Skip to main content

Lenders can claim dues only after arbitration is over: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that if a company involved in a dispute has sought arbitration, its lenders must wait for the proceedings to conclude before taking steps to get their money back. The court directed a consortium of lenders led by IDBI to wait for arbitrators to pass an interim award in a row between road builder Kalyan Sangam Infratech and the Maharashtra government before moving to recover Rs 250 crore owed by the company.

If the dues aren't paid by June 30, after the arbitration is over, then the lenders can sell shares pledged by the company, Justice GS Patel said in his order dated April 10. Kalyan Sangam Infratech, which was contracted to build a bridge in the state, is seeking compensation from the government after toll for some users was reduced.

Kalyan Sangam Infratech was incorporated in 2008 to construct the South Kasheli and North Kasheli bridge in Thane district on a build, operate and transfer basis. A tax policy announced in July 2009 gave vehicles operating within a 5 km radius a substantial discount in toll rates, which the company said affected the profitability and feasibility of the project.

The company also sought to terminate the concession agreement with the Maharashtra government and the dispute was referred to a three-member arbitration panel.

To fund projects, Madhya Pradesh-based Kalyan Sangam Infratech had taken a five-year term loan from the consortium of banks in 2010, with the promoters pledging about 20 lakh shares of group company Sangam (India) Ltd as security.

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/lenders-can-claim-dues-only-after-arbitration-is-over-bombay-high-court/articleshow/47066525.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings had been conducted behind their back. Th

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

"as is where is" defined

This is a fairly contentious issue as often sale conducted on "as is where is basis" goes into litigation due to lack of understanding or otherwise on both sides. Below are two judgments with different conclusions but helps reveal the problem 1) Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. District Magistrate Dehradun & Ors. - Uttarakhand HC Bank takes possession of borrower's property and issues auction notice for sale of properties so possessed. The successful bidder pay part of the money and request the Bank to demarcate the property so that sale deed may executed and physical possession handed over. The Bank did make several representation to the concerned authorities to demarcate the property. That did not happenand the Bank instead of pursuing the demarcation proceedings with the Revenue Authorities called upon the successful bidder to make balance payment failing which deposit amount was informed to be liable for forfeiture. The bidder due to failure of revenue authoriti