2015 (8) TMI 1532 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking direction for considering the proposal of the petitioner No.1 for rescheduling the loan - HELD THAT - When the matter was heard on the earlier date, this Court was of the opinion that any consideration by the respondents would arise only if the petitioner makes a firm commitment to pay the substantial sum to the respondents towards the amount due and thereafter seek an opportunity for rescheduling the loan. In that light, if the amount is paid, all other considerations with regard to the examination by the respondents to provide accommodation for payment of the remaining amount under any one of its settlement schemes or any other rescheduling would arise. The petitioner has filed an affidavit sworn to by the Managing Director of the first petitioner. Among the other statements made in the affidavit, in paragraph No.9 the Managing Director on behalf of the first petitioner has undertaken to pay a sum of ₹ 5 crores so as to enable consideration of their case for accommodation/ rescheduling by the respondents in accordance with law. The said amount is undertaken to be paid in two instalments. Taking note of the affidavit that has been filed before this Court, an opportunity requires to be granted to the petitioner to comply with the undertaking and then seek for rescheduling of the loan from the respondents by also indicating the consequence of non-compliance. In this regard, it is made clear that if the first instalment is deposited as undertaken, the respondent would thereafter wait for the deposit of the second instalment and on the second instalment being deposited, the request to be made by the petitioner for rescheduling would be considered in accordance with law - the communication dated 26.10.2010 which is assailed in this petition and was kept in abeyance by this Court is directed to be kept in abeyance till the expiry of the dates as indicated above for payment. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of notice dated 26.10.2010
2. Issuance of mandamus for loan rescheduling consideration

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash a notice dated 26.10.2010 and requested a mandamus for loan rescheduling consideration. The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent-corporation, invested in a project named 'Innovative Film City.' Due to repayment issues, the respondent issued the impugned notice as the loan could not be settled despite opportunities provided by the respondent.

2. The respondents opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had not settled the loan despite opportunities provided. The court noted that the petitioner needed to commit to paying a substantial sum towards the due amount to be considered for loan rescheduling. The petitioner's Managing Director undertook to pay Rs. 5 crores in two installments for consideration of rescheduling.

3. The respondent pointed out previous instances where the petitioner failed to pay as promised for rescheduling. The court granted an opportunity for the petitioner to comply with the undertaking. The petitioner was required to pay the first installment by 30.10.2015 and the second by 31.01.2016 for the loan rescheduling request to be considered.

4. Failure to comply with the payment schedule would result in the respondent proceeding with the notice dated 26.10.2010. The court directed to keep the notice in abeyance until the payment deadlines. Non-compliance would allow the respondent to proceed legally as per the notice without hearing any grievances from the petitioner.

5. The court disposed of the petition based on the above terms, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner meeting the payment commitments for loan rescheduling consideration.