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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more