9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021 permitting the restructuring of the existing facility provided to the petitioner No.1. As per the circular issued by the Reserved Bank of India on 6th August, 2020 which provides for restructuring of advances to MSME sector stipulates that the restructuring of the borrower account is required to be implemented by March 31, 2021 - On perusal of the Circular, it is clear that the respondent-Bank has issued the sanctioned leter on 30th March, 2021 which is prior to the last date i.e. March 31, 2021. The interpritation of the respondent-Bank therefore is not legal and tenable by interpriting the circular that the restructuring of the borrower account is to be implemented by March 31, 2021 means all the formalities are required to be completed by March 31, 2021. Once respondent-Bank has issued the sanction letter of March 30, 2021, it would mean that the restructuring of the borrower acount is implemented subject to the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. It is apparent from the contents of the letter dated 06.07.2021, the respondent-Bank has not stated as to which of the terms and conditions as per the sanction lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner No.1 was having business operations and dealings with the respondent-Bank. The respondent-Bank sanctioned and granted financial assistance from time to time which was enhanced lastly on 25th July, 2019 and thereafter on 21st September, 2020. The petitioner No.1 is registered as Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise ('MSME') under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (for short 'the MSME Act'). 4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that due to complete lock down during the Covid-19 pandemic in the year 2020, the business of the petitioner No.1 with regard to the feed supplement business for poultry etc. suffered adversely. The petitioner No.1 therefore approached the respondent-Bank for restructuring of the financial assistance as per the directives dated 6th August, 2020 for restructuring of financial assistance to MSME sector issued by the Reserved Bank of India. 4.3. The respondent-Bank after considering the application made by the petitioner No.1 sanctioned the restructuring proposal on 30th March, 2021. It appears that though the sanctioned letter was issued on 30th March, 2021, as one of the guaranters could not execute the Bank guaranty de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... di has been complied with on 25.07.2019. In this regard, it is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Panesar that the Bank was restructuring the existing credit facilities with regard to the present petitioner and it was not granting a fresh loan for which a fresh guarantee would be required. It is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Panesar that in any case if reasonable time would have been granted, Shri Trivedi was ready and willing to give his guarantee and further more the present petitioners had also proposed the name of one Shri Rakesh Jawar who also had sufficient means as a guarantee for the entire/ part restructuring facility is concerned. Learned Advocate Shri Panesar under such circumstances raises a grievance, that when the bank had restructured the existing credit facility of the present petitioner, in the month of March 2021 and when the issue was only with regard to the part guarantee of Shri Amit Trivedi which was also ready to be complied with by the petitioner. The Bank ought not to have acted hastily and taken out the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 2.1 Learned Advocate in response to a pertinent query by this Court has submitted that since the issue in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out that Mr.Amit Trivedi was also ready and willing to execute the guarantee deed as required by the respondent-Bank. Learned advocate Mr.Panesar therefore submitted that the respondent Bank could not have cancelled the restructuring sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021 for restructuring of Loan account of the petitioner No.1. 5.3. It was pointed out that if the sanction letter dated 30th March, 2021 is restored then the account of the petitioner No.1 would be regularized as per the restructuring sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021. It was submitted that the petitioner No.1 has deposited Rs.10 Lakhs on 30th March, 2021 and Rs.7.5 Lakhs on 31st March, 2021 and has further deposited Rs.25 Lakhs on 24th August, 2021 in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by this Court. It was submitted that if the sanction letter is restored, the petitioners shall abide by the terms and conditions of the sanction letter without any default. 6.0. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Sevak submitted that the petitioners were aware about the fact that all the documents were to be submitted before 31st March, 2021 which was the last date for implementing of restructuring scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... averments averred in the Paragraph No.1, I submit that the Petitioners have given the introduction of the Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent. 09. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 2, I submit that the averments averred in the Paragraph are matter of record. 10. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 3 & 4, I submit that the Petitioners were failed in complying the accepted terms and conditions of the Sanction of Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021. I submit that the Petitioners were failed to provide the guarantee of the concern person (AMIT RAVINDRAKUMAR TRIVEDI - PETITIONER NO. 4) and delaying the process. In view of the said facts the Petitioners were not bona-fide at their part and hence the time period of the Sanctioned Restructuring Proposal dated 30/03/2021 was over as per the circular/notification of the RBI. 11. With reference to averments averred in the Paragraph No. 5, I submit that the account of the Petitioner No. 1 became Non Performing Asset as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and hence the respondent has initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve an alternative efficacious remedy to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal if the petitioners are aggrieved by the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It was also pointed out that in view of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SAEFAESI Act, the sanction letter issued by the Bank on 30th March, 2021 cannot be restored as it would amount to cancellation of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the respondent-Bank. 6.5. It was also pointed out that the petitioners have prayed for the quashing and setting aside the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and it is an ingenuine way on part of the petitioners to file this petition so as to circumvent the notice issued by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 6.6. Learned advocate Mr.Sevak relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2013 Himachal Pradesh 63 in case of Shri Amar Nath v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors submitted that in similar facts, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the High Court cannot grant the prayer compelling the respondent-Bank to settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk has issued the sanctioned letter dated 30th March, 2021 permitting the restructuring of the existing facility provided to the petitioner No.1. 8. As per the circular issued by the Reserved Bank of India on 6th August, 2020 which provides for restructuring of advances to MSME sector stipulates that the restructuring of the borrower account is required to be implemented by March 31, 2021. It would therefore be germane to refer to the relevant portion of the said circular which reads as under : "2. In view of the continued need to support the viable MSME entities on account of the fallout of Covid19 and to align these guidelines with the Resolution Framework for COVID 19 - related Stress announced for other advances, it has been decided to extend the scheme permitted in terms of the aforesaid circular. Accordingly, existing loans to MSMEs classified as 'standard' may be restructured without a downgrade in the asset classification, subject to the following conditions: i. The aggregate exposure, including non-fund based facilities, of banks and NBFCs to the borrower does not exceed Rs.25 crore as on March 1, 2020. ii. The borrower's account was a 'standard asset' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore be necessary to reproduce the said letter dated 6th July, 2021 which reads as under : "M/S SHREEJI SALES CORPORATION (Prop. Sh. Bharat Shah) Date: 06-07-2021 (Res) 16, Anand Sagar Apartment, Urmi Society, BPC Road, Vadodara-390007 Ref: Your letter dated 11-06-2021. Reg: Restructuring Proposal - M/S SHREEJI SALES CORPORATION Dear Sir, Regarding the captioned matter we, wish to inform you that, in pursuance to the reply received from MCC-Vadedara (also intimated to you vide letter Ref: No MCC/8099/2021-22/8 Dated 29-05-2021) restructuring proposal of M/S. Shree Ji sales Corporation was considered under One -Time Restructuring of MSME Advances scheme. The same could not be acceded to due to Non-Compliance of terms and condition as per sanction letter of restructuring. Submitted for your necessary information please. " 11. It is apparent from the contents of the letter dated 06.07.2021, the respondent-Bank has not stated as to which of the terms and conditions as per the sanction letter of the restructuring is not fulfilled by the petitioners. 12. In view of the above facts and taking into consideration the fact about the issuance of the sanction letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
