Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

47.In these circumstances, the account came to be classified as NPA and commercial operations also came to a halt. On 15.04.2012, the Petitioner submitted revised request for sanction of Rs.30 crores Working Capital under Corporate Debt Restructuring [‘CDR’], the mechanism promulgated by RBI for revival of viable stressed accounts through an impartial inter-banks mechanism.

48.According to the petitioner, while this was put under cold storage, US-FDA introduced GDUFA fee that substantially increased the cost and gestation for US- FDA approval. Finally, when the matter was escalated to Banking Secretary, Bank of India re-structured the account still declining to grant CDR funding for US-FDA approval. As against genuine requirement of Rs.30 crores, inadequate sum of Rs.6.5 crores got sanctioned (the sum equivalent to amounts taken towards Term Loan repayment even prior to establishment of plant) with stringent conditions defeating the original purpose of the project to secure US-FDA approval to eke FE Revenue. According to the petitioner, the Petitioner was also forced to give letters withdrawing grievances against the Bank Official. As against this Rs.6.5 crores too, only Rs.3.70 http://www.judis.nic.in  W.P.Nos.11777 & 16622 of 2017 crores came to be disbursed with the remaining going towards processing fee, interest and adjustment of a crore as against non-sharing of LC devolvement by NABARD etc.,

52.The Petitioner would state as to how, amid all adversities, the viability of the project was being conserved by resilient maintenance and the succour it could bring to scores of ailing million if provided appropriate revival through CDR mechanism promulgated by Reserve Bank of India for resolution of stressed assets on a neutral platform of all member banks.

53.In these circumstances, alleging arbitrariness and malafides on the part of the Respondent Banks on various grounds, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.9610 of 2016 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Banks to conduct Financial Audit and Valuation Audit of the petitioner including its Intellectual Properties by a nominated International Agency of repute and thereupon, refer the case of the petitioner for Corporate Debt Restructuring. However, it is seen that the Banks did not file a counter in this Writ Petition.

(iv).TEV study report to be relooked into by Bank for its acceptability and will test check the financial parameters for its workability (v).The company to withdraw all petitions before any Court or Forum.

69.The other co-financier, NABARD has issued a separate communication http://www.judis.nic.in  W.P.Nos.11777 & 16622 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 to the Petitioner stating that the High Court of Madras vide its order dated 22.03.2017 directed Bank of India and NABARD to sympathetically look into Petitioner’s request for Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) in terms of RBI guidelines and letters of Petitioner dated 04.02.2017 and 10.02.2017 and that having considered the representation for Corporate Debt Restructuring in a fair and transparent manner, based on due diligence done in assessing the TEV Report, they regret to inform that they are unable to accede to the restructuring proposal in r/o the above limit.

(c).The Petitioner has reiterated that Banks have acted in wilful disobedience of orders passed in various proceedings and that Banks are bound by Promissory Estoppel having caused distress sale of promoter asset towards sanction margin under CDR.

(d).The petitioner would state that the restructurings that the Respondents are talking about were without any cash flow to the petitioner and rather to clean their accounts of any accruing NPA and on account of intervening situations brought about by their time delays and factors beyond the control of management. Instead of placing its case under the common forum of Corporate Debt Restructuring, the petitioner contends that banks kept making internal restructurings that were mere accounting restructurings by way of Funded Interest Term Loans that only capitalized the interest component without cash flow for the Company to pursue US-FDA approval, knowing fully well that the project could eke revenues only when funded and enabled to apply for and secure USFDA approval. Later, even after divestment and remittances on terms demanded by them, without supporting fruition of the http://www.judis.nic.in  W.P.Nos.11777 & 16622 of 2017 project, they caused it deviation with the lead bank providing meagre assistance to produce for domestic market. Such conduct being unjustifiable in a project funding, the respondents have now gone to the extent of denying the very fundamental of their funding, namely, USFDA project and claim that their funding was an additional Term Loan facility sought by the Promoter. The petitioner has contended that this by itself is a case of patent mala fides. The petitioner reiterated its allegations of various instances of mala fides against the Banks by referring to Government reports, Court directives and the Banks’ endeavour to feed regulator with false and negative input on the petitioner and so on.