioner further states that the scheme under the SDR Notification (SDR scheme) envisages participation by all the lenders of the petitioner and CNIL, including respondent Nos.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owards interest to the lenders, including respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Rs. 75,00,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Five Crores only) on 22nd June, 2018 and 27th June, 2018 towards the first principal repayment tranche. Upon conversion of debt into equity shares of the petitioner, all amounts, overdue prior to the date of conversion, were converted into equity shares. Therefore, post conversion, there were no outstanding payments overdue to be paid by the petitioner in any manner. 12. It is submitted by the petitioner that meanwhile, the lenders of the petitioner, including respondent Nos.1 to 6, attempted to find an investor to sell their stake in the petitioner. However, despite extensive assistance from the petitioner, the lenders, including respondent Nos.1 to 6, failed to find an investor and thereby defaulted in their obligation under the SDR Scheme. The petitioner states that it did not default on any of its obligations, including repayment of the debt, under the SDR scheme and co-operated to the maximum extent possible with the lenders to find a new investor. The obligation to find the new investor and transfer their respective shareholding in the petitioner to a new investor was that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Core Committee of the lenders held on 23rd January, 2018 is annexed to the petition as Exhibit 'H'. Notably, the meeting dated 23rd January, 2018 was, inter alia, attended by the representatives of respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6. 14. Thereafter, at the joint lenders' meeting dated 30th January, 2018, the lenders of the petitioner deliberated the proposal to sell the entire debt of the petitioner to an ARC. Copy of the minutes of the joint lenders' meeting held on 30th January, 2018 is annexed as Exhibit 'I' to the petition. 15. It is further submitted that the proposition to sell the debts of the lenders to an ARC was further discussed at the meeting of the Core Committee of the lenders of the petitioner on 2nd February, 2018. Pertinently, the proposed sale of assets to an ARC was on 50:50 basis i.e. 50% consideration for sale of asset would be cash and 50% consideration for sale of asset would be security receipts to be issued by the proposed ARC. However, at the meeting held on 2nd February, 2018, respondent No.1 inquired as to whether the cash consideration for sale of assets to an ARC could be increased to more than 50% in order to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortium of lenders, ICICI Bank queried whether respondent No.7 would consummate the transaction if only some of the lenders are willing to assign the debt. Respondent No.7 clarified that the offer then extended by respondent No.7 was contingent on 100% of the lenders assigning their debt and piecemeal purchase of the debt from each lender would entail substantial reduction in the consideration being offered by respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 further stated that in such a situation, respondent No.7 would be able to offer only around Rs. 1500,00,00,000/- (Rupees one Thousand and Five Hundred Crores only) to Rs. 1800,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Thousand and Eight Hundred Crores only). Thus, to facilitate aggregation of debts as envisaged by the relevant RBI circular and mandated by the IRAC guidelines, it was always understood between the lenders including respondent Nos. 1 to 6, consultants and respondent No.7 that a 100% assignment of the debt of the petitioner would help to realise the best value for all the lenders of the petitioner. Further, during the meeting, Ernst and Young emphasised that the process of evaluating the sale of the petitioner's debt to an ARC was commenced pursuant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Union of India. 23. However, no further bids were received by the lenders and meanwhile, during the negotiations with the lenders of the petitioner, respondent No.7 had raised its offer to purchase the entire debt of the petitioner of Rs. 2400,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Four Hundred Crores only). Therefore, by a letter dated 11th July, 2018, the Union Bank of India declared the bid of respondent No.7 and BAML as H1 or "highest Bidder" so as to enable all the lenders to seek the consent of their respective competent authorities in this regard. 24. On 13th July, 2018, at a meeting of the lenders of the petitioner, including respondent Nos. 1 to 6, it was expressly recorded in the minutes of the meeting that since no counter bid was received from the above investors within the stipulated time lines, by virtue of the ROFR, the offer of Rs. 2400.00 crores by the BoAML-EARC has been accepted for the proposed sale. 25. Pursuant thereto, a note was prepared by Union Bank of India and circulated to all the lenders of the petitioner vide an email dated 17th July, 2018. The petitioner submits that a bare reading of this note speaks volumes of the extremely cogent and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Bank of India. 31. In compliance with the request of respondent No.7, United Bank of India assigned its rights, title and interest in the financial assistance granted by it to the petitioner in favour of respondent No.7 acting in its capacity as trustee of EARC Trust- SC 366 vide an assignment agreement dated 29th March, 2019. 32. The said fact was communicated by respondent No.7 to the petitioner vide letter dated 1st April, 2019. Exhibit 'V' to the petition is a copy of the letter dated 1st April, 2019 addressed by respondent No.7 to the petitioner. 33. The details of the debts assigned to respondent No.7 are as follows:- Sr.No. Name of Bank Total outstanding as on September 1, 2018 (INR Crores) % 1. Union Bank of India 488.5 12.01% 2. Central Bank of India 468.6 11.52% 3. Indian Overseas Bank 410.2 10.09% 4. Bank of Baroda 343.2 8.44% 5. ICICI Bank 306.1 7.53% 6. Punjab National Bank 235.9 5.80% 7. Oriental Bank of Commerce 207 5.09% 8. Andhra Bank 206.3 5.07% 9. Bank of India 188.8 4.64% 10. State Bank of India 144.2 3.55% 11. Axi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition as Exhibit 'CC'. 39. The petitioner challenged the retrospective declaration of the petitioner to be in default and an NPA with effect from 1st July, 2011 as being ex-facie unjustified, illegal and arbitrary, before the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.22687 of 2018. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.22688 of 2018 before the Madras High Court seeking a declaration that the threshold for deciding sale of the debt of the petitioner to an Asset Reconstruction Company/ Securitisation Company is (i) 66% (sixty per cent) in value of the lenders in accordance with the provisions of the revised framework circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India; or (ii) in the alternative, 75% (seventy five per cent) in value of the lenders in accordance with the IRAC guidelines. 40. On 14th September, 2018, the petitioner filed a memo before the Hon'ble Madras High Court seeking to withdraw Writ Petition No.22688 of 2018 on account of lack of jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to entertain the said writ petition. The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition No.22688 of 2018 with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nition and Asset Classification (IRAC) guidelines. Since 78.93% lenders of the petitioner have assigned their respective debts to respondent No.7, as per the IRAC guidelines, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are bound to assign their respective debts to respondent No.7 as well. The petitioner is impugning the actions/omissions of respondent Nos.1 to 6 on the grounds set out in the petition. In ground B, reliance is placed upon para 6.4 of the IRAC guidelines, which reads as under :- "6.4 Procedure for sale of Bank's/ FI's financial assets to ARC including valuation and pricing aspects..... (d) (i) ..... (ii) In the case of consortium/ multiple banking arrangements, if 75% (by value) of the banks/ FIs decide to accept the offer, the remaining banks/ FIs will be obligated to accept the offer" (Emphasis supplied). 46. The averment in the petition is that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are bound by the said guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. In the present case, since more than 75%(by value) of the lenders of the petitioner have assigned all their rights, title and interest in the financial facilities granted by them to the petitioner, in favour of respondent No.7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th January, 2020 in view of the following terms :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1893 OF 2019 GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ..PETITIONER VERSUS CANARA BANK & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS ______________________________________ To, The Prothonotary and Senior Master, Bombay High Court, Original Side Sir, BE PLEASED TO list the above Writ Petition before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.C.Dharmadhikari and Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.I.Chagla in the Bombay High Court on ________ when the Advocates for the Petitioner will seek urgent ad-interim reliefs in the following facts and circumstances. 1. The Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 to assign the debts owed by the Petitioner to the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in favour of the Respondent No.7 as mandated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Assets Classification and Provisioning Pertaining to Advances dated July 1, 2015 (IRAC Guidelines) and pending such assi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n vide judgment dated 2nd April, 2019, without granting any relief of the aforesaid nature. Now, once that relief has not been granted and is deemed to have been refused, the present petition is not maintainable. 53. The second objection and raised as a preliminary one is that the petitioner is a borrower company. It has no locus in the matter of sale and purchase of the respondents' assets/loans in favour of a third party, including respondent No.7. It cannot, as a borrower, seek a direction to respondent No.1 to assign its debt in favour of respondent No.7 at a throw away price. 54. Thereafter, it is stated that the first respondent had sanctioned a Rupee Term Loan of Rs. 200.00 Crores to the petitioner out of the total Debt requirement of Rs. 3529.00 Crores by the lenders' consortium, including respondent No.1. This is to part finance the Capex plan of installing telecom towers (Phase II) over three years from 2008-2009 till financial year 2010-2011. Due to excess tie up, respondent No.l was allotted a share of 166.50 Crores as against the sanctioned limit of Rs. 200 Crores. However, the petitioner has availed only Rs. 94.97 Crores. The said Term loan facility was payable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the lenders of the GTL Limited-Parent Company of the petitioner, the Consortium Lenders in the Joint Lenders Forum meeting, held on 20th September, 2016, reviewed the account and after deliberations, invoked SDR scheme as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines considering 20th September, 2016 as the review and reference date. Thus, Rs. 13000 Crores were to be brought in by the petitioner so as to comply with their obligations and, therefore, there was an agreement for conversion of part of the outstanding debt into equity. It was proposed that CNIL be merged with the petitioner and induction of new investor post-merger. In tune with the JLF decision, respondent No.1 permitted conversion of part debt of Rs. 35.60 Crores out of the total outstanding debt of Rs. 71.79 Crores as on reference date into equity shares of the petitioner apart from permitting part debt conversion of Rs. 271.11 Crores out of the total outstanding debt of Rs. 498.30 Crores in CNIL. After conversion of Rs. 7236.69 Crores debt into equity under CDR and SDR, the balance total debt of the lenders was Rs. 4143.51 Crores and the total equity shares was around 63.16% held by the lenders in the share capital of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e valuation was objected by some of the lenders including respondent No.1 on methodology and approach wherein the valuation was derived by discounted cash flow method on projected cash flow for a period of five years by one valuer and nine years by another valuer. This projected cash flow for 5/9 years was based on certain assumptions of the market perception which is highly subjective. (vi) The useful life of towers is 35 years and it is being depreciated on straight line method at the rate of 2.72% per annum in terms of specific approval received from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India vide Order No.45/2/2010-CL-III dated 26th May, 2010 issued under section 205(2) (d) of the Companies Act,1956. However, in the above said latest valuation, economic values of the towers were not considered as per the Government norms. (vii) As per the petitioner's annual balance-sheet-2018,total depreciated value of property and plant and equipment of the company was Rs. 7944.57 crores, out of which, value of plant and machinery was Rs. 7715.24 crores. (viii) In the recent sale transaction of telecom towers as reported by live mint dated 31st May, 2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ARC deal and the transaction was done with some of the lenders on 27th August, 2018, which was subsequent to the validity date for sale of asset to EARCBoAML. (xv) As per the petitioner, interest had been served and the principal installments on the residual portion of the debt upon converting the part debt into equity, the BoAML EARC were to receive the interest on the entire amount of the assigned debt i.e. Rs. 4143 crores by investing only Rs. 2400 crores, fetching an effective return of around 19% on the assigned debt. Therefore, the proposed transaction confers an undue advantage to the Asset Reconstruction Companies at the sacrifice of the lenders and majority of the lenders being public sector banks, causing grave and serious loss to the exchequer. (xvi) During the JLF meetings held on 30th January, 2018, 2nd February, 2018 and 12th February, 2018, sale to ARC was initially proposed in the ratio of 50:50 structure (i.e. 50% cash and 50% security receipt) with no sacrifice to the lenders as it was proposed that entire principle outstanding debt will be either refinanced or sold to ARC. (xvii) However, the proposed offer was initially made forRs. 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lected to do so. Thereafter, respondent No.1 had recalled the advance and invoked personal guarantee/ sponsor support agreement vide notices dated 23rd August, 2018 and 24th August, 2018. (xxii) The petitioner is continuously in default with respondent No.1 and has not remitted any amount towards its dues since August, 2018 with respondent No.1 despite having regular cash flows from the operations. Consequently, respondent No.1 has filed recovery suit against the petitioner, guarantors at DRT, Chennai on 23rd April, 2019. 58. A reference is made then to the two circulars of the Reserve Bank of India. One circular is dated 12th February, 2018, which has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the subsequent one is dated 7th June, 2019. It is contended that if a Resolution of such larger essence is not implemented as per the timeline specified in these guidelines, then, lenders can file insolvency application, singly or jointly, under the IBC. 59. The reference to these directives, according to respondent No.1, enables them to file the application under the IBC. Therefore, filing of that application is justified. It is contended that the Reserve Bank of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is at Exhibit 'BB', letter dated 27th June, 2019, copy of which is at Exhibit-II and the letter dated 12nd December, 2019, copy of which is at Exhibit 'VV' to the petition. 63. In this petition, the contention is that the petitioner before this Court is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of independent telecom network services provider with a range of offerings primarily network operations and maintenance, besides network planning, design and deployment. The petitioner promoted GTL Infrastructure Limited as a "Category 1" Infrastructure Provider and registered with the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India to provide passive telecom infrastructure services to various Telecom Operators. GIL owns telecom towers and offers these towers to its customers on a shared and chargeable basis. The petitioner maintains these towers and provide energy management services to GIL and other telecom operators. The parties to this petition other than the Canara Bank are, Union of India, Reserve Bank of India and other banking companies. The allegations in that petition are more or less identical,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreeable to the proposal. 67. It is on the above materials that we have heard Mr.Kamdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1893 of 2019 and Mr.Navroz Seervai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in other petition. 68. Mr.Kamdar invited our attention to the petition and its annexures and submitted that the case of the petitioner is that it is the Canara Bank alone, which is objecting to the agreement and assignment of the debt. The circulars of the Reserve Bank of India have been referred to by Mr.Kamdar and he would argue that these circulars are binding on Canara Bank. It cannot opt out of restructuring of debt and settlement proposal. It is alone resisting this and though it has not succeeded in its attempt to seek winding/dissolution of the petitioner, if the Canara Bank alone is allowed to frustrate and defeat the proposal, then, it is clear that the nationalised banks have, contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, conducted themselves unfairly, arbitrarily, unjustly so also unreasonably. This should not be permitted and we must interfere in our writ jurisdiction and issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rala and Ors. Vs. Kandath Distilleries AIR 2013 SC 1812, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :- "27. Legislature when confers a discretionary power on an authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the Court. Court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. Court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority acting under the Statute by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. A Writ of Mandamus can be issued in favour of an applicant who establishes a legal right in himself and is issued against an authority which has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so, but such a legal duty should emanate either in discharge of the public duty or operation of law." 73. In the first petition, the prayer is to issue such a writ directing respondent Nos.1 to 6 to forthwith comply with paragraph 6.4 of the Master Circular dated 1st July, 2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 74. Copy of this Circular has Parts A, B, C, C-1 to C-3. Now, the petitioner's prayer is that this Circular shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any diminution in the value of loan assets, investment or other assets is that of the bank managements and its statutory auditors. There has to be a inspecting officer of the Reserve Bank of India whose assessment furnished to the bank will assist it and statutory auditors in taking a decision with regard to making adequate and necessary provisions in terms of prudential guidelines. The prudential norms, the classification of assets would then enable the provisioning. Now, the argument of the learned senior counsel is based on para 6.4 of this circular. This para sets out the procedure for sale of banks/financial institutions' financial assets to Securitisation Company and Reconstruction Company, including valuation and pricing aspects. This paragraph reads as under :- "6.4 Procedure for sale of banks'/FIs' financial assets to SC/RC, including valuation and pricing aspects (a) The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) allows acquisition of financial assets by SC/RC from any bank/FI on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between them. This provides for sale of the financ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration for the financial assets sold to SC/RC. (f) Bonds/debentures received by banks/FIs as sale-consideration towards sale of financial assets to SC/RC will be classified as investments in the books of banks/FIs. (g) Banks may also invest in security receipts, Passthrough certificates (PTC), or other bonds/debentures issued by SC/RC. These securities will also be classified as investments in the books of banks/FIs. (h) In cases of specific financial assets, where it is considered necessary, banks/FIs may enter into agreement with SC/RC to share, in an agreed proportion, any surplus realised by SC/RC on the eventual realisation of the concerned asset. In such cases the terms of sale should provide for a report from the SC/RC to the bank/FI on the value realised from the asset. No credit for the expected profit will be taken by banks/FIs until the profit materializes on actual sale." 75. Mr.Kamdar would submit by relying upon clause (d)(ii) of this paragraph that the writ be issued. However, he omits from his arguments other clauses of para 6.4. The clauses would reveal that the financial institutions and banks can acquire financial assets. This can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany/Reconstruction Company for the financial asset and decide whether to accept or reject the offer. Further, there cannot be a transfer to this Securitisation Company/ Reconstruction Company at a contingent price, whereby, in the event of shortfall in the realization by the Securitisation Company/Reconstruction Company, the banks/financial institutions would have to bear a part of the shortfall. Finally, if the auction process is used for sale of non-performing assets to Securitisation Companies/ Reconstruction Companies, that should be more transparent and complying with what is laid down in para 6.4 clause (d)(iv). 77. Mr.Kamdar, therefore, is not correct in arguing that this circular ought to be followed and must be directed to be followed by respondent Nos.1 to 6, even if that is containing a caution, advise and guidance. It is common ground that the petitioner says that these guidelines/norms should be applied and there is no choice not to abide by it. The argument is that since more than 75% (by value) of the lenders of the petitioner have assigned all their rights, title and interest in the financial facilities granted by them to the petitioner in favour of respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposal of settlement or restructuring of its debt. The proposal has to be evaluated and considered in the backdrop of its long term implications and consequences. If the bank adopts such a course, then, we cannot direct the bank to act contrary to the same. That would mean calling upon the bank not to act for public good and in public interest. 78. Respondent No.1, on the own showing of the petitioner, contends that the SDR scheme failed because no change in management could be effected and thus, an event of default has occurred under the CDR scheme. Now, the petitioner says that the obligation to induct new investor and cause a change in the management was that of the lenders. In raising such a ground, the petitioner is attributing to the bank (respondent No.l) arbitrariness. Now, such an accusation or allegation is easy to level, but when the nationalised bank has to also consider all pros and cons and its decision should be rational, reasonable, fair, just and in public interest, then, merely because its interpretation of the clauses of a scheme is allegedly erroneous, the writ cannot be issued as claimed. In fact, in grounds (E), (F) and (G), precise allegations made by res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditors. Particularly even after scaling down and granting a concession, the debt of the petitioner is enormous and computed to the extent of Rs. 1758,41,96,635/-. There is another debt of the associated company and that is also enormous. When such is the magnitude of the debt, then, a cautious approach by respondent Nos.1 to 6 cannot be ipso facto termed as arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner will have to establish and prove that the IRAC guidelines styled as such contain a mandate. That mandate has not been adhered to by respondent Nos.1 to 6 though all conditions in relation thereto are fulfilled by the petitioner is another facet, which will have to be established and proved by the petitioner. That the decisions are taken unanimously by all lenders and, therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 6 cannot back out of the same must be proved by leading evidence. That legally admissible evidence ought to take care of all the alternate versions and placed by the petitioner itself before us. Firstly, it is said that these decisions are unanimous and thereafter it is said that the decisions are the product of collective commercial wisdom of the superior majority of the creditors of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified as non-performing assets by the statutory auditors with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2011. This is on account of failure or non-compliance with the CDR and SDR packages. The company has failed to meet its repayment obligations towards the Canara Bank and committed breaches and defaults under financial documents. That is why the Canara Bank called upon the petitioner to pay the dues by its reminder dated 27th June, 2018. There is no response to the same. That is how the bank was seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 540.35 Crores under the Rupees Facility as on 23rd August, 2018. 82. We are clear in our mind after we have perused this letter that it is the first respondent, which is accusing the petitioner of breach and violation of the packages and the conditions thereof. The bank accuses the petitioner of not fulfilling its commitment or the essential conditions under the packages. This may be or may not be correct, but it is definitely a version contrary to that of the petitioner. In such circumstances, how arbitrariness, much less, mala fides, can be attributed to a public financial institution without resolution of the factual disputes, is unclear to us. In other word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 480, the issue was different. There, the Banking Regulation Act and Sections referred to in Ravindra's case (supra) have been referred to and thereafter, the argument that these circulars of the Reserve Bank of India are not traceable to any statutory provisions was dealt with. In these circumstances, the arguments on constitutional validity of Section 35-AA and 35-AB have been rejected. Once again these are in the context of the challenge to these provisions after the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded its judgment on the issues by holding the circulars ultra vires. Now, these circulars, in the backdrop of which the challenge was raised, were not identical nor was the factual issue. Therefore, this judgment has no bearing on the issue before us. 87. Similarly, the judgment delivered in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. would also have no application as a distinct controversy was dealt with by the same. 88. As far as the writ petition argued by Mr.Seervai is concerned, there, we find that the prayer is to direct respondent No.7 to ente....