Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b) First ranking pari-passu charge by way of mortgage over the Mortgaged Property with a security cover of at least 1.25x of the Secured Obligations;

         c)       Undertaking from the Confrming Party; and

         d)       A demand promissory note ("DPN")."
9. For the present purposes, we are concerned with sub-clauses
(a) and (b). The hypothecation in question, and about this there is no doubt at all, is of the all assets and book debts of Tapaswi. This is clear from the separate dedicated document we fnd at page 152, the relevant provision of which is at page 155-156. This charges movables to IREP as security towards repayment of loan and includes:

10. The other security with which we are concerned is said to be a 'frst ranking pari passu charge by way of mortgage over the mortgaged property with a security cover of at least 1.25x of the secured obligations' meaning that the security would be 1.25 times the total exposure. Now 'mortgage property' is defned in the principal loan agreement document itself thus:

"Mortgaged Property"shall mean all the pieces and parcel admeasuring approximately 450 acres, 39 gunta all of them lying and situate at Village Gorai Borivali West, Maharashtra, together with all present and future estate, 20th December 2019 909-CARBPL1501-19.DOC right, title, interest, property, claim and demand whatsoever of the Confrming Party into and upon the same to be mortgaged by the Confrming Party in favour of the Lender to secure the Secured Obligations and the Obligations of the Confrming Party under the Finance Documents;

22. This takes us to the next major defence from Mr Kamat that this entire action is nothing but an action to enforce the mortgage. I believe that is a over-simplifcation. The reliance on paragraph 46 of the Supreme Court decision in Booz Allen & Hamilton Ind vs SBI Home Finance Ltd & Ors2 will not assist. The case seems to me to more squarely fall within the ambit of the decision of this Court in Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd vs Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. 3 Only because a lender is secured by a mortgage, this does not mean that his claim in arbitration for recovery of the loan metamorphoses into a mortgage action for foreclosure. The argument is over- simplistic because it is predicated on an assumption that there is a mortgage that lends itself to enforcement to begin with. But there again the Respondents are in default. Essel Infra was to obtain a NOC from defned lenders (and they are named in the contract itself ) to ensure that IREP had a frst-ranking pari passu charge over the Gorai property. That NOC has not come forward at all. It 2 (2011) 5 SCC 532.