TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the '1st Respondent / Financial Creditor / Bank / Petitioner'), under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, read with Rule 4 of I & B (AAA) Rules, 2016, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench-I, Hyderabad). 2. The 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench-I, Hyderabad), while passing the 'impugned order' dated 10.10.2022 in CP (IB) No. 43/7/HDB/2020 (Filed by the '1st Respondent / Financial Creditor / Bank / Petitioner'), under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, read with Rule 4 of I & B (AAA) Rules, 2016, among other things, at Paragraph Nos. 60 to 70, had observed as under: 60. "In the above backdrop, we proceed to decide the Point, by referring at the outset to Direction 9 of the Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions 2019, wherein it is stated that : "In any case, once a borrower is reported to be in default by any of the lenders mentioned at 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), lenders shall undertake a prima facie review of the borrower account within thirty days from such default ("Review Period"). During this Review Period of thirty days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Resolution Plan in accordance with the terms of such Resolution Plan." 63. Having examined the above along with relevant provisions / clauses in RBI Directions, 2019 and the ICA dated 06.07.2019, supra, we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the corporate debtor as, Clause 13.2 of the ICA, categorically states that in the event the Lenders decide on implementation of a Resolution Plan the standstill period shall extend during the implementation of the Resolution Plan (which is currently 180 (one hundred and eighty) days from the end of the Review period, thus making the approval of the resolution plan if any within 30 days imperative and only upon such approval the stand still period gets extended to 180 days. Therefore, the sine qua non, for extension of the standstill period from initial 30 days to 180 days, the lenders should decide to implement the Resolution Plan, lest the initial period of 30 days will not get enlarged to 180 days. 64. During the course of hearing, we have specifically inquired with the learned Senior counsel for the financial creditor whether any resolution plan as contemplated under the RBI Directions, supra, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower after the expiry of the standstill period specified in Clause 13.2 below." Moreover Clause 13.3 of the ICA says that: "The aforesaid standstill provision shall not preclude the lenders from initiating or continuing any action against the borrower or its promoters / directors / officials or other persons for criminal offences." Hon'ble NCLAT in re. Amitabh Kumar Jha Vs. Bank of India, supra, held that: " .. .. The Clauses in the 'Inter-Creditor Agreement' would not supersede the rights and obligations of Rupee Lenders in their independent capacity and this is further reinforced by Clause 1.3 of the 'Inter-Corporate Agreement". The ruling below, in re, relied on by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant wherein it was held that; "...... notwithstanding the fact that neither the claims barred by law nor do such Financing Documents clothe the 'Corporate Debtor', with a right to disentitle the "Financial Creditor' from enforcing its claim, in its individual capacity, despite being a member of the consortium of lender." Further, the statutory right across the ambit of Section 7 of the IBC cannot be curtailed or made subservient to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Debtor', under 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' forthwith, by admitting the 'Section 7 Application' and declared 'Moratorium', etc. Appellants Submissions: 3. According to the Appellants, the 'Adjudicating Authority' ('National Company Law Tribunal', Hyderabad Bench-I, Hyderabad), had not applied its mind, while 'Admitting' the Section 7 Petition 'CP (IB) No. 43 / 7 / HDB / 2020', because of the fact that basic requisites of 'Debt' and 'Default', that are required to be examined and 'proven', prior to the 'admission' of 'Petition', seeking to initiate 'Insolvency Process', was not established. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants contends that other than the existing 'Term Loans', the 'Corporate Debtor' / 'GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd.', had required the 'Additional Funds', for 'Working Capital', and meeting the 'Operational Expenses'. Indeed, according to the 'Appellants', the 'Project Lenders', including the '1st Respondent', had agreed for the 'Corporate Debtor', to receive the 'Financial Assistance', from 'Deutsche Bank AG, Mumbai Branch and Deutsche Bank International Asia Limited (i.e., the 'Priority Lenders'). 5. The Learned Counsel for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....including the '1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor / Petitioner', were required to undertake a prima facie review of the Corporate Debtor's Account, within 30 days, and according to the Corporate Debtor, the 'Review Period', came into effect from 07.06.2019. 11. It is the version of the Appellants that, on 02.07.2019, the 'Consortium of Lenders', had decided that the 'Resolution Plan', outside the scope of the I & B Code, 2016, would be a better option and had agreed to execute an 'Inter Creditor Agreement', after taking internal approvals from their respective managements. As a matter of fact, on 06.07.2019, an 'Inter Creditor Agreement', was executed between the 'Project Lenders' and 'Priority Lenders' and the 'E & Y', was appointed by the 'Corporate Debtor', as the 'Process Advisor', to help prepare a suitable 'Resolution Plan'. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants points out that as per Clause 7.3 (b), read in consonance with the ingredients of Clause 13 (Stand Still Clause) of the ICA dated 06.07.2019, during the 'Resolution Process', no 'Lender', including the 'Dissenting Lender', can initiate any 'Legal action', against the 'Corporate Debtor', including a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed as under: 30. "..... It is of no matter that the debt is disputed so long as the debt is "due" i.e. payable unless interdicted by some law or has not yet become due in the sense that it is payable at some future date. It is only when this is proved to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the adjudicating authority may reject an application and not otherwise." 17. Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants points out that post the filing of 'Section 7 Petition / Application', by the '1st Respondent / Bank', the 'IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited' ('Bond Trustee'), had filed a 'Commercial Suit', before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, for release of a sum of Rs.292.70 crores from the 'Trust and Retention Account' ("TRA") for repayment of debt, payable by the 'Corporate Debtor', to the 'Priority Lender - II', from the TRA Account, to enable the 'Corporate Debtor', to pay the 'Outstanding Dues', to 'Priority Lender'. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, had passed an 'Order' on 26.06.2020, restraining all the 'Lenders', from withdrawing any sum from the 'TRA' of the 'Corporate Debtor'. 18. According to the Appellants, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rores, only against the 'Total Capital Cost', that was incurred and claimed, by the 'Corporate Debtor', Viz. INR 4,267.38/- Crores. 23. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that, the aforesaid 'Capital Cost', is to be paid by the 'Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission', to the 'Corporate Debtor', over a period of time and that the said monies, so paid, will be used for the payments to be made to the 'Lenders'. Also that, the 'Corporate Debtor', had preferred an 'Appeal', against the 'Order' dated 17.01.2020 of 'Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission', before the 'Appellate Tribunal' for Electricity and the said 'Appeal No. 41 of 2020', is presently, pending for an 'Adjudication'. 24. According to the Appellants, if the 'Capital Cost', as claimed by the 'Corporate Debtor', is declared by 'APTEL', as payable, then, in terms of the 'PPA' and applicable 'Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Regulations', a 'Corporate Debtor', will be entitled for an interest at 13.50% per annum (SBI rate of interest + 350 base points), from the date the said amount is incurred, till the date the said amount is paid. 25. The Learned Counsel for the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....87 34,02,14,415 35,44,55,602 11 Indian Bank 1,55,29,366 37,09,69,959 38,64,99,325 12 Aditya Birla ARC (taken over from Karnataka Bank) 1,72,23,502 41,14,78,885 42,87,02,387 13 Oriental Bank of Commerce 7,66,58,289 29,02,23,525 36,68,81,814 Total 1,10,01,00,000 8,76,86,20,001 9,86,87,20,001 27. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', and the Proceedings, under the I & B Code, 2016, ought not to be used as a 'Recovery Forum', and therefore, an 'Action', would be in negation to the tenets of the I & B Code, 2016. To fortify his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, falls back upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (a) Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited v. Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 697 (b) Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, reported in 2018 1 SCC 353 and (c) The decision of this 'Tribunal', in Neelkanth Township and Construction Private Limited v. Urban Infrastru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. 32. According to the Appellants, Section 5 (12) of the I & B Code, 2016, defines 'Insolvency Commencement Date', to be the 'Date', on which the 'Application' for 'CIRP', is admitted. Section 13 of the IBC provides that the Adjudicating Authority shall "... after admission of the application under Section 7 ...", declare a 'Moratorium'. Section 14(4) of the IBC provides that the 'Order of Moratorium', shall have effect till the date of order till the completion of 'CIRP' process. 33. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that in the Judgment dated 06.08.2019, in Shobhnath & Ors. v. Prism Industrial Complex Limited, (vide Comp. App (AT) (INS.) No. 557 of 2018 - reported in India Kanoon), wherein, it is observed that "The consequential impact of the commencement of CIRP will be moratorium". 34. Also, in the Judgment in Mahendrabhai Bhaskarbhai Patil v. Maitreya Plotters & Structures Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2019 , SCC Online, NCLT 4910, wherein, it is held that "The consequential impact of the commencement of CIRP will be moratorium". 35. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants, adverts to the 'Order' dated 15.06.2020, in Narendra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ 2020, was filed by it as 'Financial Creditor', against the GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd., before the 'Adjudicating Authority', National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, for a total sum of Rs.442,20,14,321.40, as on the date of Filing of the Petition, under Section 7 of the I & B Code, and the said Petition, was admitted on 10.10.2022, through the 'Impugned Order', by the 'Adjudicating Authority'. Also that the Total Sum owed to all Consortium Lenders (consisting of 13 Financial Institutions) was over, INR 3,000 Crores. 42. The plea of the 1st Respondent / Bank / Petitioner is that, the sanction of 'Loan Facilities', to the 'Consortium Lenders' (including the '1st Respondent / Financial Creditor'), and the fact that the payments under such Facilities, are outstanding were not denied by the 'Corporate Debtor', as mentioned in Paragraph 22 of the 'Impugned Order'. 43. The 1st Respondent / Bank, takes a stand that the 'Corporate Debtor', had issued a 'Revival Letter', dated 13.06.2019, acknowledging the 'Debt', owed to all the 'Lenders'. Also that, the 'Loan Account Statements' of the 'Corporate Debtor', shows that "no payments, were received after December 2017, till the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank points out that, the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', had exercised its discretion in terms of the Judgment dated 12.07.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Vidharbha Industries Limited v. Axis Bank Limited (vide Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021), in admitting, the 'Petition'. 50. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank submits that the impugned order, correctly reflects the 'Date of Commencement of Moratorium as 10.10.2022', which is the date on which, Section 7 Application, was 'admitted', by the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal'. 51. Continuing further, it is the contention of the 1st Respondent / Bank that, it is critical for the 'Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process', to continue, in accordance with the 'impugned order', in order to protect the interest of '1st Respondent / Financial Creditor', and to prevent any further 'deterioration' in the 'Value of the Assets'. 52. According to the 1st Respondent / Bank, the 'Debts' of the 'Corporate Debtor', are not transitory, as the initial defaults, occurred as early as 2017. In fact, as recorded in the 'Minutes of the Meeting' of the 'Joint Lenders Forum', ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lution Plan' discussions of the 'Corporate Debtor', are not relevant, to the case on hand. Furthermore, a plea is taken that the 'Application', filed under Section 7 of the Code, against the Corporate Debtor by the 'IDBI Bank', has no bearing on the matter at hand. 59. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank contends that although the 1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor was a 'Party', to the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 06.07.2019, it withdrew itself from the said Agreement on 01.10.2019, as no 'Resolution Plan', was put forth and no 'Lenders Meeting', that took place post execution of the 'Inter Creditor Agreement', to decide on a 'Resolution Plan'. In fact, a Letter dated 01.10.2019, was issued to the 'Lead Bank / IDBI Bank', by the '1st Respondent / Financial Creditor', and email communications, were also exchanged between the 'Lender Banks'. 60. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank, brings it to the notice of this 'Tribunal', that the 'Inter Creditor Agreement', was not signed by all the 'Members', including the 'Priority Lender', and the Appellants had omitted Clause 13 (2) of the said Agreement, which specifies that the stand still provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 'Priority Lender', was satisfied with the payment of Rs.295 Crores (approx.), as per Order dated 19.08.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. 65. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank points out that the 'Appellants', wrongly contend that the 'Corporate Debtor', is 'Solvent', and can meet its 'Debts Obligation(s)', pursuant to the 'Approval' of 'Total Project Cost' of Rs.3,058 Crores, as per 'Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission' Order dated 17.01.2020 ('Tariff Order'). 66. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank raises a plea that the Corporate Debtor, had claimed the 'Total Project' of Rs.4,441 Crores, but the 'Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission', through its Tariff Order, had approved Project Cost of only Rs.3,058 Crores (approximately). Moreover, the 'PSERC', through the 'Tariff Order', had fixed the Tariff, that can be charged by the Corporate Debtor at Rs.1.419 per KWh (as opposed to the Provisional Tariff of Rs.2.2 per KWh, fixed earlier by the 'PSERC', through Order dated 28.03.2018. 67. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank contends that contrary to the Appellants' Claim, the Corporate Debtor shall rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'Debt Obligation(s)', is evident from the 'Audited Financials' of the 'Corporate Debtor', for the Financial Year 2021 - 2022. In fact, the Assets of the Corporate Debtor, as per the Financials, is valued only at Rs.3,874 Crores. However, its Liabilities are Rs.6,821 Crores. 71. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank contends that the decision in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited (vide Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021), dated 12.07.2022, is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, because in Vidarbha Industries matter, by virtue of an APTEL ruling, the company stood to receive funds of over Rs.1,730 crores immediately, which had been disallowed due to the fuel cost incurred by them for two financial years. Further, the claim of the financial creditor who had filed the Section 7 Application, in that case, was approximately Rs.553 Crores. As such, there was a possibility that the Corporate Debtor in Vidarbha Industries, would receive sufficient funds to repay the Financial Creditor. 72. Apart from the above, even in the instant case, if APTEL rules in favour of the Corporate Debtor and determines the capital cost as Rs.4,441 Crores, that amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Lenders decide on implementation of a Resolution Plan as the resolution strategy in accordance with Regulatory Framework, then the standstill provision shall extend during the implementation of Resolution Plan (which is currently 180 (one hundred and eighty) days from the end of the Review Period or such other period as may be prescribed for implementation of Resolution Plan under the Regulatory Framework) provided that the standstill shall immediately lapse on implementation of the Resolution Plan or if the resolution process is terminated by the Majority Lenders." and hence, it is pointed out that as 'no Resolution Plan', was 'Agreed in Principle', among the 'Consortium Lenders', the 'stand still expired', and the '1st Respondent / Financial Creditor', was free to initiate an 'Application' / 'Petition', under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016. Also that the '1st Respondent' / 'Financial Creditor', withdrew itself from the 'ICA', on 01.10.2019. 79. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent / Bank, while winding up, prays for 'Dismissal' of the instant 'Appeal', by this 'Tribunal', to secure the 'ends of Justice'. Status Report of 2nd Respondent / Resolution Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tainable'. 85. It is to be remembered that a reason for inability of 'Corporate Debtor', to pay its 'Debt', is not required to be looked into, by an 'Adjudicating Authority'. To put it succinctly, the circumstances, under which, a 'Corporate Debtor', could not 'repay', the 'Financial Debt', need not be taken as a 'defence', in a 'Proceeding(s)', under the 'Code'. 86. That apart, a mere 'Dispute', about the 'Quantum of Payment', does not affect the 'Right' of a 'Financial Creditor'. Moreover, an 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', is not a 'Civil Court', to determine the 'Violation of Contract', between the 'Parties', in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal'. The Indian Contract Act, 1872: 87. As per the ingredients of Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, with a view to convert a 'Proposal', into a 'Promise', the 'Acceptance', must be 'absolute' and 'unqualified'. 88. As a matter of fact, the 'Terms of a Contract', between the 'Parties', can be established, not only by their 'Words', but by their 'Conduct', as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2008 SC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn, Punjab ("Project"). The commitment of the Financial Creditor in terms of the Original Facility Agreement is Rs.200,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Crore only). The Original Facility Agreement was subsequently amended vide Amendment Agreement to the Facility Agreement dated 23.10.2015." 91. That apart, upon the request made by the 'Corporate Debtor' / 'GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd.', the '1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor', through Sanction Letter dated 23.12.2014, had sanctioned the 'Term Loan - II' of Rs.41,00,00,000/-, and that the 'Corporate Debtor', had also executed a 'Bilateral Term Loan Agreement', dated 24.12.2014, with the 'Financial Creditor', for Disbursement of Term Loan - II of Rs.41,00,00,000/-. 92. The 1st Respondent / Bank / Financial Creditor in 'Part IV' of 'Form I of Section 7 Petition', had averred that because of the delay in implementing the Project, there was Cost Overrun ('1st Cost Overrun'), and the 'Corporate Debtor', in order part-finance, the cost overrun, requested an Additional Rupee Facility, not exceeding in aggregate Rs.497,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Ninety Seven Crore Only) and a Facility Agreement dated 07.08.2015 ('....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the 'Corporate Debtor', to the 'Rupee Lenders', acknowledging the Debt of INR 412.14 Crores, owned by the 'Corporate Debtor', to the 'Financial Creditor. 96. Before the 'Adjudicating Authority', the 'Corporate Debtor' / 'GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd.', had in their 'Notes of Submissions', mentioned that as per the Agreements, executed with the 'Priority Lenders', which were approved by the 'Financial Creditor', and other 'Project Lenders', the 'Cash Flows', from the 'TRA', shall first be utilised to pay the 'Priority Lenders', in 'Full', and the Respondent, is under an 'Obligation', to clear all the Outstanding Sums, which are due to the 'Priority Lenders', in full, before making any payments to the other 'Project Lenders'. 97. The 'Corporate Debtor', before the 'Adjudicating Authority' / 'Tribunal', had adverted to the 'Direction 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 07.06.2019', which reads as under: "All lenders must put in place Board-approved policies for resolution of stressed assets, including the timelines for resolution. Since default with any lender is a lagging indicator of financial stress faced by the borrower, it is expected that the len....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 07.06.2019, the 'Creditors', including the 1st Respondent / Bank', had agreed to implement the 'Resolution Plan', Creditors had entered into an 'Inter Creditor Agreement', dated 06.07.2019, executed pursuant to the aforesaid RBI's direction dated 07.06.2019, within the '30 days Review Period'. 102. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, falls back upon Clauses 13.1.1, 13.2 and 13.1.2, which read as under: 13.1.1. "The Lenders agree and undertake that on and from the Reference Date, they shall not: (a) commence any civil action or proceedings under IBC against the Borrower or other persons that have provided Third Party Security for recovery of their dues in respect of the Facilities or enforcement of any security interest provided by the Borrower or other persons or accelerate any Facilities provided to the Borrower; Explanation: For the purpose of this Clause, the term "civil action" shall mean such legal action or proceeding against the Borrower, or against individual(s) or entities that have provided any Third Party Security. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Clause shall restrict the right of Lenders to adjust or appropriate any margi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) 'Priority Lender Facility Agreement dated 30.04.2017' (b) 'Priority Lender Debenture Trust Deed dated 30.04.2017' (c) 'RBI Directions of 07.06.2019 and the Inter Creditor Agreement dated 06.07.2019', executed pursuant to the RBI Directions (d) All of minutes of Meetings of the 'Joint Lenders Forum' and some of 'MOM' of 'Joint Lenders Forum', exhibit that 'Majority of Lenders', were not keen on initiating the IBC Proceedings, against the 'Corporate Debtor', and the (e) No Objection Certificate dated 30.03.2017 and the Commitment Letter dated 27.04.2017, under which, the Applicant had agreed to grant 'Priority Status', to the 'Priority Lenders', in addition to the 'TRA Agreement', and 'ICAs'. 104. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that as per Clauses 5.6, 24.3 (a), 24.23, 6.1 (Page 1430), the Cash Flows from the Trust and Retention Account Agreement dated 21.07.2017, shall be first utilised to pay the 'Priority Lenders', and that the Respondent is under an obligation to clear all the Outstanding amounts which are due to the 'Priority Lenders', in 'Full', prior to making any payments to the other 'Project Lenders'. 105. Added further, the Learned Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Arrangements', are an 'Inter se Arrangement', in regard to the manner of 'Distribution of Proceeds', among the various 'Creditors', of the 'Corporate Debtor', and do not have any bearing on the 'Admission' of the 'Company Petition', filed before the 'Adjudicating Authority'. 111. The plea of the 1st Respondent / Bank is that, the lending documents do not suggest that the 'Priority Lender', was required to be 'paid', in 'Full', before any Sum, became payable to the 'Senior Lenders'. Also that, on 20.12.2019, when Section 7 Application, was filed, before the 'Adjudicating Authority', no Sums were 'Outstanding', to the 'Priority Lender'. 112. In the instant case, there is no dispute, in regard to the sanction of Loans, amounting to Rs.355.40 Crores, by the 1st Respondent / Bank, to and in favour of the 'Corporate Debtor', beginning from the Year 2010. Furthermore, more than Rs.3,000 Crores, were advanced by the '12 Financial Institutions', together with the '1st Respondent / Bank', amounting to over and above Rs.3,000 Crores, in part financing the costs for setting up of 540 MW Coal Fired Thermal Power Plant, in Taran Tarn, Punjab, and for ease of convenience, the 'Lenders', h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9, was executed to afford a scaffold, for a possible 'Resolution'. Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment: 119. At this stage, this 'Tribunal', aptly points out the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.04.2019, in Dharani Sugars And Chemicals Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors. (vide Transferred Case (Civil) No. 66 of / 2018 in Transferred Petition (Civil) No. 1399 of 2018), reported in India Kanoon, whereby and whereunder, at Paragraph 26, it is observed and held as under: 26. "..... If a specific provision of the Banking Regulation Act makes it clear that the RBI has a specific power to direct banks to move under the Insolvency Code against debtors in certain specified circumstances, it cannot be said that they would be acting outside the four corners of the statutes which govern them, namely, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act." 120. No wonder, there is no 'Fetter in Law', much less in the Reserve Bank of India's Directions 2019, for the 'Lenders', to resort to the 'Summary I & B Code Proceedings'. The 'Right of the 1st Respondent / Bank', especially, under the I & B Code, 2016, cannot be taken away or overridden, by any 'Reserve Bank of India's Rule', etc. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal', to relevantly point out that, for an 'elongation of standstill period', as per Clause 13.2 of the Inter Creditor Agreement, from the original 30 days to 180 days, the 'Lenders', ought to determine, to implement the fulfilment of the 'Resolution Plan', and in the absence of the same, the original 30 days will not get extended to 180 days, in the considered opinion of this 'Tribunal'. 128. It is the version of the 1st Respondent / Bank that, 'no Resolution Plan', as visualised, in terms of the Reserve Bank of India's directions, was received from the 'Corporate Debtor' / 'GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd.', despite in the 'Joint Lenders Forum Meeting', on 02.07.2019, 15.11.2019 and 21.01.2020, deliberations had taken place, on these aspects. 129. It must be borne in mind that the 'Inter Creditor Agreement', is meant to take care of the interest of all the 'Lenders', among themselves, coupled with the Corporate Debtor, dehors the fact that the 'Corporate Debtor' / 'GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Ltd.', was not a privy and party to any of the 'Clauses' of the said 'Agreement'. 130. Dealing with the aspect of the 'Priority Lenders' Claim, were fulfilled, at this juncture, it i....