Gtl Infrastructure Limited vs Canara Bank And 6 Ors

GTL Infrastructure Limited } A company incorporated under the } Companies Act, 1956 and having its } registered office at 3rd Floor, "Global } Vision", Electronic Sadan No.II MIDC, } TTC Industrial Area, Mahape Navi } Mumbai - 400710 through its authorised } representative Pratibha Mule } Petitioner

versus 1.CANARA BANK } A body corporate/banking company } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertakings Act, 1970 having its head } office at 112, J.C.Road, Bangalore- } 560 002, Karnataka and having a } Branch at G Block, Near Indian Oil, } Opposite Godrej, Bandra Kurla } Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, } Maharashtra 400051 and also at The } Prime Corporate Branch of Canara } Bank is at 20th floor, Maker Tower 'E' } 1st Floor, Maker Arcade, Cuffe Parade, } Mumbai, Maharashtra 400005 } } 2. CORPORATION BANK } A body corporate/banking company } registered under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its } head office at P.B.No.88, Mangladevi } Temple Road, Mangalore-575 001, } Karnataka and its Industrial Finance } Branch at Bharat House, Bombay } Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400 } 001, Maharashtra, through its } Manager. } }

Page 1 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

3. INDIAN BANK } A banking company within the meaning } of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 } and having its registered office at New } No.66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 and } having its branch office at 210, Mittal } Tower, B-Wing, GF, Nariman Point } Branch, Mumbai - 400 021, } Maharashtra through its Manager. } } 4. VIJAYA BANK } A body corporate constituted under the } Banking Companies (Acquisition & } Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 } and having its Head Office at 41/2 M.G. } Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka } and having a branch office at 81, Hill } Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai, through } its Manager. } } 5. IDBI BANK } Formerly known as "Industrial } Development Bank of India Limited", a } company incorporated under the } Companies Act, 1956 and a banking } company within the meaning of the } Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having } its registered office and Large } Corporate Branch at IDBI Tower, WTC } Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 } 005. } } 6. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION } OF INDIA LIMITED } A Corporation established under the } Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 } having its corporate office at 6th } floor, Yogakshema Building, Jeevan } Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai } 400 021 } } 7. EDELWEISS ASSET } RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY } LIMITED } A company registered under the }

Page 2 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

provisions of Companies Act, 1956 } having its registered address at } Edelweiss House, Off. C.S.T. Road, } Kalina, Mumbai - 400 098 } Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (L) No. 223 OF 2020

GTL Limited, a company registered under } the Companies Act, 1956, having its } Registered office at Global Vision, } 3rd Floor, Electronic Sadan-II, TTC } Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, } Navi Mumbai 400710. Through its } Authorized representative } Mr. Arun Sinha } Petitioner

Versus

1 Union of India, through Secretary, } Ministry of Finance, North Block, } New Delhi. } } 2 Reserve Bank of India, Department of } Banking Regulations, Central Office } Building, 12th floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh } Road, Mumbai - 400 001. } } 3 IDBI Bank formerly known as } "Industrial Development Bank of India } Limited". In its capacity as the } 'Monitoring Institution', a company } incorporated under the Companies Act, } 1956 and a Banking Companies within } the meaning of the Banking Regulation } Act, 1949, having its registered office } and Large Corporate Branch at IDBI } Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, } Mumbai 400 005. Maharashtra. } } 4 Dena Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its } branch office at Corporate Business } Complex, Bandra (e), Mumbai 400 051 } Page 3 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

5 Bank of Baroda, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its } branch office at Corporate Financial } Services Branch, 3rd Floor, Baroda } House, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai- } 400 001 } } 6 Bank of India, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its } branch office at Large Corporate Branch } BOI Building, 4th Floor, M.G. Road, } Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. } } 7 Canara Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its } branch office at Prime Corporate Branch } - BKC, Canara Bank Bldg., "A" Wing, } 1st Floor, C-14, G Block, Bandra Kurla } Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai } 400051 } } 8 Standard Chartered Bank, a body } corporate, constituted under the } Banking Companies (Acquisition & } Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 } and having its registered office at } Crescenzo, 7th Floor, C-38/39, G Block } Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) } Mumbai 40-0 051 } } 9 Indian Overseas Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its } branch office at Fort Branch, Tamarind } House, 30-32, Tamarind Lane, Fort, } Mumbai - 400023. } }

Page 4 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

10 Andhra Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its } branch office at Specialised Corporate } Finance Branch 82, 8th floor, "F" Wing } Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - } 400 005 } } 11 Union Bank of India, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at Industrial Finance } Branch, 1st Floor, Union Bank Bhavan, } 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman } Point, Mumbai - 400 021 } } 12 UCO Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at Flagship Corporate } Branch, Mafatlal Centre, 1st Floor, } Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 } } 13 Small Industries Development Bank of } India, a body corporate constituted } under the Banking Companies } (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) } Act, 1970, having its registered office } at Samrudhi Venture Park, MIDC } Industrial Area, Marol, Andheri (E), } Mumbai - 400093. } } 14 Punjab National Bank a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at Large Corporate Branch } Maker Tower "E", Ground Floor, Cuffe } Parade, Mumbai - 400005 }

15 Indian Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking }

Page 5 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at Nariman Point Branch } 210, B-Wing, Mittal Tower, Nariman } Point, Mumbai - 400 021 } } 16 Vijaya Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at ARM Branch, Vijaya } Bank Regional Office premises, Vikas } Centre, 1st Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz } (West), Mumbai - 400054 } } 17 United Bank of India, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at Corporate Finance } Branch UBI Bldg. Ground Floor, 25, Sir } P M Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 } } 18 JM Financial ARC Limited, A Company } incorporated under the Companies Act } 1958, and having its registered office } at 3rd Floor, B Wing, Suashish IT Park, } Plot No.68 E, Off. Dattapada Road, } Opp. Tata Steel, Borivali (East), } Mumbai - 400066 } } 19 Amilife Insurance PCC Limited, } a company incorporated under the Laws } of Seychelles and having its registered } office at Commercial House, 1, Eden } Garden Eden Island, Mahe, Seychelles } } 20 Bank of Baroda, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at Global Syndication } Center, 32, City Road, } London, EC1Y2BD UK } }

Page 6 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

21 Bank of India, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at London Branch, 4th } Floor, 63 Queen Victoria Street, London } EC4N 4UA } } 22 Indian Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at No.57, Sir Baron } Jayatilleke Mawatha, Fort, Colombo - } -1, Sri Lanka } } 23 Indian Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at 3, Raffels Place, Bharat } Building, Singapore 048617 } } 24 Indian Overseas Bank,a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } branch office at 3rd Floor, Ruttonjee } House, 11, Duddell Street, Hong Kong } } 25 Pegasus CP One Limited - Class E, a } Company incorporated under the laws } of British Virgin Islands and having its } registered office at Romasco Place, } Wickhams Cay 1, P.O. Box 3140 Road } Town, Tortola } British Virgin Islands VG 1110 } } 26 Punjab National Bank, a body } corporate constituted under Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } brand in United Kingdom at 1, } Moorgate, London, EC2R 6JH, } United Kingdom }

Page 7 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

27 Syndicate Bank, a body corporate } constituted under the Banking } Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of } Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its } Branch in the State of United Kingdom } at London Branch, 2A, Eastcheap, } EC3M 1LH } } 28 Al Salam Bank, Bahrain B.S.C. a body } corporate incorporated in the Kingdom } of Bahrain under the Bahrain } Commercial Companies Law and having } its registered office at P.O. Box 18282, } Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain } } 29 Standard Chartered Bank (Mauritius) } Limited, a company incorporated under } the laws of Mauritius having its } registered office at Units 6A and 6B } 6th Floor, Raffles Tower, Lot 19, } Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius } Respondents

Mr.S.U.Kamdar-Senior Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande, Mr.Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Mr.Charles DeSouza, Mr.Prasad Lotlikar, Mr.Manaswi Agrawal and Ms.Sakshi Bhalla i/b. Mahima Sinha for the petitioner in WP/1893/2019.

Mr.Navroz Seervai-Senior Advocate with Mr.Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Mr.Suyash Gadre, Mr.Prasad Lotlikar and Ms.Vandana Chamle i/b. M/s.Alathea Law LLP for the petitioner in WPL/223/2020.

Dr.Birendra Saraf with Ms.Apurva Gupte, Mr.Ishtiaq Ali, Mr.Zaman Ali, Ms.Vinita Hombalkar and Mr.Umar F. Azam i/b. M/s.Orbit Law Services for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/1893/2019 and for respondent No.7 in WPL/223/2020.

Ms.Priyanka Shetty with Mr.Prabhav Shroff, Mr.Ayush Chaddha i/b. M/s.AZB 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.

Page 8 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATED :- FEBRUARY 3, 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,

Page 9 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

order or direction, 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 (RBI).

5. The petitioner claims that in and around 2007-2008, it

availed financial facilities from various banks and financial

institutions in India, including respondent Nos.1 to 6 with a view

to expand its business. Thereafter, it says that, owing to certain

unforeseen circumstances, increased competition etc., the telecom

industry suffered extensively and the petitioner was unable to

comply with its obligations under the documents relating to the

sanction of financial facilities. The petitioner's debt was referred

to the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell (CDR Cell). Pursuant

thereto, the CDR Cell issued a Letter of Approval dated 23 rd

December, 2011 and restructured the petitioner's debt on the

terms and conditions more particularly set out therein. Pursuant

to the issuance of the Letter of Approval by the CDR Cell, the

petitioner's lenders and the petitioner executed a Master

Restructuring Agreement, copy of which is at Exhibit 'A' to the

petition. It is dated 31st December, 2011.

6. The Reserve Bank of India issued a notification dated

8th June, 2015 bearing No.DBR.BP.BC.No.101/21.04.132/2014-15 in

respect of Strategic Debt Restructuring (SDR Notification). At a

Page 10 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Joint Lenders Forum (JLF) meeting held on September 20, 2016

(Review and Reference Date), the lenders of the Petitioner,

including respondent Nos.1 to 6, invoked the SDR Notification in

respect of the petitioner and M/S Chennai Network Infrastructure

Limited (for short, "CNIL"). A copy of the minutes of the JLF

meeting dated 20th September, 2016 is annexed as Exhibit 'B' to

the petition. Pursuant thereto, the JLF through the Union Bank of

India, which is a monitoring institution, executed a term sheet

containing detailed terms and conditions of the scheme to be

implemented in respect of the petitioner under the SDR

Notification. The said term sheet was forwarded by the Union of

Bank of India to the petitioner under a cover letter dated 14th June,

2017 alongwith the term sheet for the SDR scheme, copy of which,

alongwith the terms sheet for the SDR scheme, is annexed as

Exhibit 'C' to the petition. Similarly, the JLF, through the Union

Bank of India, executed a term sheet containing detailed terms

and conditions of the scheme to be implemented in respect of CNIL

under the SDR Notification. The said term sheet was forwarded by

the Union Bank of India to CNIL under a cover letter dated 14 th

June, 2017, copy of which alongwith the term sheet for the SDR

scheme is annexed as Exhibit 'D' to the petition.

Page 11 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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

to 6, to convert the whole or part of their respective debts into

equity share capital of the petitioner or CNIL, as the case may be.

Once the conversion was completed, then, the lenders would sell

the equity shares held by the lenders in the petitioner or CNIL to a

new promoter and upon completion of conversion of debt to equity,

the existing asset classifaciton of the petitioner and CNIL, as on

Page 12 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

the Review and Reference Date, would continue for a period of

eighteen months from the Review and Reference Date.

9. It is further submitted that pursuant to execution of

the SDR term sheets, the debt of the lenders, including respondent

Nos.1 to 6, to the extent of Rs.1692,21,58,070 (Rupees One

Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two Crores Twenty One Lakhs

Fifty Eight Thousand and Seventy only), was converted into fully

paid up equity shares of the petitioner on and around 13 th April,

2017 and only an amount of Rs.1758,41,96,635 (Rupees One

Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight Crores Forty One Lakhs

Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five only) remained

outstanding from the petitioner.

10. It is further submitted that similarly, as regards CNIL,

the debt of the lenders, including respondent Nos.1 to 6, to the

extent of Rs.2808,95,53,920 (Rupees Two Thousand Eight

Hundred and Eight Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Fifty Three

Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only) was converted into full

paid up equity shares of CNIL on and around 13 th April, 2017 and

only an amount of Rs.2385,08,72,011 (Rupees Two Thousand

Three Hundred and Eighty Five Crores Eight Lakhs Seventy Two

Thousand and Eleven only) remained outstanding. The details of

the outstanding debt of the lenders, including respondent Nos.1 to

Page 13 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

6, pursuant to the aforesaid conversion of debt into equity shares

and the details of the shares of the petitioner and CNIL held by the

lenders, including respondent Nos.1 to 6, are annexed as Exhibit

'G' collectively. The petitioner submits that it would not be out of

place to mention that pursuant to the implementation of the SDR

Scheme and merger of CNIL and the petitioner, the lenders,

including respondent Nos.1 to 6 together held 63.16% of

shareholding in the petitioner.

11. The petitioner submits that thereafter, during the

implementation of the SDR scheme, the petitioner paid an amount

of Rs.1069,00,00,000 (Rupees One Thousand and Sixty Nine

Crores only) towards 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.

Page 14 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 of the lenders alone under

the SDR Scheme and the lenders of the petitioner failed to do the

same. The petitioner further states that respondent Nos.1 to 6,

alongwith other lenders of the petitioner commenced a 'new

investor induction' process which was supported and facilitated by

the petitioner and experienced advisors of like Ernst and Young

and TAP Advisors were appointed. The petitioner initially

received interest from over 20 investors, including the likes of

Brookfield Asset Management and American Tower Company.

Potential bidders were given access to the data room as part of a

diligence process, followed by management discussions. Some of

the key investors, including Brookfield Asset Management and

American Tower Company withdrew from the process due to

extraneous reasons like the entry of new aggressive participant in

the market, uncertainty regarding the future of Aircel, and

Page 15 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

shutting down of telecom operators like Rcom, Tata Tele, SSTL and

Telenor. Post completion of the due-diligence process, the

petitioner received non-bonding term sheets from 3 investors i.e.

AION Capital, Beam Group LLC and a consortium of Piramal

Enterprises and Bain Capital Credit. However, owing to the

aforementioned adverse circumstances, the consortium of Piramal

Enterprises and Bain Capital Credit withdrew from the process

and AION Capital and Beam Group LLC also did not pursue their

respective offers.

13. The petitioner further submits that since the lenders,

including respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were uncertain of the induction of

a new investor into the petitioner and the consequent completion

of the SDR Scheme, the lenders considered selling their respective

debts to an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC). Accordingly, on

23rd January, 2018, in the meeting of the Core Committee of the

lenders of the petitioner, it was deliberated by the lenders to

consider a sale of their respective debts to an ARC. In the meeting

dated 23rd January, 2018, the Core Committee of the lenders was

also informed that respondent No.7 had evinced an interest in

buying the debt of the lenders of the petitioner. It is pertinent to

note that the decision to sell the petitioner's debt to an ARC was

the sole decision of the lenders of the petitioner and their

Page 16 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

consultants and neither the promoter of the promoter nor the

petitioner itself were involved in the said decision making process

at any time. 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 23 rd

January, 2018 was, inter alia, attended by the representatives of

respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6.

14. Thereafter, at the joint lenders' meeting dated 30 th

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 30 th 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 comply with

Page 17 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

certain guidelines issued by the RBI. Accordingly, it was agreed to

increase the cash consideration of the sale of asset to an ARC to

51%. Further, modifications to the term sheet for the transaction

with an ARC were discussed and agreed and it was decided that

the term sheets for the transaction with an ARC would be finalised

in the next meeting of the lenders. A copy of the minutes of the

meeting of the Core Committee of the lenders dated 2 nd February,

2018 is annexed to the petition as Exhibit 'J'. The meeting of the

Core Committee of the lenders dated 2nd February, 2018 was

attended by respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6.

16. Thereafter, the lenders of the petitioner further

negotiated the terms of the sale of the debt of the petitioner to an

ARC at a Joint Lenders Meeting held on 12 th February, 2018. At

the meeting dated 12th February, 2018, the representative of the

CDR Empowered Group stated that if the lenders were to sell their

debt to an ARC, the monitoring institution (Union Bank of India)

ought to circulate a review note on exit of the petitioner from CDR.

A copy of the minutes of the Joint Lenders Meeting dated 12 th

February, 2018 is annexed as Exhibit 'K' to the petition. The said

meeting was attended by the representative of respondent Nos. 1,

2, 3 and 5.

Page 18 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

17. It is further submitted that pursuant to the discussions

and consensus arrived at between the lenders of the petitioner, a

process for sale of the petitioner's debt to an ARC was initiated and

the bids were invited from the ARCs by giving a public notice

published in two newspapers on 28th February, 2018. Exhibit 'L'

collectively is the copy of the said publication in the newspapers.

At the end of the bidding process, only one binding bid was

received, which was made by respondent No.7 jointly with Bank of

America Merill Lynch (BAML). The bid of respondent No.7 BAML

was discussed by the lenders at the meeting of the consortium of

lenders of the petitioner on 23rd March, 2018. As per the joint bid

of respondent No.7 and BAML, respondent No.7 and BAML were

ready and willing to buy the complete debt of Rs.4143,00,00,000/-

(Rupees Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Three Crores

only) owned by the petitioner to its lenders, in consideration of

Rs.2000,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Crores only) along

with transfer of underlying security interest. During the said

meeting of the consortium 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

Page 19 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 to the instructions of the lenders of the

petitioner in view of the fact that the SDR Scheme had to be

abandoned due to extraneous circumstances. A copy of the

minutes of the meeting of the consortium of lenders of the

petitioner dated 23rd March, 2018 is annexed as Exhibit 'M' to the

petition. The petitioner submits that for the sake of completeness,

it must be noted that though respondent No.7 could not acquire

100% of the debt of the petitioner, respondent No.7 acquired the

debt on a cluster basis rather than piecemeal basis to enable the

lenders of the petiitoner to realise the best value of their

Page 20 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

respective debts on one hand, commercial considerations on the

other hand and keeping in view the intention of the RBI circulars.

18. The petitioner further submits that in the meeting of

the consortium of the petitioner's lenders dated 3 rd April, 2018, it

was noted that majority of the lenders were agreeable to sale off

their respective debts to respondent No.7 and the lenders decided

to obtain their respective internal approvals for the proposed

transaction with respondent No.7 and BAML. The said meeting

was inter alia attended by respondent Nos.1 to 6. Copy of the

minutes of the meeting dated 3rd April, 2018 is annexed as Exhibit

'N' to the petition.

19. Even while the process for sale to an ARC was under

consideration, the petitioner proactively submitted a resolution

plan vide letter dated 27th April, 2018 (Exhibit 'O'). However, in

view of the ARC sale process, the resolution plan submitted by the

petitioner was not considered by the lenders.

20. By letter dated 8th May, 2018 (Exhibit 'P'), the

promoter of the petitioner expressed its support for the sale of the

debt of the petitioner to an ARC chosen by the lenders of the

petitioner.

Page 21 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

21. Thereafter, in a meeting of all the lenders, including

respondent Nos. 1 to 6, held on 24th May, 2018, the lenders,

including respondent Nos. 1 to 6 decided to carry out a so-called

"Swiss-auction" process for concluding the debt sale transaction

with a reserve price of INR 2,400 Crores.

22. Thereafter, the Union Bank of India (the monitoring

institution) issued an advertisement inviting an expression of

interest from potential investors (ARCs, Banks and Non Banking

Financial Companies), in two newspapers on 28 th June, 2018.

Exhibit 'Q' is the copy of the newspaper advertisement issued on

27th June, 2018 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.

Page 22 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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

valid reasons that formed the basis of the unanimous decision of

the lenders of the petitioner, including respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to

sell their debts in favour of respondent No.7. Exhibit 'R' to the

petition is a copy of the note prepared and circulated by the Union

Bank of India to all the lenders of the petitioner, including

respondent Nos.1 to 6.

26. The petitioner further submits that in view of the

aforementioned discussions and the decision of the lenders of the

petitioner to assign their debt to respondent No.7 (acting in its

capacity as the trustee of EARC Trust - SC 338), by an assignment

agreement dated 27th August, 2018, Union Bank of India, Andhra

Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of India, Dena bank, State bank

Page 23 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

of India, Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank Ltd., Indian Overseas Bank

and ICICI Bank Ltd. assigned all their rights, title and interest in

the financial assistance granted by them to the petitioner in favour

of respondent No.7.

27. The fact that the debt of the Union Bank of India,

Andhra Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of India, Dena Bank,

State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank Ltd., Indian

Overseas bank and ICICI Bank Ltd. was assigned to respondent

No.7 was communicated by respondent No.7 to the petitioner vide

letter dated 29th August, 2018, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit

'S' to the petition.

28. Similarly, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Central

Bank of India also assigned all their rights, title and interest in the

financial assistance granted by them to the petitioner in favour of

respondent No.7 in its capacity as trustee of EARC Trust - SC 343

by executing an assignment agreement dated 7th September, 2018.

29. The fact that the debt of the Oriental Bank of

Commerce and Central bank of India was assigned to respondent

No.7 was communicated by respondent No.7 to the petitioner vide

letter dated 10th September, 2018 (Exhibit 'T').

Page 24 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

30. In view of the above assignments, respondent No.7

acquired 77.07% (by value) of the debt of the petitioner.

Accordingly, whilst relying on the IRAC Guidelines, by a letter

dated 12th September, 2018, respondent No.7 called upon

respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and United Bank of India to assign their

respective debts owed by the petitioner in favour of respondent

No.7. Exhibit 'U' is a copy of the letter dated 12th September, 2018

addressed by respondent No.7 to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and

United 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:-

Page 25 of 74

M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Sr. Name of Bank Total outstanding as % No. 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. Axis Bank 104.9 2.58%

12. Dena Bank 30.7 0.75%

13. United Bank of India 75 1.86%

34. The petitioner further states that in the meanwhile, by

a letter dated 27th June, 2018, addressed by respondent No.1 to

the petition, respondent No. 1 contended that the SDR Scheme had

failed; the account of the petitioner has been classified as an NPA

retrospectively with effect form 1st July, 2011 (the CDR reference

date) and therefore, sought repayment of the entire pre-CDR debt

owed by the petitioner to respondent No.1. A copy of the letter

dated 27th June, 2018 addressed by respondent No.1 to the

petitioner is annexed as Exhibit 'W' to the petition.

35. The petitioner replied to respondent No.1's letter dated

27th June, 2018 by a letter dated 10 th July, 2018 (Exhibit 'X') and

Page 26 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

highlighted that no financial default had been committed by the

petitioner under the SDR Scheme and therefore, the contentions of

respondent No.1 were misplaced.

36. Respondent No.1 reiterated its demand for repayment

of the entire pre-CDR debt owed by the petitioner to respondent

No.1 by letters dated 13th July, 2018 and 4th August, 2018 (Exhibits

'Y' and 'Z'). The petitioner responded to the letter dated 13 th July,

2018 by a letter dated 23rd July, 2018 (Exhibit 'AA').

37. Despite the petitioner addressing the aforementioned

letters dated 10th July, 2018, 23rd July, 2018 and elucidating why

no default had taken place, by a letter dated 23 rd August, 2018,

respondent No.1 recalled the financial facilities granted by it to the

petitioner and called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.540,

35,00,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred and Forty Crores and Thirty

Five Lakhs only). Copy of the letter dated 23 rd August, 2018 of

respondent No.1 is annexed as Exhibit 'BB' to the petition.

38. The petitioner further submits that pertinently, despite

agreeing to a sale to an ARC, in the aforementioned meetings of the

lenders of the petitioner, on 3rd August, 2018 i.e. almost 6 months

after agreeing to the sale, respondent No.1 addressed a letter to

the Union Bank of India, opposing the proposed sale to respondent

Page 27 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

No.7 and raised 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. Copy of the letter dated 3rd August, 2018 is annexed to

the petition as Exhibit 'CC'.

39. The petitioner challenged the retrospective declaration

of the petitioner to be in default and an NPA with effect from 1 st

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

Page 28 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition

No.22688 of 2018 with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in

accordance with law.

41. The petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile,

on 12th February, 2018, the RBI issued an illegal, arbitrary and

unconstitutional guidelines titled as "Resolution of Stressed Assets

- Revised Framework" (Revised Framework Circular) for the

resolution of stressed assets.

42. On 14th September, 2018, relying upon the Revised

Framework Circular, respondent No.1, purportedly, in its capacity

as a Financial Creditor of the petitioner, filed Company Petition

(IB)-3604(MB)/2018) before the National Company Law Tribunal

(NCLT), Mumbai under section 7 of the IBC, which is presently

pending final disposal.

43. The petitioner further submits that on 19 th September,

2018, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1156 of 2018

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, seeking to

quash the Revised Framework Circular. Respondent No.1

contested the said writ petition by filing an affidavit in reply dated

24th November, 2018. Pertinently, respondent No.1 annexed a

typed copy of the minutes of a meeting of the consortium of the

Page 29 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

lenders of the petitioner dated 13th July, 2018, wherein, it was

expressly recorded that since no counter bid was received from

the above investors within the stipulated timeline, by virtue of the

ROFR, the offer of Rs.2400.00 crores by the BoAML-EARC has

been accepted for the proposed sale. A copy of the typed minutes

of the meeting of the consortium dated 13 th July, 2018 is annexed

as Exhibit 'DD' to the petition. Further, the RBI also filed written

submissions in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1156 of 2018, copy of which

is annexed as Exhibit 'EE' to the petition.

44. By a judgment dated 2 nd April, 2019, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was pleased to declare that the Revised

Framework Circular was ultra vires and consequently, all actions

taken under the Revised Framework Circular, including actions by

which proceedings were filed under the IBC, were non-est.

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.

Page 30 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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, by executing Assignment

Agreements, all other lenders of the petitioner are also obliged to

accept the offer of respondent No.7 for assignment of their

respective rights, title and interest in the financial facilities

granted to the petitioner. In view of the IRAC guidelines,

respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not entitled to treat themselves as

Page 31 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

creditors of the petitioner and must mandatorily assign their debts

to respondent No.7. Since they have failed to assign their

respective debts to respondent No.7, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are in

blatant violation of IRAC guidelines. The IRAC guidelines

constitute a law. The actions of respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not only

illegal, but also arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. Thereafter in other grounds, particularly,

grounds (D) to (Q) of the petition, it is submitted that respondent

Nos.1 to 6 be directed by a writ of mandamus or a direction in the

nature of mandamus to assign their respective debt owed by the

petitioner in favour of respondent No.7 in terms of the IRAC

guidelines.

47. In para 7 of the petition it is said that since the

proceedings filed by respondent No.1 under the IBC seeking

initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process in respect

of the petitioner is pending, the petitioner apprehends that

respondent Nos.1 to 6 may also continue to assert their purported

rights as financial creditors of the petitioner and file similar

proceedings against the petitioner under the IBC. If the corporate

insolvency resolution process is initiated against the petitioner,

the same will cause irreparable injury not only to the petitioner,

but also to all stakeholders of the petitioner, including the lenders.

Page 32 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Further, the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution

process will also render the present petition infructuous. The

breach of clause 6.4.d (ii) of the IRAC guidelines is alleged. For all

these reasons, the present petition seeks the above referred relief.

48. This petition is filed on 26 th April, 2019 and it was

listed before a Division Bench of this Court on 30 th April, 2019. No

orders were passed and liberty was granted to the petitioner to

move the Vacation Court. The petitioner appeared before us on 3 rd

December, 2019, but it could not be taken up. It was, therefore,

adjourned to 18th February, 2020. However, the advocates for the

petitioner moved a praecipe on 20th 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.

Page 33 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 assignment to refrain from taking any recovery/coercive measures against the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner submits that since more than 75% of the lenders of the Petitioner have assigned their respective rights to Respondent No.7 i.e. an Asset Reconstruction Company, as per the IRAC Guidelines, Respondent Nos.1 to Respondent No.6 are also obligated to assign their respective debts to Respondent No.7.

3. However, Respondent No.1 has filed an Application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Petitioner before the NCLT, Mumbai claiming to be a financial creditor while acting in breach of the IRAC Guidelines. The said Application filed by Respondent No.1 to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process against the Respondent is next scheduled to be listed before the NCLT, Mumbai on January 30, 2020.

4. In the above circumstances, the Petitioner submits that if the above Writ Petition is not heard urgently for ad interim and interim reliefs sought therein and Respondent No.1's Application under Section 7 of the IBC is admitted by the NCLT, Mumbai, the above Writ Petition would be rendered infructuous.

In the above facts and circumstances, 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 April 30, 2019 when the Advocates for the Petitioner will seek urgent ad-interim reliefs.

Dated this 20th day of January, 2020

Sd/-

Meraki Chambers Advocates for the Petitioner"

Page 34 of 74

M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

49. In view of the same, this matter was listed on 29 th

January, 2020 and on that date, we took on record the rejoinder

affidavit dated 22nd January, 2020 tendered by the advocate for

the petitioner.

50. We heard both sides extensively on that date.

51. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of

respondent No.1 to this petition.

52. A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability

of the present petition. Firstly, it is argued that the present

petition contains a similar prayer and seeks an identical relief that

has been sought in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, namely, Writ Petition (Civil) 1156 of 2018. Prayer clause

(e) of that petition and prayer clause (a) of the present petition are

identical. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of that petition

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

Page 35 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 in 28 quarterly installments

commencing from 30th September, 2011 till 30th June, 2018.

Subsequently, the petitioner has also acquired tower portfolio

comprising of 17,500 towers of Aircel Group through its fully

owned subsidiary-M/S Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited

(CNIL), which subsequently got merged into the petitioner. The

combined tower portfolio of the merged entities was around 28000

towers. The first respondent had sanctioned a Term loan of

Rs.750.00 Crores to part finance CNIL for the merger of CNIL. Due

to excess tie up, respondent No.1 was allotted a share of Rs.650.00

Page 36 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Crores as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.750 Crores and the

unallocated portion Rs.100 Crores was cancelled. Aircel's tower

portfolio was acquired at a value of Indian Rupees 8.026.00

Crores. The petitioner's group funded the deal in a mix of debt of

Indian Rupees 5,000 Crore and the balance of Rs.3,026 Crore by

way of equity. The deal was completed on 19 th July, 2010 and the

Term loan was repayable in 34 quarterly installments.

55. It is then said that the petitioner and CNIL faced

problems in servicing the debt as per the terms of the respective

financing documents and requested the Consortium Lenders for

CDR. At the request of both and in consideration of their

commitment to improve its operations, the respective accounts

were referred to the CDR Cell, a non-statutory voluntary

mechanism set up under the aegis of the Reserve Bank of India.

This is for the efficient restructuring of corporate debt. Pursuant

thereto, a restructuring package was agreed to as set out in the

letter dated 23rd December, 2011. The reliefs, concessions and

waivers granted as per this package did not improve the conduct

and operations in the account of the petitioner and CNIL. That is

why, there was a correspondence with the parties requesting them

to regularise the account. Owing to default in payment of interest

and principal amount, the account of the petitioner became Non

Page 37 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 31st March, 2016 as per

the IRAC norms of the Reserve Bank of India. The account was

also upgraded. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the

conditions and other milestones set out in the CDR package. At the

request of the petitioner, subject to assurance provided by the

petitioner that surplus amount received out of valuation of the

assets shall be utilised for repayment of the lenders of the GTL

Limited-Parent Company of the petitioner, the Consortium Lenders

in the Joint Lenders Forum meeting, held on 20 th September, 2016,

reviewed the account and after deliberations, invoked SDR scheme

as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines considering 20 th

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

Page 38 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 the petitioner. In terms of the SDR

Scheme, the Rupee Lenders were expected to divest their

shareholding in the petitioner company in favour of new promoter

for effecting change of Management, as soon as possible, but in any

event, not later than 18 months from the review and reference

date i.e. upto 19th March, 2018 in line with applicable RBI

guidelines.

56. It is alleged that the SDR documents were not complete

and the change of Management could not take place within the cut-

off date of 19th March, 2018, which resulted in failure of

implementation of the SDR scheme and the account of the

petitioner is classified as Non-Performing Asset with effect from 1 st

July, 2011 as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

57. After setting out the facts relating to sale of financial

assets to respondent No.7 and bank of America Merrill Lynch, it is

stated that respondent No.1 had not agreed for the sale of financial

assets to respondent No.7 and expressed its dissent vide letter

dated 3rd August, 2018. Respondent No.1 expressed its dissent in

view of the following facts :-

Page 39 of 74

M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

(i) During the change in management process, as discussed in the JLF meeting dated 16th November, 2017, three bids from investors ranging from Rs.5500 crores to Rs.12780 crores were received, which were subsequently withdrawn for the reason best known to transaction advisor and the petitioner.

(ii) As per the valuation report of M/s.DH Consultant dated 20th June, 2015, enterprise value of CNIL was Rs.7497.15 crores and GIL was Rs.5618.16 crores. Hence, combined value of the petitioner entity was Rs.13115.21 crores during 2015.

(iii) As per valuation report of Baker Tilly dated 25th October, 2017, enterprise value of CNIL was Rs.5095 crores and the petitioner was Rs.4609 crores. Hence, combined value of the present entity was Rs.9704 crores during the year 2017.

(iv) Further, the enterprise value of the petitioner was drastically reduced to as low as Rs.1861 crores as per valuation report of ITCOT dated 20 th March, 2018 and Rs.2410 crores as per valuation report of TRC Corporate consulting dated 28th March, 2018 which was only 1/5th and 1/4th of the last valuation held five months ago. Hence, such sharp reduction in the valuation within such a short span of five months was beyond understanding and therefore, was not accepted.

(v) The 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

Page 40 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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, American Tower Company had completed the acquisition of 9900-stand alone towers from Idea Cellular for around Rs.4000 crores.

(ix) Similar transaction was completed by ATC by way of the acquisition of Vodafone India Ltd.'s 1,200 stand-alone towers for around Rs.3,850 crores.

(x) Thus, the sale of the Financial Assets of the petitioner with underlying towers of 28000 in number should fetch

Page 41 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

somewhere in the range of Rs.10000 crores to Rs.13000 crores as per actual market deal happened recently. Further, the petitioner, vide letter dated 19 th December, 2017 addressed to the lead bank (Union Bank of India) indicated the valuation in the range of Rs.13,750 to Rs.15,990 crores. Annexure 'R-4 to the petition is a true copy of the letter dated 19th December, 2017 of the petitioner company.

(xi) The ERAC-BoAML's offer for purchase of Financial Asset with underlying assets of around 28000 telecom towers was certainly an undervalued transaction. Some of the lenders, including respondent No. 1 had raised objections on the ongoing transaction based on the current deals happening in the same telecom sector.

(xii) Accordingly, respondent No.1 had expressed its dissent over the sale transaction to Asset Reconstruction vide its letter dated 3rd August, 2018. Annexure '5' is the true copy of the letter dated 3rd August, 2018 addressed to the Union Bank of India.

(xiii) The Union Bank of India (lead bank), being well versed with the terms and conditions of the ERAC-BoML, wherein, it was a conditional bid for purchase of 100% of Financial Asset, neglected the other dissenting lenders' views and without calling for any consortium/ lenders meet after 13th July, 2018 and without taking into account the serious and vital objections raised by respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 3rd August, 2018 addressed to Union Bank of India (lead bank) and marked copy to all the lenders went

Page 42 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

ahead with the sale transaction. Respondent No.7 violated its own contract terms, wherein, respondent No.7 went ahead to purchase the assets from the lenders bi-laterally without the consent of the 100% lenders.

(xiv) The validity of the bid for ARC sale was being extended from time to time since March, 2018 (22 nd March, 2018 being the last bid date) till 17th August, 2018 (last known extended period) to accommodate and facilitate the undervalued 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 EARC- BoAML.

(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

Page 43 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

debt will be either refinanced or sold to ARC.

(xvii) However, the proposed offer was initially made for Rs.2000 crores, which constituted at 48.27% of the outstanding debt (Rs.4143 crores) and the final offer was for Rs.2400 crores, which constituted at 57.92% of the outstanding debt.

(xviii) last consortium meeting was held on 13th July, 2018, wherein, it was decided that the lenders will take up the proposal for sale of debt to ARC with their respective competent authorities and give their final approval by 31 st July, 2018. It was also decided that thereafter, a consortium meeting would be convened for closing the deal. Further, Union Bank of India, vide their e-mail dated 1 st August, 2018 had requested the lenders to give their approvals at the earliest. However, subsequent to above no lenders meet was held and the transaction was concluded by 10 lenders on bilateral basis with a value of around Rs.1424 crores i.e. approximately 60% of the outstanding amount on 27th August, 2018, which is a clear violation of consortium spirit and violation of term sheet floated by M/s.Edelweiss ARC and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. That there is no document which can be put on record by way of consortium meeting minutes that the consortium of lenders have explicitly, by way of majority (75% by value), accepted the offer of EARC-BoAML as required under the RBI guidelines on Income Recognition and Asset Classification norms dated 1st July, 2015. Annexure '6' is a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 13th July, 2018 of the consortium bank.

Page 44 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

(xix) After conversion of debt of Rs.4500 Crores under SDR into equity, the remaining debt of the company as on 30th June, 2018 is Rs.4063.31 Crores. Considering this, the offer of Rs.2353.83 Crores made by ARC was only 57.92% of the outstanding liability as on 31st December, 2017. Hence, huge hair cut in terms of outstanding principal and unapplied interest was observed. Haircut was more after restoring the debt from the reference date of CDR after cancelling all the relaxation under event of default by the company.

(xx) Forensic audit was initiated at the instance of Department of Financial Services, Government of India (DFS) guidelines to ascertain the elements of fraud etc. The final audit report is yet to be submitted by M/s.Chokshi & Chokshi LLP.

(xxi) Vide their letter dated 27th June, 2018, respondent No.1 requested the petitioner to regularise the account but the petitioner failed and neglected 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 23 rd April, 2019.

Page 45 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

58. A reference is made then to the two circulars of the

Reserve Bank of India. One circular is dated 12 th 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, after the Supreme Court judgment

dated 12th February, 2018, issued a new circular dated 7 th June,

2019 on Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets.

Pursuant to the new circular, the lenders, including respondent

No.1, are free to choose to initiate legal proceeding for insolvency

or recovery in accordance with the provisions of new circular. It is

stated that all the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition

are obsolete and the petitioner has no grounds to seek any relief

under the circular of the Reserve Bank of India. Under the

circulars of the Reserve Bank of India, including IRAC guidelines,

the Reserve Bank of India issued directions to the banks and

financials for the purpose of managing their stressed assets and

Page 46 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

the borrowers of such banks and financial institutions have no say

in such matters.

60. It is, therefore, submitted that respondent No.1 is a

financial creditor and the proceedings initiated by respondent

before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short, "NCLT") be

continued in the interest of justice and that of all stakeholders,

including the petitioner. Further, the proceedings under the IBC

are not recovery action, but to prepare the resolution plan in the

best financial interest of all stakeholders under the supervision of

the NCLT. In these circumstances, the prayer is to reject the

petition.

61. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner has

submitted that the earlier proceedings instituted by respondent

No.1 under Section 7 of the IBC, namely, Company Petition

No.3604 of 2018 were dismissed on 26th November, 2019 by the

NCLT. However, respondent No.1 has again invoked Section 7 of

the IBC against the petitioner by filing Company Petition No.4541

of 2019. That is pending. In the circumstances, the conduct of

respondent No.1 smacks of mala fide and personal vendetta.

62. On these pleadings, the petition has been instituted and

there is one more petition filed, namely, Writ Petition (L) No.223 of

Page 47 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

2020. In that petition, the petitioner is stated to be GTL Limited

and it invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India for claiming the relief/direction against

respondent No.7 to that petition (Canara Bank) to forthwith

withdraw and cancel the Recall Notice dated 10th July, 2018, copy

of which is at Exhibit 'R' to the petition, letter dated 4th June, 2019,

copy of 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

Page 48 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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, but the difference is that the Canara Bank opted to

issue the notices in question and under challenge. This is

notwithstanding with an explanation submitted by the petitioner

to the Canara Bank (respondent No.7) regarding the third

proposal dated 2nd June, 2018. It is alleged that respondent No.7

wrote to IDBI Bank (respondent No.3) and all lenders of the

petitioner and stated that this third proposal was allegedly not

attractive and requested for a meeting of the lenders to discuss

this proposal. The response was given to this letter on 13 th June,

2018.

64. There were meetings held where this proposal was

discussed, but it was not acceptable to the CDR lenders. It is

specifically alleged in para 27 of the petition as under :-

"27. In the meetings of the JLF held on June 27, 2018 and September 6, 2018, the Petitioner once again submitted revised settlement proposals to the CDR Lenders. However, the Third Settlement Proposal was not acceptable to the CDR Lenders. The Petitioner states that due to the paucity of time, the resolution attempts could not fructify as there was no time to materially better or improve the plan in the manner sought by the CDR Lenders and the Petitioner believes that the CDR Lenders were unable to allow more time due to the 180 period imposed by the Revised Framework issued by Respondent No.2. Copies of the minutes of the JLF dated June 27, 2018 and September 6, 2018 are annexed herewith as Exhibits [P] and [Q]".

Page 49 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

65. However, it is alleged that on 10th July, 2018, a Recall

Notice was addressed, copy of the same is at Exhibit 'R', but the

petitioner continued to pursue its proposal. There was a reply

given to the notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'T'. Though the

correspondence continued, ultimately, the same allegations are

made and then it is stated that efforts were made to hold

discussion on the proposal of the petitioner. It is then alleged that

the lenders' meetings were held to discuss the proposals, but

respondent No.7 informed that it has already approached the

NCLT. Since there was no agreement to settle the dues, eventually,

the seventh respondent has decided to pursue the Recall Notice. It

is in these circumstances that the Recall Notice is challenged on

various grounds. Here as well, the allegations are same, but there

is no affidavit-in-reply.

66. The response of the Canara Bank has been that it is not

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.

Page 50 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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

the writ as prayed for.

69. These arguments are adopted by Mr.Seervai and he has

also emphasised that the Canara Bank is bent upon on liquidating

or winding up the petitioner. It should not be allowed to do so. Our

attention has been invited by Mr.Seervai to the communication of

4th June, 2019 by the Canara Bank to M/s.Global Holding

Corporation Private Limited on the subject of negotiated

settlement with lenders. The bank says that the consortium

Page 51 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

meeting rejected the negotiated settlement proposed by the

petitioner. The Canara Bank firstly alleges that the negotiated

settlement proposed by the petitioner was one sided and not

taking care of the interest of all stakeholders. The bank is pressing

onerous conditions and contrary to the Reserve Bank of India's

circulars. It is not assigning any reasons for rejection of the

proposal for settlement. Our attention has been invited to the

latest circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 7 th June, 2019

and, particularly, on the guidelines on implementation of

Resolution plan. It is, therefore, contended by Mr.Seervai that the

bank must be directed to execute an inter-creditor agreement and

that is mandatory. If the Resolution of Stressed Assets has to be

done, then, the signing of the agreement by all the creditors is

necessary. For these reasons, he would submit that the writ

petition be allowed.

70. Our attention has also been invited by Mr.Seervai to

the minutes of the consortium meeting held on 19 th June, 2019 and

the stand of the Canara Bank noted therein. Thus, the Canara

Bank decides to opt out of the plan thereby jeopardising the

interest of the other stakeholders. The refusal of the Canara Bank

to sign inter-creditor agreement is unjust, unreasonable, unfair

and defeats the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Page 52 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

71. To appreciate the arguments of Mr.Kamdar and

Mr.Seervai, we must first refer to the settled principles, which

enable us to issue a writ of mandamus. In both matters, a writ of

mandamus is claimed. That writ cannot be issued as a matter of

course. It cannot be issued on the mere asking of it. It cannot be

issued merely because the petitioners feel that it should be issued.

The petitioner will have to prove that there is a pre-existing and

pre-established legal right and a corresponding duty, which alone

would enable us to issue this writ.

72. In the case of State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Kandath

Distilleries1, 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

1 AIR 2013 SC 1812 Page 53 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

paragraph 6.4 of the Master Circular dated 1 st 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 should be complied

with insofar as it lays down the Prudential Norms on Income

Recognition Assets Classification and Provisioning pertaining to

advances. Now, this part of the Circular would require a closer

look. The said aspect is found in Part A, 3, 4 and 5. That says, an

asset can be termed as Non Performing Asset, if it satisfies the

criteria laid down in the definition of this expression. Firstly, this

part says that in line with the international practices and as per

the recommendations made by the Committee on the Financial

System, the Reserve Bank of India has introduced, in a phased

manner, the norms styled as prudential norms for income

recognition, asset classification and provisioning for the advances

portfolio of the banks. Pertinently, Mr.Kamdar does not point out

that it is to move towards greater consistency and transparency in

the published accounts that the policy has been brought into effect.

It is clarified that this policy should be objective and based on

record of recovery rather than on any subjective considerations.

Likewise, the classification of assets of banks has to be done on the

basis of objective criteria, which would ensure a uniform and

Page 54 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

consistent application of the norms. Importantly, the provisioning

should be made on the basis of the classification of assets based on

the period for which the asset has remained non-performing and

the availability of security and the realisable value thereof. The

banks are urged to ensure that while granting loans and advances,

the repayment schedules fixed should be realistic. It should

promote prompt repayment by the borrowers and thus improve

the recovery of advances. Mr.Kamdar does not say that the policy

of income recognition is any way faulty or defective. He relies

upon this policy, but ultimately, there is a discretion vesting in the

financial institutions. The asset classification has to be based by

determining the assets as Substandard Assets, Doubtful Assets

and Loss Assets. What could be termed as Substandard Assets,

Doubtful Assets and Loss Assets is set out in Part 4.1. The

guidelines for classification of assets are laid down in Part 4.2

onwards. The further paras of this part are with regard to

provisioning norms and they are set out in Part 5 onwards. The

provisioning norms are aimed at fixing primary responsibility.

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 assist it and statutory

Page 55 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 financial assets on 'without recourse' basis, i.e., with the entire credit risk associated with the financial assets being transferred to SC/RC, as well as on 'with recourse' basis, i.e., subject to unrealized part of the asset reverting to the seller bank/FI. Banks/FIs are, however, directed to ensure that the effect of the sale of the financial assets should be such that the asset is taken off the books of the bank/FI and after the sale there should not be any known liability devolving on the banks/FIs.

(b) Banks/FIs, which propose to sell to SC/RC their financial assets should ensure that the sale is conducted in a prudent manner in accordance with a policy approved by the Board. The Board shall lay down policies and guidelines covering, inter alia,

i. Financial assets to be sold;

ii. Norms and procedure for sale of such financial assets;

iii. Valuation procedure to be followed to ensure that

Page 56 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

the realisable value of financial assets is reasonably estimated;

iv. Delegation of powers of various functionaries for taking decision on the sale of the financial assets; etc.

(c) Banks/FIs should ensure that subsequent to sale of the financial assets to SC/RC, they do not assume any operational, legal or any other type of risks relating to the financial assets sold.

(d) (i) Each bank/FI will make its own assessment of the value offered by the SC/RC for the financial asset and decide whether to accept or reject the offer.

(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.

(iii) Under no circumstances can a transfer to the SC/RC be made at a contingent price whereby in the event of shortfall in the realization by the SC/RC, the banks/FIs would have to bear apart of the shortfall.

(iv) Banks using auction process for sale of NPAs to SCs/ RCs should be more transparent, including disclosure of the Reserve Price, specifying clauses for non-acceptance of bids, etc. If a bid received is above the Reserve Price and a minimum of 50 per cent of sale proceeds is in cash, and also fulfills the other conditions specified in the Offer Document, acceptance of that bid would be mandatory.

(e) Banks/FIs may receive cash or bonds or debentures as sale consideration 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, Pass- through 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 Page 57 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 be done by taking recourse to the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act"). This

provides for sale of financial assets on 'without recourse' basis.

This means the credit risk associated with the financial assets

being transferred to the creditors. This is subject to unrealised

part of the asset reverting to the seller bank/financial institution.

The banks are directed to ensure that the effect of the sale of the

financial assets should be such that the asset is taken off the books

of the bank/financial institution and after the sale, there should

not be any known liability devolving on the bank/financial

institution. Thereafter, how the sale is to be conducted in a

prudent manner, in accordance with the policy approved by the

Board and what policy and guidelines the Board should lay down is

set out in clause (b) of para 6.4. Further, clause (c) says that the

Page 58 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

banks and financial institutions should ensure that subsequent to

sale of the financial assets to Securitisation Company and

Reconstruction Company, they do not assume any operational,

legal or any other type of risks relating to the financial assets,

which are sold.

76. The entire set of guidelines denote that this is an

advise, caution and guidance provided on sale of financial assets to

Securitisation Company (SC) and Reconstruction Company (RC).

As provided in para 6.3, the financial assets which can be sold to

the Securitisation Company and Reconstruction Company by any

bank or financial institution are non-performing assets, including a

non-performing bond/debenture, a Standard Asset where the asset

is under consortium/multiple banking arrangements and atleast

75% by value of the asset is classified as non-performing asset in

the books of other banks/financial institutions and atleast 75% by

value of the banks/financial institutions who are under the

consortium/multiple banking arrangements agree to the sale of

the asset. Secondly, 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/

Page 59 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 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 No.7 by

executing assignment agreements, by virtue of the IRAC

guidelines, all other lenders of the petitioner are obligated to

Page 60 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

accept the offer of respondent No.7 for assignment of their

respective rights, title and interest in the financial facilities

granted to the petitioner. To our mind, this understanding of the

senior counsel is flawed and erroneous simply because there is an

obligation only when the guidance is adhered to and all

precautions are taken before the assignment arrangement for sale.

Once these are guidelines and they cannot be elevated or placed at

the level of a binding rule, regulation and statute, then, we

cannot accept the arguments of Mr. Kamdar. Assuming that these

are fulfilled, as projected by the petitioner, still the decision to be

taken requires balancing and weighing of several factors. There is

a risk which has to be taken and ultimately the policy must be

applied on case-to-case basis. We cannot direct respondent Nos.1

to 6, who are financial institutions/banks, to agree to the demand

of the petitioner. If these are policy matters and dealing with fiscal

and financial issues, then, the discretion of the banks/financial

institutions cannot be taken away by issuing a command or writ

contrary to the expressed terms and conditions of the policy. The

policy document must be read as a whole and nothing should be

read, as is attempted, in isolation or out of context. In these

circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner can claim the

writ. In fact, in the grounds of this petition, respondent No.1 is

targeted and it is stated that its actions are mala fide and

Page 61 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

arbitrary. It is seeking to recover monies from the petitioner

under the original financial documents after a part of the

respondent No.1's debt has been converted into equity under the

SDR Scheme. Now, we cannot attribute mala fides and

arbitrariness so easily and casually in financial matters to a public

sector bank. That bank is the custodian 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.

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

Page 62 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 respondent No.1 are summarised. The

petitioner seeks to challenge these allegations. However, all the

matters pertaining to these allegations are factual issues. The

remarks of the first respondent are termed as allegations by the

petitioner,but what we find is that it is an evaluation by the first

respondent. Its evaluation and financial commitments may not be

acceptable to the petitioner, but surely, on the version of the

petitioner, we cannot issue the writ as prayed. These are seriously

disputed factual issues. Therefore based on all these grounds, the

petitioner cannot insist on respondent Nos.1 to 6 to agree with it.

It is apparent from a reading of ground (K) that respondent Nos.1

to 6 are public sector undertakings and custodian of public funds.

However, before accusing these respondents of acting unfairly,

Page 63 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

arbitrarily, the petitioner knows that the guidelines of the Reserve

Bank of India on all and every possible aspects of financial

management, grant of loans and advances, do not have a binding

character. Ultimately, the banks have been given a free play in the

joint. The decisions are discretionary in nature. The discretion

cannot be directed to be exercised in a particular manner when

several options and courses are open to the decision making body.

It is not obliged to take only one particular decision, much less in

favour of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that we do not

agree with Mr.Kamdar that everything that is placed before us is

mandatory in character. In fact, we have reproduced the

paragraphs of the petition which are based on the IRAC guidelines

contained in circular dated July 1, 2015. There is no case outside

this circular, which is pressed before us. Merely because several

meetings were held and some tentative decisions were taken does

not mean that there is a mandate flowing from the same. The

decisions are termed as unanimous by the petitioner, but it is

conceded before us that 13 lenders have assigned their respective

debts to respondent No.7. However, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not

agreeable to the decisions taken at the consortium meeting by the

other lenders of the petitioner. There is no question of backing out,

but if the petitioner says that there is a commercial merit in

assigning the debt of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.7,

Page 64 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

then, that commercial wisdom is not collective, but of the majority

of the creditors. 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 the petitioner and they have

to be implemented.

Page 65 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 (P), then,

it is evident that the petitioner say that it has fulfilled its part of

promise or obligation and respondent Nos.1 to 6 have refused to

comply with the guidelines despite the same. Now, what the

reciprocal or corresponding obligations qua the dues of the lenders

are and whether they are contractual or statutory in character

would have to be established and proved. If these are contractual

obligations, then, whether there is absolute refusal to perform the

obligations or discharge the duties or that the duties and

obligations allegedly attributed to the lenders have been performed

only in part and not in full are matters, which would have to be

established and proved by the petitioner either in substantive legal

proceedings or in defence to the proceedings instituted against it

by respondent No.7. To our mind, it would be highly risky and

unsafe to rely on the version of the petitioner and issue the writ of

mandamus as prayed.

Page 66 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

81. All the more, when the seventh respondent has, in a

communication addressed to the petitioner, copy of which is at

Exhibit 'BB' to the petition, clarified its position. It has referred to

all the facts in details and then said in the recall notice that

pursuant to the terms of the SDR package, the debt amounting to

Rs. 35.60 Crores and Rs.271.11 Crores were converted into equity

in the share capital of the petitioner and Chennai Network

Infrastructure Limited (CNIL). The consortium lenders, alongwith

Canara Bank, post conversion of debt into equity, are presently

holding 51% shareholding. They were required to be transferred to

new investor within a period of 18 months from the date of

reference to the change of present management. This is an

essential condition of the SDR package. That has not been fulfilled.

The standstill clause available under the SDR expired on 19 th

March, 2018. Therefore, by the Reserve Bank of India guidelines,

the petitioner's accounts were classified 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

Page 67 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

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 words, this is not an undisputed

factual position, but a highly disputed one. It is in these

circumstances that we are disinclined to grant any relief.

83. It may be that the seventh respondent has addressed a

letter to the petitioner, copy of which is at page 322 of the paper-

book, and it claims that it is entitled to recover from the borrowers

or guarantors the total dues of the banks alongwith the interest at

contractual rate. It makes reference to certain banks mentioned

in Schedule-1. This may not be inclusive of all the debts and dues

to even Canara Bank. Therefore, this communication may say that

the assignment agreements are with Union Bank of India, Andhra

Page 68 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

Bank, ICICI Bank Limited, Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of

India, Dena Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab National Bank,

State Bank of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Central Bank

of India, still, the petitioner has impleaded Canara Bank,

Corporation Bank, Indian Bank, Vijaya Bank, IDBI Bank and Life

Insurance Corporation of India Limited, all of which are not a

party to this agreement. In these circumstances, marking of the

documents in favour of these entities would not suffice. All the

more when we have made detailed reference to the affidavit-in-

reply of respondent No.1 as well.

84. As a result of the above discussion, Writ Petition

No.1893 of 2019 fails. Rule is discharged. There would be no order

as to costs.

85. We do not think that the judgments relied upon by

Mr.Kamdar have any bearing on the issue. In the case of Central

Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and Others2, the reliance was placed

upon a circular of the bank dealing with interest. There, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that on the subject of interest,

the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India cannot be ignored by the

bank. It is evident from the judgment that the issue there was

whether it is possible to construe the words "the principal sum

2 (2002) 1 SCC 367 Page 69 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

adjudged" to include the principal amount plus outstanding

interest as on the date of the suit or the interest component should

be kept aside or that is inclusive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid

down certain principles and then concluded that the Reserve Bank

of India circulars in relation to rate of interest and periods of rest

have statutory force. The context in which these observations

have been made should not be lost sight of by us.

86. In Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited Vs.Union of

India and Ors.3, 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.

3 (2019) 5 SCC 480 Page 70 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

87. Similarly, the judgment delivered in the case of

Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank and Anr. 4 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 enter into a inter-creditor agreement. That is already

entered into between the petitioner and remaining domestic

lenders (respondent Nos.3 to 6 and 8 to 18).

89. Now, the mandamus that is claimed is once again on

the basis of the petitioner's version. The petitioner says, in the

grounds of challenge itself, that the prudential framework issued

by the second respondent (Reserve Bank of India) provides

lenders with a wide array of options to implement a resolution plan

for the resolution of the debts owed by the borrowers. Ultimately,

it is a resolution plan. Now, whether the word "shall" appearing

therein would denote that it is mandatory to enter into the inter-

creditor agreement or otherwise or that is not decisive would

depend upon this framework and reading of the same in its

entirety. Similarly, the disputes and which are purely factual in

nature, founded on contractual obligations necessitates

4 (2018) 1 SCC 407 Page 71 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

consideration of a contra version. That is how ground (A) of the

petition is drafted. The intent of the framework is to facilitate

decision on the basis of prescribed thresholds. Whether this

prudential framework is better in comparison to given one and

contains an absolute mandate as directed, will have to be

considered in the backdrop of the case of the Canara Bank. We

have referred to that case and the debt of Canara Bank owed by

the petitioner. The Canara Bank may have allegedly, contrary to

this framework and the alleged mandate therein, approached the

NCLT, but the proceedings before the said Tribunal are pending.

Now, whether that proceeding is maintainable or not and must be

disposed of in the light of the petitioner's assertions, is a matter

entirely left for decision by the NCLT. If the NCLT has to

determine and decide the matter within the time framework, then,

it is not as if the NCLT's decision, if adverse to the petitioner, is

unassailable. It can be assailed and challenged in the scheme of

the IBC itself by filing appeals. Now, the petitioner says very

clearly in ground (B) that respondent No.7 has not per se refused

to implement a resolution plan, but its stand is that the petitioner

has not submitted a resolution plan that is acceptable to

respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 is not averse to considering the

so called better plan. Now, which plan completely and totally

resolves the disputes and fulfills the obligations of parties and

Page 72 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

settles the dues of respondent No.7, is not a matter which can be

decided in writ jurisdiction. We cannot, by a unilateral version of

the petitioner, issue the writ. Ultimately nobody and much less a

public sector financial institution/bank can be compelled to accept

a settlement or resolution plan of the debtor. The bank has its own

limitations, restrictions and desires to abide by the norms which it

terms as more prudent. In the circumstances, we do not think

that the petitioner's version can be accepted as sacrosanct. The

petitioner here also relies upon the minutes of the joint lenders'

meeting. If only the Canara Bank is not joining the resolution plan,

then, it cannot be compelled to join it by entering into the inter-

creditor 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,

Page 73 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 ::: J.WP-1893-19+1.2019.doc

even this writ petition fails. It is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

There will be no order as to costs.

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Page 74 of 74 M.M.Salgaonkar

::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2020 04:41:59 :::