TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven Hundred and Eighty only) which includes Rs. 12,83,56,728/- towards the Term Loan and Rs. 2,38,55,052/-towards Over Draft facility. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the instant Petition, are as follows: (1) M/s. Corporation Bank is a Public Sector Bank having its Head Office at Mangala Devi Temple Road, Mangalore, Karnataka and having Branches inter alia one at Sound-end Road, Mill Corner, Sheshadripuram PO, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560020. (2) M/s. Mindlogicx Infratec Limited is a Limited Company incorporated on 28.07.2010 under the Companies Act, 1956 bearing CIN: U72200KA2010PLC054598 and having its office at Unit-I, Techllano 10/1 -B, Graphite India Road, Hoodi Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560048. (3) The Financial Creditor entered an agreement with Corporate Debtor and provided a term loan of Rs. 9,28,66,590/- and Overdraft facility of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on 30.05.2013. The Corporate Debtor after availing the said term loan and over draft failed to pay the amount as per the terms of loan agreement. In accordance with the prudential accounting and income recognition norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 24.05.2014 approached the Petitioner and requested for rescheduling the term loan from quarterly instalment to half yearly instalments i.e., whenever the payments are received by the Respondent from the University. (4) It is stated that the Petitioner rescheduled the term loan on 28.05.2014. A Supplementary Deed of Hypothecation was entered into. However, the Petitioner sent an email on 11.08.2014 requiring the Respondent Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,14,00,000/- for regularisation of the account and held that the Respondent Company loan account has slipped into a Non-performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 29.05.2014. The said email was issued by the Petitioner unilaterally completely ignored the revised restructuring of the term loan. The Respondent Company vide email dated 14.08.2014 pointed out the terms of revised/restructured loan. But the Petitioner arbitrarily issued a letter dated 18.08.2014 cancelling the restructuring order. (5) The Petitioner informed the Respondent that to regularise the account the Respondent Company is required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs only) on or before 28.08.2014, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court by the Respondent which is pending. These actions of the Bank spoiled the reputation of the Respondent which inflicted huge loss to it. (9) It is submitted that the Respondent Company always wanted to pay off the loan and after several rounds of discussions, both the parties arrived at Rs. 9,93,00,000/- including interest as on 31.0.2018 as full and final payment. The Respondent Company submitted a revised letter dated 29.05.2018, as requested along with 5 self named security cheques to the Petitioner Bank. However, the Petitioner went back on its words and demanded a sum of Rs. 13,01,10,123/- as against Rs. 9, 93, 00,000. (10) The W.P No. 42451/2014 came up and the Hon'ble High Court quashed the letter dated 18.08.2014 of Petitioner Bank disallowing the restructure and classifying the account of Respondent as NPA and gave liberty to the Respondent to submit a fresh representation. The Respondent vide letter dated 08.05.2019 requested the Petitioner Bank to consider its request as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, however, the Bank wilfully refused to consider the representation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paid on deferred basis only due to the unprecedented situation beyond the control of the Respondent wherein the entire business is come to a standstill and no examinations are scheduled since Covid-19 crisis hit India and that the Respondent is ready to honour payments as per the letter dated 07.07.2020. 6. The aforesaid letter dated 07.07.2020 addressed by the Respondent to the Petitioner requesting for continuation of the sanctioned OTS amount as mentioned in letter dated 21.03.2020 and rescheduling the repayment schedule reads as under: Sl. No. As per sanction letter dt. 21.03.20 New repayment schedule now proposed Date of payment Amt. (in Rs. Lakhs) Date of payment Amt. (in Rs. Lakhs) 1. 20.03.2020 100.00 31.01.2021 100.00 2. 20.05.2020 100.00 28.02.2021 100.00 3. 20.07.2020 100.00 31.03.2021 100.00 4. 20.08.2020 150.00 30.04.2021 100.00 5. 05.09.2020 200.00 31.05.2021 100.00 6. -- -- 30.06.2021 100.00 7. -- -- 31.07.2021 50.00 Total 650.00 650.00 7. Heard Mr. V.B. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay H. Sethia, learned Counsel for the Respondent through Video Conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C for initiating CIRP, suspension of CIRP, deferment of loan repayments and restructuring of debt etc. have been made to prevent businesses from going into liquidation. Under the circumstances narrated in the objections filed by the Respondent, it is clear that its business has been hampered in the current economic scenario, as all the Educational Institutions and Universities have postponed examinations and no tentative dates are fixed for any examination. This has led to non-receipt of revenue from business on account of closure of educational institutions, which in turn leads to its difficulty in timely repayment of loans. We cannot ignore this aspect which has been acknowledged in several decisions of all Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble NCLAT. This is more so in a case where the Respondent is inclined to repay its debt and only seeks more time to do so. 11. After the quashing of the NPA order in W.P No. 42451/2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Respondent submitted a fresh representation on 08.05.2019 and has already paid a substantial part of the debt over a period time. Shri V. B. Ravishankar, learned Counsel f....