Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

xxxxxxxx
48. Some documents have been filed by the claimant which were discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. A careful scrutiny of all these documents does not prove that the non-ceding of the pari passu charge by the claimant was the sole reason for the banks to withdraw their financing offer or for removal of MRI machines by the Philips Electronic India Limited which had supplied it. The relevant extract of the documents submitted by the respondents have already been reproduced in the foregoing paragraphs. R-2 at page 49 of the statement of defence filed by the respondents shows that Axis Bank had given loan of Rs. 200 lakh by opening L.C. for the purchase of CT plus Simulator. For this the bank wanted first charge of the fixed assets of the company ranking pari passu charge with other terms „lender‟. It also O.M.P.(COMM) No.17/2015 Page 11 wanted first hypothecation charge on the term assets of the company both present and future. One of the condition of the term loan was that drawdown of the facility would be permitted only on completion of all documentation formalities. Annexure I containing terms and conditions of the term loan annexed with this letter, as reproduced in the foregoing paragraph, shows that pari passu charge was to be ceded by the TDB and IDBI within three months from the date of disbursement of the loan. The respondents have simply made allegations in the statement of defence and also in the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 that the withdrawal of the term loan facility sanctioned by the Axis Bank was as a result of non-ceding of pari passu charge over the properties of the respondents by the claimant. It has not produced any document from the bank that the term loan sanctioned by opening L.C. etc. was withdrawn / cancelled because TDB had refused to complete the documentation for creation of pari passu charge over the hypothecated properties in favour of the bank. Furthermore, IDBI which had also given some loan to the respondents initially was holding a pari passu charge over the properties of the respondents hypothecated in favour of the claimant. The Axis bank wanted both TDB and Axis Bank to allow pari passu charge over the properties in favour of Axis Bank. Not a word has been stated by the respondents in the statement of defence or in the counter claim nor has any document been filed which shows that IDBI had granted and completed the documentation for creating pari passu charge over the hypothecated / mortgaged properties of the respondents in favour of Axis Bank against the term loan sanctioned and disbursed by It. The minutes of the lenders meeting dated 29.1.2008 (R-5) to the statement of defence shows that the representative of Axis Bank had informed that the bank had given loan of Rs. 500 lakh and Rs. 200 lakh for Linux machine and accessories and CT Scan machine respectively and that the account of the respondent with O.M.P.(COMM) No.17/2015 Page 12 the bank was NPA (non-performance assest) with Axis Bank and legal action was being taken against the respondents. Furthermore, the representative of the bank further wanted ceding of pari passu charge on the respondents' assets for additional loan of Rs. 200 lakh given to the respondents and the claimant was not agreeable to the ceding of pari passu charge on additional loan and the IDBI also did not agree to ceding of pari passu charge on the additional loan. Further, the representative of the Axis Bank agreed that if it was not possible for the claimant or the IDBI to agree to pari passu charge then they should give a clean chit to have exclusive charge of Axis bank on the other bought out with the advance of Rs.200 lakh, loan and both TDB and IDBI agreed to consider the request and wanted the Axis Bank to send relevant details of the assets bought to take a decision on this matter. The minutes shows that Axis Bank had undertaken to send the details of the assets bought with the amount of the additional loan. From these letters of the Axis Bank and the minutes of the lenders meeting, discussed above, it is clear that the claimant Board as well as IDBI both were holding pari passu charge over the assets of the respondent No. 1 and that for additional loan of Rs. 200 lakh sanctioned to the respondent No. 1 by Axis Bank for acquiring additional assets; CT Simulator the said bank wanted security by way of extending pari passu charge of the Axis Bank with the claimant and the IDBI. These documents further show that loan of Rs. 500 lakh and Rs. 200 lakh for Linux machine and accessories and CT Scan machine respectively were taken earlier and further that the account of the respondents with the Axis Bank in respect of that loan was treated as NP A account. There is neither any allegation from the respondents nor is there any reference in the minutes or the letters of the Axis Bank that the loan of Rs. 500 lakh and Rs. 200 lakh, referred to in the minutes of the lenders meeting dated 29.1.2008 for buying certain machines / equipments was also secured O.M.P.(COMM) No.17/2015 Page 13 by extending pari passu charge over the assets of the respondents by the claimant and the IDBI. It will also be relevant to mention here that the cost of the project envisaged when the loan agreement dated 30.8.2000 was executed and the claimant sanctioned loan of Rs. 850 lakh was Rs. 1,750.11 lakh. Out of the total cost, the amount of the finances arranged from other financial institutions was Rs. 175 lakh. When the supplementary agreement dated 5.5.2005 was executed between the claimant and the respondent No. 1 the cost of the total project was revised to Rs. 2,258 lakh and out of it the claimant TDB had already disbursed the loan assistance of Rs. 840 lakh. The IDBI had advanced loan of Rs. 75 lakh. The claimant had already taken loan of Rs. 200 lakh from IDBI and Rs. 500 lakh from UTI Bank (Axis Bank). There was unsecured loan of Rs.156 lakh. The loan assistance of Rs. 200 lakh which the respondents further wanted from the Axis Bank for purchasing CT Simulator etc. appears to be far exceeding the cost of the project and further diluted the security which secured the loan assistance of the claimant. Anyway, the minutes of the lenders meeting dated 29.1.2008 shows that the representatives of the Axis Bank had submitted that if pari passu charge was not possible to be ceded by the claimant and the IDBI they could give clean chit to have exclusive charge of Axis Bank the assets bought out from Rs. 200 lakh loan sanctioned by the Axis Bank for CT Simulator. Both the claimant as also the IDBI agreed to consider this request after the relevant details of assets bought from the additional loan were submitted by the bank to them. The Axis bank agreed to send necessary details of the assets which were to be bought with Rs. 200 lakh loan both to the claimant and the IDBI. There is no allegation from the respondent nor is there any document showing that the Axis bank had submitted the details of the assets which were acquired with the additional loan assistance of Rs. 200 lakh by the respondent No. 1 for giving their 'No Objection' to the creation of exclusive O.M.P.(COMM) No.17/2015 Page 14 charge of the said bank over the newly acquired assets. There is also no allegation or any documentary proof to show that TDB and / or IDBI bank had declined to accept this request of the Axis bank. It is also pertinent to note that both the claimant and the IDBI were not agreeable to cede pari passu charge of the Axis bank to secure the additional loan of Rs. 200 lakh sanctioned for the purchase of CT Simulator. Therefore, blaming only the claimant for putting hindrance in the completion of the project will not be justified. No allegation has been made that the claimant TDB could have extended the pari passu charge, as requested by Axis Bank, without taking the consent and 'No Objection' from IDBI bank. Therefore, the contention of the respondents-No. 1,2 and 4 that the claimant committed breach of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 30.8.2000 and the supplementary loan agreement dated 5.5.2005 is devoid of any force. It was not justified in blaming the claimant for non completion of the project and non payment of the loan instalments."