TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench-II ('Adjudicating Authority') in CP (IB) No.- 4541/(MB)/2019, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Code. GTL Infrastructure Limited, the Corporate Debtor against whom Section 7 application was filed by the Appellant, is the Respondent ('Respondent'). 2. Heard the Counsel for the Parties and perused the records made available including the cited judgements. We have also updated the figures based on Written Submission of the Parties based on liberty granted by this Appellate Tribunal on 24.09.2024 while reserving order for judgment. 3. The Appellant submitted that he is the Financial Creditor who lent money to the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant further submitted that there was a consortium of banks who gave different financial facilities to the Corporate Debtor. 4. Giving the background of the case, the Appellant submitted that the Corporate Debtor was set up somewhere around 2006 for providing approximately 23,700 passive telecom towers comprising 3,218 rooftop sites and 20,487 ground bases sites as Phase-I at various locations across India and for this purpose executed several finance and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipped into Non-Performing Asset ('NPA') w.e.f. 17.06.2016 in terms of RBI Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances ('IRAC Norms'). 10. The Appellant submitted that on 20.09.2016, the Appellant and other Consortium Lenders met and noted inability of the Respondent and CNIL to service the principal repayments of the lenders and decided to classify their accounts as ASM-II, however also decided to further help the Respondent and CNIL through Strategic Debt Restructuring (SDR) in accordance the RBI Master Direction- 'Review of I * Prudential Guidelines - Revitalising Stressed Assets in the I ' Economy' dated 25.02.2016. The Appellant stated that lenders agreed for participation in equity under SDR, merger of CNIL with Respondent and induction of New Investor post-merger. The Appellant communicated the sanction of SDR vide his letter dated 31.03.2017. 11. The Appellant submitted that in terms of this SDR, the CNIL was merged with the Respondent w.e.f. Appointed Date i.e., 01.04.2016, which was approved by the NCLT, Chennai and as per this merger, the assets and liabilities of CNIL were merged into the Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held the Revised Framework Circular as ultra vires under Section 35 AA of the RBI Regulation Act, 1949. 18. The Appellant filed another Section 7 application on 05.12.2019 before the Adjudicating Authority bearing CP (IB) No. 4541/2019 for outstanding amount of Rs. 646,38,062,711- as on 30.11.2019. 19. The Appellant stated that in the meanwhile, Respondent approached the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2019 seeking a writ of mandamus against the Appellant and four others lenders to assign their respective debts owed by the Respondent/ Corporate Debtor in favour of EARC as the Appellant and few other lenders were not assigning their debts to EARC. This writ petition of the Respondent was dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 03.02.2020. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent challenged the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Special Leave Petition No. 5256/2020 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 06.12.2021 mentioning that each bank/ financial institution must make its own assessment of the value offered by the borrowers for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can be seen from execution of security documents and balance outstanding evident by several acknowledgments including letter of Respondent dated 02.07.2016. Further the debt is also recorded in the Report of Information Utility (NeSL) dated 05.12.2019 and the Record of default under the report of the Central Repository of Information on Large Credits ("CRILC") dated 04.12.2019. 25. The Appellant stated that the Respondent and CNIL have created several charges on their properties in favour of the lenders for various facility management and the same are undisputed facts. 26. The Appellant emphasized that according to their commercial wisdom, it would be realistic to seek resolution of the Corporate Debtor under the Code and the same was communicated to Union Bank of India (Leader of Consortium) vide letter dated 03.08.2018 not to assign Appellant's debts in favour of EARC. The Appellant sated that he issued notice dated 23.08.2018 to the Respondent recalling the entire financial assistance granted to the Respondent and demanded payment of Rs. 540.35 Crores (Approx.). 27. The Appellant assailed the conduct of the Respondent for taking several frivolous grounds including that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this case under Section 7 of the Code 31. The Appellant further cited a judgment of this Appellate Tribunal titled as Rajesh Kedia v. Phoenix ARC Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 996 of 2021 and judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 9664 of 2019 in support of his arguments. 32. The Appellant submitted that the reliance on the Vidarbha Industries (Supra) by the Adjudicating Authority is patently illegal in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Axis Bank Limited v. Vidarbha Industries Power Limited Review Petition [(Civil) No. 1043 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021 ("Vidarbha Review Order")], where the same judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India who gave the original judgment of Vidarbha Industries (Supra), clearly stipulated that 'it is well settled that judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances and/or pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case'. (Emphasis Supplied) 33. The Appellant reiterated that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e lenders and to protect financial interest of the public at large. 38. Per contra, the Respondent denied all the averments made by the Appellant treating these as misleading and malicious. 39. The Respondent submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has examined the various issues and pleadings and has gone into details of the records and facts before passing the Impugned Order which is legal and correct in given circumstances. 40. The Respondent submitted that the Corporate Debtor is successfully running its operations and is viable going concern and has been generating sufficient revenue. The Respondent submitted that in March, 2023 it was generating almost monthly revenue of Rs. 120 Crores and as such in spirit of the Code, the Corporate Debtor should be allowed to continue as a going concern in interest of all stakeholders including the lenders and for economic welfare of public at large. 41. The Respondent gave the background of the business of the Corporate Debtor and subsequent events leading to merger of CNIL with the Corporate Debtor and stated that the Corporate Debtor has been providing huge infrastructure network required for telecom business and has been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of other stakeholder and number of customers of the Corporate Debtor using telecom services across India and large number of the employees working for such industries. 46. The Respondent also refuted the claims of the Appellant that Vidarbha Industries (Supra) is not a substantial law and is limited to its own fact and rather Innoventive Industries Ltd. (Supra) is the only good law in deciding cases of debt and default. The Respondent submitted that this position is not correct and Vidarbha Industries (Supra) is a correct and latest law which is pronounced after judgment of Innoventive Industries Ltd. (Supra) . 47. The Respondent submitted that judgment in Innoventive Industries Ltd. (Supra) rendered at the time when the IBC was in nascent stage and laid down of law relating to IBC and subsequently large number of litigations have helped IBC to evolve itself and came to correct path for benefit of all stakeholders including the borrowers and the lenders along with other stakeholders and in this background Vidarbha Industries (Supra) is a path breaking judgment which allows the Corporate Debtor to flourish and continue as going concern and only the errant and unscrupulous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the core object of Code is maximization of value through resolution and in the peculiar facts of the present case, maximization is possible only outside IBC. 51. The Respondent submitted that the Adjudicating Authority in para 11 gave reasoning of the judgment, as earlier the pleadings were complete and only for brevity purpose, the Adjudicating Authority has restricted its rationale in Para 11 and rather has given its clear reasoning in para 11. The Respondent assailed the conduct of the Appellant for generating unnecessary controversy on such trivial and hyper technical grounds. 52. The Respondent strongly emphasized that it has been paying to all creditors since its inceptions and stated that it has paid Rs. 17,394 Crores between the year 2011 to 24.09.2024 i.e., (updated figures based on Written Submission) i.e., paid in kind as debt converted into equity of Rs. 8,892 Crores (updated till 2022-23) and remaining amount in cash and thus, total repayment made to lenders (Cash + Conversion) is of Rs. 17,394 Crores from 2011 to 24.09.2024. 53. The Respondent submitted that it is hopeful of getting Rs. 900 Crores from Aircel which is biggest customer of the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vents led to non implementation of SDR and therefore the debt became multifold putting extreme hardship and unbearable financial distress on the Respondent. 58. The Respondent gave the background under which the lenders initiated the proposal for assignment to its debt to suitable EARC and during the time the Respondent submitted the Resolution Plan vide letter dated 27.04.2018, however, the same was not considered by the lenders and finally the majority of the lenders decided to assign their Debts to EARC valued 79.34% (by value) as on 01.07.2019. 59. The Respondent stated that the Corporate Debtor has paid around Rs. 17,400 Crores to the lenders which included principal, interest, conversion to equity, direct debited and amounts realized by sale of pledged shares indicating that the Respondent has been making payments of its debts and has been meeting its commitment towards financial facilities. 60. The Respondent submitted that by treating the SDR Scheme as having "failed", the Appellant is seeking to disregard the conversion of a specific portion of debt of the Applicant Bank into equity of the Respondent and demanded repayment of the debts owed by the Respondent to Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 2023] (paras 23-24), Sambhaji Waghoji Asole v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(2006) (1) Mh.L.J., Procter and Gamble India Ltd. v. Endolabs Ltd., 1999 SCC Online Bom 805 and Hindustan Construction Corp. v. Mazgaon Dock, 1998 SCC Online Bom 32, in support of his arguments. 64. The Respondent brought out that during the final stage of pleadings before this Appellate Tribunal when the Respondent raised issue regarding non- admissibility of Rejoinder submissions of the Appellant, the Senior Learned Counsel for the Appellant has categorically stated that the Appellant would not be pressing or relying upon the Rejoinder. The Respondent requested this Appellate Tribunal to disregard the Rejoinder filed by the Appellant. 65. Concluding his remarks, the Respondent submitted that the Corporate Debtor is viable company and was serving nation by providing telecom infrastructure and is a serious player as evident by the fact that the EBITA was positive and it has paid more than Rs. 17,000 Crores to its lenders in last several years. The Respondent reiterated that due to several factors happening in the economy and particularly in the telecom sector after 2G scam and failure on the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich could trigger Section 7 application filed by the Appellant. • We note that the Appellant filed the application under Section 7 of the Code in CP (IB) No. 4541/(MB)/ 2019 for initiation of CIRP against the Respondent and in Para IV of Section 7 Application, total amount has been shown as default Rs. 646,38,06,271/- as on 01.07.2011 and one table for working of computation of accounts and date of default was attached in annexures Part IV as Exhibit (C-1). • We further note that there was a consortium of lenders which financed GTL Infrastructure Ltd. and CNIL. We also observe that CNIL was later emerged into GTL Infrastructure Ltd. the Respondent herein. The financial facilities started since July 2008 by lenders, and continued over the time including sanctioning of financial facilities by the lenders of Rs. 2829 Crores + Rs. 5000 Crores + Rs. 700 Crores to these two entities. • We have already noted that due to financial distress of the Corporate Debtor the lenders and the Respondent agreed for CDR and the portion pertaining to the Appellant for this CDR package was Rs. 93.05 Crores + Rs. 631.08 Crores. We note that the CDR failed and the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... From the Written Submission, we note that the following issues have been raised by the Respondent :- "Whether the ratio in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 352 ("Vidarbha Industries") holding that the Adjudicating Authority has the discretion under Section 7, IBC to admit a petition by financial creditor only because there is debt and default has in any manner been affected by the subsequent judgements in the case of M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank & Ors. and Sunder Nagar Co-operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. v. SBI? B. Having filed the appeal only on the limited ground of non-applicability of Vidarbha Industries, can the Appellant be heard on grounds other than those raised in the memo of appeal? C. Having failed to file a rejoinder to the Affidavit in Reply and the Additional Affidavit in Reply filed by Respondent before NCLT, can the Appellant be permitted to raise or dispute issues of facts directly before the Appellate Authority without any challenge to the facts before NCLT? D. Can the Rejoinder filed by the Appellant before this Hon'ble Tribunal, without leave, containing a challenge to findings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit of the Code. In view of these discussions, the debt and default is established in favour of the Appellant. 69. Issue No. (ii) (a) Whether, ratio of Vidarbha Industries (Supra) was applicable in the present case based on which the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application of the Appellant filed under Section 7 of the Code. (b) Whether, there was judicious application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority as evident in the Impugned Order while rejecting the application of the Appellant under Section 7 of the Code. • We note that the Impugned Order is entirely based on the ratio of Vidarbha Industries (Supra) and therefore it would be desirable to look into the ratio and the relevant facts, Vidarbha Industries (Supra) which reads as under :- " 24. Mr Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant had applied for stay of the proceedings before NCLT, Mumbai in extraordinary circumstances, where the appellant had not been able to pay the dues of the respondent, only because an appeal filed by MERC, being Appeal No. 372 of 2017, against an Order dated 3-11-2016 [Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Mahara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legislature intended Section 9(5)(a) IBC to be mandatory and Section 7(5)(a) IBC to be discretionary. An application of an operational creditor for initiation of CIRP under Section 9(2) IBC is mandatorily required to be admitted if the application is complete in all respects and in compliance of the requisites of the IBC and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is no payment of the unpaid operational debt, if notices for payment or the invoice have been delivered to the corporate debtor by the operational creditor and no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor. The IBC does not countenance dishonesty or deliberate failure to repay the dues of an operational creditor. 81. The title "Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code" makes it amply clear that the statute deals with and/or tackles insolvency and bankruptcy. It is certainly not the object of the IBC to penalise solvent companies, temporarily defaulting in repayment of its financial debts, by initiation of CIRP. Section 7(5)(a) IBC, therefore, confers discretionary power on the adjudicating authority (NCLT) to admit an application of a financial creditor under Section 7 IBC for initiation of CIRP. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned Solicitor General of India, this Court observed that two courses of action are available to the adjudicating authority in a petition under Section 7. The adjudicating authority must either admit the application under clause (a) sub-section (5) or it must reject the application under clause (b) of sub-section (5). The statute does not provide for the adjudicating authority to undertake any other action, but for the two choices available. 4. The question of whether Section 7 sub-section (5) was mandatory or discretionary was not in issue in any of the judgments cited on behalf of the review applicant. What was in issue in Krishnamurthy case [E.S. Krishnamurthy v. Bharath Hi-Tecch Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 161 : (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 129] was whether the adjudicating authority could foist a settlement on unwilling parties. That issue was answered in the negative. 6. The elucidation in para 90 and other paragraphs [of the judgment under review] [Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 352 : (2022) 4 SCC (Civ) 329] were made in the context of the case at hand. It is well settled that judgments and observations in judgments are not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Resolution Plan of Aircel, which has been approved vide order dated 09.02.2020 in Aircel's CIRP case and the amount claimed, admitted and provided in the Resolution Plan give entirely different scenario. • We would like to take into consideration the following table as furnished by the Appellant in Written Submissions which reads as under :- Entity Amount claimed (in Cr.) Amount Admitted (in Cr.) Amount provided in the Plan (in Cr.) Aircel limited 17,462 3,128 28.50 Dishnet Wireless Limited 16,689 3,925 27.26 Aircel Cellular 2,703 27.85 0.25 Total 37,034 7,080 56.01 • Thus, it become clear that the out of total claimed amount of Rs. 37,034 Crores, only Rs. 56.01 Crores has been provided in the Resolution Plan, which is 0.15% of the amount claimed, in the Resolution Plan of the Aircel entities and the Appellant is likely to get the same amount aggregating which is Rs. 20.08 Crores i.e., 0.15% of his claims of Rs, 13393.83 Crores, whereas the Adjudicating Authority has merely recorded "Corporate Debtor's claims aggregating to Rs. 13,393.83 Crores against the Aircel entitled", without taking into acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent has not taken into consideration the cost of finance and depreciation etc., thus alleged gross monthly revenue are not true figures. • In this connection, we note that the Corporate Debtor has claimed that it has paid Rs. 17,394 Crores till 24.09.2024 to lenders. We note that this payment has got two components i.e., one portion containing of cash component and second portion of debt converted into equity component of Rs. 8892 Crores due to SDR approved by the lenders in terms of the then prevalent RBI Circulars. Thus, the submissions of the Respondent that it has paid Rs. 17,394 Crores between 2011 to 24.09.2024 is required to be taken with pinch of salt. The Respondent has not brought as what was total outstanding as per original loans along with interest which would have been payable to lenders to understand the depth of payment i.e., Rs. 17,394 Crores paid to all lenders including converted portion of debt to equity. • We consciously note that both CDR and SDR failed due to default of the Respondent in meeting its agreed obligations. As such we feel that the Adjudicating Authority should have gone into details and should have analysed all f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reference to account of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. from 01.11.2008 to 30.11.2019 and statement of account CNIL from 26.03.2010 to 30.11.2019, it is noted that the Appellant clearly gave evidence of several deposit and withdrawal to establish the debt existed and were not paid by the Corporate Debtor and remained outstanding. (ii) Similarly in Para 6 of the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2022 the debt is noted and the relevant portion of the Impugned Order is reads as under :- "6. ...The Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has also submitted that the petitioner has claimed an amount of approx. INR 646.38 crores in the present petition. But, as per the Corporate Debtor, the debt of the Petitioner stands at INR 212,50,78,149 (Rupees Two Hundred and Twelve Crores Fifty Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty-Nine Only) amounting to 6.56% of the total debt of the Corporate Debtor..." (Emphasis Supplied) (iii) As regarding default the same has been reflected in annual report of the Corporate Debtor for the financial year 2017-2018 where the admitted default in repayment in rupee term loan has been reflected. (iv) We also note that the GTL Infrastr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 29.09.2022 directed the parties to file written submissions and the Appellant responded to the objections of the Respondent's submissions on Vidarbha Industries (Supra) by way of its written submissions filed before the Adjudicating Authority which is annexed as Annexure A-27 in the present appeal. • The Appellant pleaded that in the present case, the question as to the applicability of Vidarbha Industries (Supra) is not a new plea set out by the Appellant. It has its basis in the pleadings of the Respondent as well as the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. • In this connection, we note that the whole issue is regarding applicability of Vidarbha Industries (Supra) which was discussed in Para 11 of the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2022 and the only issue to reject the application of the Appellant by the Adjudicating Authority despite acknowledgements of the debt and default on the part of the Respondent was the ratio contained in Vidarbha Industries (Supra). • As such, the ratio of the Vidarbha Industries (Supra) is required to be looked into, which is the prime reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....totally irrelevant, extraneous and misconceived objections. By the said letter, respondent No. 1 also expressed its intention to initiate proceedings under the IBC against the petitioner.... 45. On the above allegations and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1156 of 2018 dated 2nd April, 2019, it is urged that the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (For short, "the IBC") are liable to be dismissed. The further averment in the petition is that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are required to comply with the extant guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, including the Income Recognition 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&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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. 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.... 74. ....The primary responsibility for making adequate provisions for 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 assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y (SC) and Reconstruction Company (RC). ...a procedure has to be followed and in the case of consortium/multiple banking arrangements, if 75% (by value) of the banks/financial institutions decide to accept the offer, the remaining banks/financial institutions will be obligated to accept the offer. However, this is preceded by an assessment of each bank/ financial institution of the value offered by the Securitisation Company/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 responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of public funds. It holds them in trust for the public. It is not expected to surrender and sacrifice its interests, particularly legal rights merely because the petitioner desires that it should join in total restructuring of the debt of the petitioner or total waiver. We must bear in mind that before us is a debtor who owes thousands of crores to these financial institutions and banks and it is dictating to them to accept the proposal 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. 79. We do not think that the grounds raised in this petition, consistent with which Mr.Kamdar raised the arguments, enable us to issue the writ as prayed for. 80. The grounds in the writ petition project a version of the petitioner based on which a relief in the nature of specific performance of contractual obligations is sought in this writ petition. If we make a reference to grounds (N), (O) and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... meeting. If only the Canara Bank is not joining the resolution plan, then, it cannot be compelled to join it by entering into the intercreditor agreement, all the more when it has approached the NCLT. The allegations made against the Canara Bank by the petitioner can be substantiated in the appropriate proceedings or while defending the proceedings before the NCLT or other Forums. In the circumstances, we think that it would be highly unsafe to issue the writ as prayed in this petition. The petitioner can pursue its objections before the NCLT so also institute substantive proceedings and seek appropriate declaration and relief to compel the seventh respondent to execute the agreement. We do not think that judgments in fiscal and financial matters involving huge debts can be so easily made in our limited powers. For the same reasons as are assigned while dismissing Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2019, even this writ petition fails. It is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. (Emphasis Supplied) • From above it becomes clear that the issue regarding assignment was discussed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in great detail as seen from abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any doubt regarding non mandatory nature of the RBI Guidelines as well as absolute right of the Appellant to pursue its legal remedies including initiation of Section 7 application before the Adjudicating Authority. • We note that this was challenged by the Respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of GTL Infrastructure Limited vs. Canara Bank and Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 3366] and the following are the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which reads as under :- "2. This appeal arises out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5256 of 2020 preferred by GTL Infrastructure Limited challenging the judgment and order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2019. 3. The aforestated Writ Petition was filed by the appellant praying for following reliefs: "(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to forthwith comply with paragraph 6.4 of the Master Circular dated July 1, 2015 issued by the Reserve Bank on Prudential Norms on Income Recognition Assets Classification ....