TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to take forward the conclusions arrived in the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020, to the logical end. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned letter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed - Petition dismissed. - WRIT PETITION No.8509 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2021 - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Petitioner Advocate: Vikram Pooserla Respondent Advocate: G.P. Yashvardhan ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: (i) to declare the letter dated 04.06.2020 which imposed unilateral changes to the Resolution Plan agreed vide JLMs dated 19/27th March, 2020 and 20.04.2020 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice; (ii) to direct the Respondent Banks to implement the Resolution Plan agreed vide JLMs dated 19th/27th March, 2020 with full funding as agreed in the above said JLMs and detailed in the TEV Report, Information Memorandum and Credit Rating within 6 months; (iii) to pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Estimated WC of ₹ 993 crore (FB ₹ 613 Cr + NFB ₹ 380 Cr) in FY 2021 and peak WC of ₹ 1103 crore (FB ₹ 726 Cr + NFB ₹ 377 Cr) from FY 2023 onwards. Capex Loan 250 Energy Efficiency; ₹ 250 Cr + Reliability Scheme; ₹ 140 Cr. Source: (Equity-₹ 100 Cr, Debt₹ 250 Cr, Accrual-₹ 40 Cr) Equity Infusion 280 (upto ₹ 310) By IFFCO and IPL for combined equity stake of min.26%. Acquisition under open offer additional. End Use: ₹ 85 crore (10% of sustainable debt) + ₹ 100 crore (towards settlement of unsustainable debt) + ₹ 95 crore (margin for WC, pressing credits and issue expenses). ₹ 31 crore for settlement of accrued interest. 4. A perusal of the above said Resolution Plan and its conclusions would make it abundantly clear that all lenders Banks have, in principle, decided to revive the petitioner Company with certain terms and conditions, like there should be new promotors and with the assistance of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k or take a turn in a different direction or merely stop there. In our opinion, two recent decisions in Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ((1989) 3 SCC 293) and Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation ([1990] 3 SCC 752: JT (1990) 1 SC 363) also lead in the same direction without saying so in clear terms. This appears to be also the trend of the recent English decisions. It is in consonance with our commitment to openness which implies scrutiny of every State action to provide an effective check against arbitrariness and abuse of power. We would much rather be wrong in saying so rather than be wrong in not saying so. Non arbitrariness, being a necessary concomitant of the rule of law, it is imperative that all actions of every public functionary, in whatever sphere, must be guided by reason and not humour, whim, caprice or personal predilections of the persons entrusted with the task on behalf of the State and exercise of all power must be for public good instead of being an abuse of the power. 8. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Embassy Property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined on the proposition that the writ petition would not be maintainable merely because the respondent institution is a purely unaided private educational institution. The appellant had specifically taken the plea that the respondents perform public functions i.e., providing education to children in their institutions throughout India. 10. This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 18.06.2020, directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 04.06.2020, pending disposal of the present writ petition. 11. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that with the decision of the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020, a Resolution Plan was crystalised and all the lenders Banks have deliberated various issues and, in principle, decided to revive the petitioner Company, and thereafter, the same was reiterated in another subsequent Joint Lenders Meeting held on 20.04.2020, but without taking the conclusions to the logical end, the respondents have taken a U-turn vide letter dated 04.06.2020 and, therefore, the action of the respondents in taking the decision vide letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the decision taken on 04.06.2020 is purely a commercial decision of the respondent Banks in the interest of public money and no final agreement nor contract was entered with the petitioner Company in terms of the conclusions arrived in the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020 and, hence, the question of honouring the conclusions, which were part of deliberations in the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020, does not arise. Senior Counsel further contended that since no agreement/contract was entered with the petitioner Company, the question of maintainability of the writ petition also would not arise. 15. Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent also contended that similar issue fell for consideration before Delhi High Court in Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. Canara Bank others Manu/DE/3176/2018 (W.P. (C) 8814/2018 and CM.No. 33880/2018 decided on 24.08.2018), wherein it was held as under: 10. A plain reading of the Minutes of the JLF Meeting held on 16.01.2018 and 15.05.2018 clearly indicate that the bankers had held discussions with regard to the proposals submitted by the petitioner. However, the respondents were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meeting, the same cannot be treated as conclusive, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 17. Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, has adopted the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 18. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the conclusions arrived in the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020, have not been taken to the logical end by the respondent Banks either in the form of an agreement/contract and it would mean that there is no contractual obligation between the petitioner and the respondents for enforcement of the conclusions arrived in the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020. If those conclusions are to be acted upon, more money has to be pumped in pursuant to the conclusions and this Court cannot give any mandamus to pump in money to revive the petitioner Company, more so when there is no agreement or contract entered in pursuance of the conclusions which were arrived in the Joint Lenders Meeting held on 19th and 27th of March, 2020. It is for the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
