Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The application is opposed by the Respondents and the consortium of their secured lenders, comprising of 20 banks and financial institutions led by the lead bank - State Bank of India, who have taken out the accompanying Chamber Summons for impleadment in the Arbitration Petition. The Respondents oppose the application on various grounds including insufficiency of stamp on the document containing inter alia the arbitration agreement, the CDR mechanism being put in place and balance of convenience. The Respondents contend that the application lacks merit. They also submit that there is a gross suppression and mis-statement on the part of the Petitioner. The Interveners - secured lenders oppose the application on the ground that there is a huge debt of over Rs.3000 crores owed by the Respondents to the secured lenders, which is sought to be restructured in the CDR Package involving the Respondents and the secured lenders. The CDR Package envisages a further finance to the tune of Rs.341 crores to be infused in Respondent No.1 towards working capital so as to revive the company from the debt trap and to enable the creditors to recover their dues. As a pre-condition for the Package, it is proposed that all current assets of the company (held as security by the CDR lenders together with the Petitioner) shall be pooled together and a single deed of hypothecation shall be executed in favour of the CDR lenders. It is submitted that the Petitioner as a first pari passu charge holder can continue to hold its security in the current assets of the company, but cannot obtain any blanket injunction or relief in respect of its dues so as to jeopardise the CDR scheme.

10. No doubt there is an admitted debt of over Rs.25 crores in the present case. There is a clear prima facie case of an enforceable money claim. Yet at the same time, the claim is secured by a charge over the current assets of the 1st Respondent company. This charge is held by the Petitioner along with other secured lenders, but the latter acknowledge the Petitioner's charge as the first pari passu charge. The grievance of the Petitioner is that it is an express term of its charge that the 1 st Respondent shall not, without obtaining a prior consent of the Petitioner, raise finances by way of loans, etc. from any other bank or financial institution against the security of the Petitioner created under the Term Loan Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation. The Petitioner admittedly holds a first pari passu charge over the current assets of the company, both present and future. The other secured creditors (who are participating in the CDR Scheme and described as CDR Lenders) also have hypothecation deeds executed in their favour, many of these being even prior to the date of the Petitioner's charge.

Presently, what is proposed in the CDR Scheme is that there would be a consolidated hypothecation deed and charge over the current assets of the 1st Respondent in place of these individual deeds, in favour of the CDR lenders. In other words, there is merely a restructuring of the existing charge in favour of the CDR lenders. No doubt there is an increased exposure to the extent of fresh Rupees 341 crores to be infused by the CDR 10/25 arbp 800-2014.doc lenders as part of the CDR Scheme. But that is something which is really to get the Respondent company out of the present debt trap and to revive it, and that is being closely monitored by a mechanism put in place by the Reserve Bank of India. In the premises, as long as the Petitioner's first pari passu charge is being recognized by the CDR lenders, the Petitioner cannot make any serious grievance out of the CDR scheme or its proposal of a consolidated hypothecation deed. As and when the security is realized, the Petitioner as the first pari passu charge holder will be entitled to participate in it. There is no case, thus, for granting any injunction by way of enforcement of the negative covenant claimed by the Petitioner.