Skip to main content

Lenders can claim dues only after passing of Interim Award

In a case of a company involved in a dispute and undergoing arbitration, a bench comprising of G.S. Patel, J. directed its lenders to wait for the passing of interim award before taking steps to get their money back. In the instant case, a company was incorporated to construct a bridge on a build, operate and transfer basis. A tax policy announced subsequently gave vehicles operating within a 5 km radius a substantial discount in toll rates, which affected the profitability and feasibility of the project. As the plaintiffs were unable to service their debts, the lender banks moved to sell off the pledged shares. The plaintiff company then approached the Court to restrain the lender banks from selling off the pledged shares before the passing of interim award in an arbitration between the company and State Government as they were expecting a favourable decision.

The Court held the request of the plaintiffs to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘moderate’ and in interest of both the parties and thereby directed the consortium of lenders to wait for arbitrators to pass the interim award. The Court further clarified that if the Interim Arbitral Award was not in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants would be at liberty to immediately take steps to enforce the pledged security of 20,00,000 shares of the company without further reference to the Court. The lenders could sell pledged shares as well as invoke the personal guarantee given by the company's promoters and directors. [Kalyan Sangam Infratech Ltd vs. IDBI Bank Ltd, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 2055 10-04-2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/05/06/lenders-can-claim-dues-only-after-passing-of-interim-award.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more