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

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 h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more