9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 749 - HC - Indian LawsRevocation of in-principle agreement for one-time settlement - whether the said RBI circulars and the RBI policy guidelines for COVID-19 would apply to the Petitioners and whether the Petitioner, can in law, pray that the revocation of the OTS proposal be quashed and IL FS be directed to abide by the OTS proposal? HELD THAT - Despite the Petitioners having sought three months time in the writ petition for finalizing the OTS proposal and raising of ₹ 100 crores, even the grants of six months time has proved to be insufficient. The present case does not relate to postponement of payment of instalments of loans or where any accounts would be classified as NPAs, for defaults made during the COVID-19 pandemic. While there is no doubt that the pandemic did cause disruption to normal business operations and genuine borrowers ought to be given the benefit of the RBI circulars and policy guidelines, the Petitioners do not fall in that category. The defaults by the Petitioners date back to 2018. The defaults continued over a period of two years prior to the outbreak of the pandemic itself. Such cases cannot be those which would be entitled to benefits under the policies of the RBI which are meant to give some relief during the pandemic. Moreover, in the present case, despite repeated opportunities having been given by the Division Bench at the stage when the DRT proceedings were going on and even after the filing of the present writ petition, the same have been of no avail - Respondent is permitted to proceed against the Petitioners, in accordance with law - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the revocation of the in-principle agreement for one-time settlement (OTS). 2. Application of RBI circulars on COVID-19 Regulatory Package. 3. Maintainability of the writ petition. 4. Petitioners' entitlement to relief under the SARFAESI Act and other legal provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Revocation of the In-Principle Agreement for OTS: The petitioners challenged the revocation of the OTS agreement by IL&FS, which was initially agreed upon for the repayment of ?100 crores by 27th March 2020. The OTS did not fructify as the petitioners failed to make the payment within the stipulated time, leading to IL&FS revoking the settlement proposal on 26th May 2020. The court noted that the petitioners had been in default since 2018 and had failed to adhere to previous undertakings given to the court. The DRT had upheld the classification of the petitioners' account as an NPA and justified IL&FS's actions under the SARFAESI Act. 2. Application of RBI Circulars on COVID-19 Regulatory Package: The petitioners argued that the RBI circulars on the COVID-19 Regulatory Package should apply to their case, providing them with relief and additional time to make the OTS payment. However, the court found that the RBI circulars were intended to mitigate the burden of debt due to the pandemic and did not apply to accounts already declared as NPAs before the pandemic. The court held that the petitioners' defaults predated the pandemic and thus, the RBI circulars and guidelines did not support their case. 3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: IL&FS challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the disputes were contractual and should be addressed under the SARFAESI Act, not through a writ petition. The court agreed, citing precedents that once SARFAESI proceedings have commenced, the DRT has the exclusive jurisdiction to intervene. The court emphasized that the petitioners' remedy, if any, lay within the SARFAESI framework and not through invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. 4. Petitioners' Entitlement to Relief under the SARFAESI Act and Other Legal Provisions: The petitioners sought relief under various legal provisions, including the SARFAESI Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). They also requested an extension of time to honor the OTS proposal, citing a loan sanction letter from an NBFC. However, the court found that despite multiple opportunities and extensions, the petitioners failed to secure the necessary funds to make the OTS payment. The court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to any further relief, as their defaults and non-compliance with previous court orders precluded them from benefiting from the RBI circulars or other legal provisions. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing IL&FS to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with the law. The court held that the petitioners' defaults dated back to 2018, and the relief measures under the RBI circulars for the COVID-19 pandemic did not apply to their case. The court emphasized that the petitioners had ample time to make the OTS payment but failed to do so, and thus, no further relief could be granted.
|
