Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Devi Karumariamman ... vs Central Bank Of India on 8 December, 2020
Bench: M. Sathyanarayanan, R. Hemalatha
W.P.No.17599 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
W.P.No.17599 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos.21816 & 21817 of 2020
M/s.Sri Devi Karumariamman Educational Trust,
No.5, Chellammal Complex,
Arcot Road, Janaki Nagar,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087,
Represented by its Trustee J.Kumaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Central Bank of India,
MID Corporate Branch,
Represented by its Deputy General Manager,
48/49, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.MAXIMUS ARC LIMITED,
A Company incorporated under Company's Act 2013,
Having registered and corporate office at
59 A-18/1A-5A, 3rd floor,
Sri Plaza, Teacher's Colony,
Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 008
Rep. by Assistant Vice President K.Hari Krishna
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/24
W.P.No.17599 of 2020
3.The Reserve Bank of India,
Main Building, P.O.Box No.901,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai – 400 001. ... Respondents
[R3 suo moto impleaded vide this order
dated 08.12.2020 in W.P.No.17599 of 2020]
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned e-
auction dated 23.11.2020 under section 5 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 on the
file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Harsha Raj
For R1 : Mr.A.L.Somayaji
Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) (Through Video Conferencing) The petitioner, who availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent and committed default in payment of dues, which also led to recovery proceedings, came forward to file this writ petition challenging the impugned communication showcasing the financial assets for sale through e-auction on 23.11.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
2.The writ petition was listed for admission on 01.12.2020, and on that day, Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel, accepted notice on behalf of the 1st respondent, and made a submission that the writ petition is not maintainable. This Court, upon hearing the submission of Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, passed an order on 01.12.2020, and it is relevant to extract the same.
“3.However this Court is concerned with the fact that the consideration, in respect of the Assignment Agreement dated 24.11.2020, came into being between the respondents 1 and 2, is for a sum of Rs.31 Crores by adoption of 'Swiss Challenge Method'. It is also to be noted at this juncture that as per Schedule-I of the Assignment Agreement dated 24.11.2020, the total principal outstanding interest as on 23.11.2020, due and payable to the 1st respondent is Rs.34,34,90,321/-. Admittedly the entire loan outstanding along with the secured assets have been assigned in favour of the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs.31 crores. The 1st respondent, being a Public Sector Bank, is also under obligation to inform the Court as to how they are going to recover the balance sum of Rs.100 crores and odd.
4.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that valuation has been done on http://www.judis.nic.in 3/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 the basis of 'Swiss Challenge Method' and this Court would also like to know as to the parameters and other details as to the adoption of the said Method.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank undertakes to file an affidavit with supporting documents in this regard.
Call on 08.12.2020 in the motion list.”
3.Accordingly, the matter is listed today, and the 1st respondent has filed a common preliminary counter affidavit, dated 07.12.2020, and also filed Typed Set of Documents containing judgments list.
4.The Trustee of the petitioner Educational Trust, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver among other things that the petitioner has availed the following financial assistance from the 1st respondent Bank, the details of which are given in Para No.4, and it is relevant to extract the same.
S. Loan Availed Loan Availed for Granting Bank and
No. On Amount Nature of Loans
Rs.
LOAN FROM CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA FOR ENGINEERING COLLEGE 1 13.08.2008 150000000 Engineering CBI-Term_Loan_I College http://www.judis.nic.in 4/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 S. Loan Availed Loan Availed for Granting Bank and No. On Amount Nature of Loans Rs.
2 14.01.2011 100000000 Engineering CBI-Term_Loan_II College 3 31.03.2015 7640626 Engineering CBI-Term_Loan_FITL College LOAN FROM CENTRAL BANK & BANK OF INDIA FOR MEDICAL COLLEGE 4 29.05.2012 499950000 Medical CBI-Term_Loan_III College 5 15.12.2014 88761593 Medical CBI-Term_Loan_IDC College
5.Since the petitioner/borrower committed default in payment of dues, the 1st respondent Bank filed O.A.No.496 of 2016 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Chennai, which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.07.2019, issuing the recovery certificate against the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of the following amounts :
“a) 1st applicant:
(i) Rs.1,12,47,475.03p towards Term Loan-l, together with further interest @ 13.70% p.a. with monthly rests from 7.3.2016 from Defendants 1 and 2 till the date of realisation;
(ii) Rs.10,14,32,818.73p towards Term Loan -II together with further interest @ 14.20% p.a. with monthly rests from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 and 2 till the date of realisation; http://www.judis.nic.in 5/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
(iii) Rs.87,92,149.22p towards Funded Interest Term Loan together with further interest @14.20% p.a. with monthly rests from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 to 6 till the date of realisation;
(iv) Rs.56,23,20,122.52p towards Consortium Term Loan -III together with interest @14.20% p.a. with monthly rests from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 to 6 till the date of realisation;
(v) Rs.10,59,27,335.85p towards IDC Loan together with interest @14.20%p.a with monthly rests and from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 to 6 till the date of realisation;
(vi) Rs.14,13,505.29p being penal interest upto 6.3.2016 in respect of Term Loan - I and Term Loan – II from defendants 1 and 2.
(vii) Rs. 84,06,960.40p being penal interest upto to 6.3.2016 in respect of FITL (Consortium). Term Loan-III (Consortium) and Fund IDC (Consortium) from defendants 1 to 6.
b) 2nd applicant:
(i) Rs.28,96,01,107.21p towards Consortium Term Loan – I together with Interest @ 17.25% p.a. with monthly rest and from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 to 6; till the date of realisation;
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
(ii) Rs.15,64,11,579.75p towards Consortium Term Loan -II together with interest @ 17.25% p.a. with monthly rests and from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 to 6 till the date of realisation;
(iii) Rs.10,83,38,831.49p towards Funded Interest Term Loan together with interest @ 17.25% p.a. with monthly interest and from 7.3.2016 from defendants 1 to 6 till the date of realisation;
(iv) Rs.90,56,165.37p being penal interest upto 6.3.2016 in respect of Consortium Term Loan-I, Consortium Term Loan -- Il and Funded Interest Term Loan from defendants 1 to 6.
c) It is further ordered that in case of default of payment by the defendants, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decreetal dues,
d) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicants, defendants 2 to 6 are personally liable for all such amounts due
e) It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized if any, during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
f) The 2nd applicant is directed to pay the Court of Fee of Rs.1,50,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of final order and only on payment of said court fee, DRC shall be prepared and drawn. In default, the claim of the 2nd applicant shall stand rejected.
g) The Receiver appointed by this Tribunal shall continue until further orders of the Tribunal.
h) The applicants are entitled for the costs of this application.”
6.The petitioner filed W.P.No.31943 of 2019, challenging the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (in-charge of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai), dated 29.07.2019, in O.A.No.496 of 2016, and also prayed for interim orders, and the said writ petition has been entertained, and as of now, no interim orders are in subsistence.
7.The petitioner also made an allegation that, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, the loan account came to be classified as 'Non-Peforming Asset' on 01.04.2015 itself, and has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit given by Mr.S.Madaswamy, Assistant General Manager of Central Bank of India, during his cross-examination in O.A.No.496 of 2016 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Chennai. The main plank of attack as to the impugned notice is that the loan account has not been validly declared as 'Non-Performing Asset' and there cannot be any valid assignment in favour of the Asset Reconstruction Company, viz., the 2nd respondent. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that, though the 1st respondent has claimed that a sum of Rs.140 Crores is due and payable by the petitioner, it has fixed the upset price of Rs.31 Crores in the impugned e-auction notice, and also pointed out that the petitioner has also given various One Time Settlement proposals on 27.03.2020, 04.11.2020, 20.11.2020 and 21.11.2020, and they initially offered a sum of Rs.25 Crores by way of One Time Settlement, which came to be summarily rejected by the 1st respondent, and thereafter, they improved their offer to a sum of Rs.30 Crores on 04.11.2020 and that was also summarily rejected, and within a short span of time, they also increased the One Time Settlement offer to a sum of Rs.35 Crores and to exhibit their bona fide, they have also drawn a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1 Crore and also confirmed that, in the event of acceptance of the One Time Settlement, they would offer to pay a sum of Rs.9.43 Crores, which they received as fee reimbursement from Government of Tamil Nadu for Adidravidar students scholarship amount. http://www.judis.nic.in 9/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
8.Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Typed Set of Documents, and would submit that, despite the fact stated in the common preliminary counter affidavit that a sum of Rs.134 Crores is due and payable by the petitioner, they had transferred the entire debts along with the liquid assets for a meager sum of Rs.31 Crores in favour of the 2nd respondent/Asset Reconstruction Company, and despite the fair offer made by the petitioner that they will make the payment of Rs.45 Crores before the end of January 2020, which is more than 14 Crores, the 1st respondent has deliberately not considered the said offer with a mala fide and oblique motive. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the said act of the 1st respondent in transferring the debts/liability along with the Secured Assets for a sum of Rs.31 Crores, is bristled with arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power, and this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can certainly interfere with the same, and further points out the pendency of W.P.No.31943 of 2019, which is filed against the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Chennai, in O.A.No.496 of 2016, and prays for appropriate relief. http://www.judis.nic.in 10/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
9.Per contra, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, has drawn the attention of this Court to the common preliminary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, and made a submission that, in the light of the judgment reported in (2010) 10 SCC 1 [ICICI Bank Limited v. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Limited and others] as well as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 20732 [Rita Machines (India) Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others], which in turn refers to the decision reported in (1998) QB 22 [Camdex International Ltd. v. Bank of Zambia], the writ petition is per se not maintainable. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, by drawing the attention of this Court to the two queries posed by this Court in the order dated 01.12.2020, that the 'Swiss Challenge Method' has also been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in (2009) 7 SCC 462 [Ravi Development v. Shree Krishna Prathisthan and others], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the 'Swiss Challenge Method' as not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is one of the permissible modes for award of contract/tender. Insofar as the http://www.judis.nic.in 11/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 merits of the case is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that, despite the offer made to recover the debt, on account of the attitude exhibited by the petitioner by drawing the 1 st respondent Bank to various litigations, a fair decision has been taken in the light of the communication of the Reserve Bank of India, dated 01.09.2016, in DBR No.BP.BC.9/21.04.048/2016-17, which speaks about the 'Guidelines on Sale of Stressed Assets by Banks' and based upon the same, the 1st respondent has also framed its own recovery policy of the year 2020-21, and also as per Clause 15.10(b), sale of Secured Assets can be done through e- auction through 'Swiss Challenge Method', and in the absence of challenge, adoption of the said method is perfectly justifiable, and further points out the fraud played by the borrower in constructing buildings consciously in OSR land as well as in the lands belonging to the private parties, namely, the gurantors, in violation of the statutory guidelines, and that apart, a stage has reached where it is impossible for the borrower to service the heads, and hence, the said decision has been taken prudently by adopting best business practice, which cannot be faulted with, and prays for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
10.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
11.The judgment in ICICI Bank Limited (cited supra) speaks about the permissibility of the assignment of debts by one Bank to another Bank, and it is relevant to extract Para Nos.46 and 47 of the same.
“46.As stated above, an outstanding in the account of a borrower(s) customer) is a debt due and payable by the borrower(s) to the bank. Secondly, the bank is the owner of such debt. Such debt is an asset in the hands of the bank as a secured creditor or mortgagee or hypothecatee. The bank can always transfer its asset. Such transfer in no manner affects any right or interest of the borrower(s) (customer). Further, there is no prohibition in the BR Act, 1949 in the bank transferring its assets inter se. Even in the matter of assigning debts, it cannot be said that the banks are trading in debts, as held by the High Court(s). The assignor Bank has never purchased the debt(s). It has advanced loans against security as part of its banking business. The account of a client in the books of the bank becomes non-performing asset when the client fails to repay. In assigning the debts with underlying security, the bank is only transferring its asset and is not acquiring any rights of its client(s). The bank transfers its asset http://www.judis.nic.in 13/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 for a particular agreed price and is no longer entitled to recover anything from the borrower(s). The moment ICICI Bank Ltd. transfers the debt with underlying security, the borrower(s) ceases to be the borrower(s) of the ICICI Bank Ltd. and becomes the borrower(s) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (assignee).
47.At this stage, we wish to once again emphasise that debts are assets of the assignor Bank. The High Court(s) has erred in not appreciating that the assignor Bank is only transferring its rights under a contract and its own asset, namely, the debt as also the mortgagee's rights in the mortgaged properties without in any manner affecting the rights of the borrower(s)/ mortgagor(s) in the contract or in the assets. None of the clauses of the impugned deed of assignment transfers any obligations of the assignor towards the assignee.”
12.In Rita Machines (India) Ltd. (cited supra), the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih, as to the delaying tactics adopted by the borrowers preventing the financial institutions from recovering the dues, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, authoring the verdict, has taken into consideration the ICICI Bank Limited case (cited supra) and in the process, has also http://www.judis.nic.in 14/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 considered the scope of Section 5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for brevity) and has made the following observations :
“22. .... In our view, the provisions of the SARFESI Act are quite clear. Section 5 permits acquisition of rights or interest in financial assets by any securitization company or re-construction company or any bank or financial institution through the mode prescribed therein. Clause (b) to sub section (1) of section 5 of the SARFESI Act permits entering into agreement for such transfer. The petitioner is no one to question the same. In fact, if one may say, the occasion to enact the SARFESI Act arose on account of the long pendency of recovery proceedings by public financial institutions against debtors who fail to clear the dues. The bank may at times feel handicapped in the process or would not like to wait for the decision in the legal proceedings and, thus, assign debts for a lump sum to the ARC. As to what profit the ARC would make is none of the business of the petitioner as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noticed that NPAS are creation of the breaches committed by a borrower.
We are unable to appreciate the plea advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that though an acquisition by the ARC takes place under Section 5, qua the http://www.judis.nic.in same transaction, the assignment is actually taking place by 15/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 the bank under Section 13(4) of the said Act as there is no other provision for the said assignment. This is a complete mis-reading of the provisions of the said Act and assignment of the debt is to be fully governed by the provisions of Section 5 the said Act. Section 13 is only for enforcement of the security interest. In fact, it falls in chapter III which deals with enforcement of security interest and Section 13(4) envisages the action to be taken on failure of a borrower to discharge his liability within the specified time. In view of this provision of law, any application filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFESI Act arising from the action taken by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFESI Act would naturally be confined to the enforcement of security interest and any interim order would, thus, have to be read into that context. The Debts Recovery Tribunal had nothing to do with the issue of assignment of debt, while dealing with the application of the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the said Act as has been rightly concluded by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.” It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that, challenging the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, S.L.P.(C) No.1839 of 2014 was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and it was also dismissed on 10.03.2014. http://www.judis.nic.in 16/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020
13.The 1st respondent Bank, in the light of the communication issued by the Reserve Bank of India, dated 01.09.2016 (cited supra), has framed its own recovery policy for the year 2020-21, the details of which are given in Page No.6 of the common preliminary counter affidavit, and it is relevant to extract Clause 15.10(b) :
“15.10(b) Sale of stressed assets through E-Auction under Swiss Challenge Method:
Wherever a binding bid is received from ARCs/NBFCs/FIs/Other Banks for a financial asset at or above the Reserve Price, the financial proposal would be put up to the External Advisory Committee (EAC) and upon approval of the EAC, the proposal would be placed before the Management Committee of the Board (MCB) for final approval, i.e.
1.Approval for initiating the sale under Swiss Challenge Method.
2.Approval for Write-off/Sacrifice based on the existing highest binding bid, and, before conducting of E-auction under Swiss Challenge Method Bank will then, issue letter to the bidder who has given the binding offer informing the initiation of the Sale process under Swiss Challenge Method.” http://www.judis.nic.in
14.The justification for proceeding further for sale of financial 17/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 assets under 'Swiss Challenge Method' in respect of the 'Non-Performing Asset' account of the petitioner/borrower, is also enumerated in Para (e) at Page No.11 of the common preliminary counter affidavit. Having taken note of the fact, the auction for the Secured Assets was held on 27.01.2020 for sale of Secured Assets, however, no bidders have shown any interest, that apart, all the earlier auction bid attempts made by the 1st respondent Bank did not receive any bidders, or were put to challenge by the borrower on frivolous grounds, which improved as a case in A.I.R.No.719 of 2018, and a fair decision has been taken to adopt the said method in the Management Committee and the Board has also arrived at Rs.31 Crores as upset price for sale of financial assets, and the details are enumerated in Sub-Para No.(f) at Page Nos.12 to 14 of the common preliminary counter affidavit.
15.The primordial submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, since the entire debt/liability along with Secured Assets are being conveyed for a meager amount of Rs.31 Crores, whereas the offer made by the petitioner is for a sum of Rs.45 Crores, a fair and reasonable action should have been exhibited by the 1st respondent. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission is liable to be rejected for the reason that the 1st respondent Bank has proceeded to adopt http://www.judis.nic.in 18/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 the 'Swiss Challenge Method', in the light of their own recovery policy for the financial year 2020-2021. The judgment reported in (2009) 7 SCC 462 [Ravi Development] (cited supra) also says that the said method is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner made an attempt to draw a distinction between the said case and the present case for the reason that it pertains to the methodology or mode of award of contract and the same is not applicable to the present position. It is to be noted at this juncture that the respondents have filed O.A.No.496 of 2016 and got a recovery certificate on 29.07.2019, and the same is also subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.31943 of 2019 and the same is pending adjudication, of course, without any interim orders. The auction sale proceedings to sell the Secured Assets also did not yield any desired result, and therefore, the Bank, in the light of their own recovery policy of the financial year 2020-2021, took a fair decision to adopt the 'Swiss Challenge Method'.
16.It is settled position of law that, in case of commercial transactions, some leeway/space is provided, and unless the said act is bristled with bias, mala fide or arbitrariness, it cannot be normally interfered with. The 1st respondent Bank has made every attempt to recover the http://www.judis.nic.in 19/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 amount, and having failed in their endeavour, has invoked Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, and has assigned the debts/liability along with Secured Assets in favour of the 2nd respondent/Asset Reconstruction Company in the light of their recovery policy, which came into being on the basis of Reserve Bank of India's circular dated 01.09.2016 (cited supra).
17.A perusal of the representation, dated 20.11.2020, addressed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent, would also disclose that, though initially, vide letter, dated 04.11.2020, offer for a sum of Rs.30 Crores by way of One Time Settlement was made, it was subsequently increased to Rs.35 Crores, within 90 days from date of sanction, the petitioner has subsequently submitted one more representation, dated 21.11.2020, for One Time Settlement by increasing the offer amount to Rs.45 Crores. The 1 st respondent Bank, vide communication dated 23.11.2020, has also rejected the offer made for Rs.45 Crores.
18.This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with each and every decision based on commercial consideration/interest, unless arbitrariness or illegality is put in place. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances, coupled with http://www.judis.nic.in 20/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition.
19.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, however in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.Dehors dismissal of the writ petition, the fact remains, especially in the light of the Tabular Column given in Page Nos.12 to 16 of the common preliminary counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, that the difference amount of Rs.103.91 Crores is still due and payable, and when this Court has put a specific query to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as to how they are going to recover the said sum, the learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, would submit that, since repeated attempts made by the Bank to recover the entire amount have ended in futility, by transferring the debts/liability along with Secured Assets in favour of the 2nd respondent company for a sum of Rs.31 Crores, they are satisfied with the same.
21.Though it may be a fair policy decision taken by taking into http://www.judis.nic.in 21/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 consideration the commercial aspects and interests, still, this Court is of the considered view that, in one case, the difference amount between the acceptance and the debt transferred in favour of the 2nd respondent is nearly Rs.100 Crores and odd, and it is not made known in how many cases these kind of transactions took place. Therefore, this Court would like to know the response of the Reserve Bank of India in this regard, especially in the light of their circular dated 01.09.2016 (cited supra).
22.Therefore, for the limited purpose, the Reserve Bank of India, Main Building, P.O.Box No.901, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai–400 001, is suo motu impleaded as 3rd respondent in this writ petition.
23.Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title. Registry is directed to serve notice and papers upon Mr.C.Mohan, for M/s.King and Partridge, Standing Counsel for the Reserve Bank of India, who is required to get necessary instructions in the form of Status Report.
24.Post the matter on 22.02.2021 under the caption “For Status http://www.judis.nic.in 22/24 W.P.No.17599 of 2020 Report of RBI”.
(M.S.N., J.) (R.H., J.)
08.12.2020
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : No
Speaking order
To
1.The Deputy General Manager,
Central Bank of India,
MID Corporate Branch,
48/49, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Reserve Bank of India,
Main Building, P.O.Box No.901,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai – 400 001.
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
and
http://www.judis.nic.in R. HEMALATHA, J.
23/24
W.P.No.17599 of 2020
mkn
W.P.No.17599 of 2020
08.12.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
24/24