SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(AP) 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, P. KESHAVA RAO, JJ.
Transstroy India Ltd. and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Canara Bank, Secunderabad and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 7082, 8350 and 9673 of 2018
Decided On : 18-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
S. Ravi for Ch. Pushyam Kiran, M. Laxminarasimham, T. Vidya Rani, V. Dyumani, Ch. Siva Reddy, M.V. Kini & Co., Advocates and Solicitors, N. Manohar Reddy, B.S. Prasad SCs, S. Niranjan Reddy for G. Pujitha for Rubaina S. Khatoon, R. Raghunandan for V. Dyumani.

Headnote:

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 35-AA and 35-AB - Enforcement of security interest - Distinguishing features - Section 35-AA empowers Central Government to authorise Reserve Bank of India to issue directions but Section 35-AB empowers Reserve Bank of India itself to issue directions - Direction to be issued under Section 35-AA is for initiation of insolvency resolution process but directions to be issued under Section 35-AB are for mere resolution and not insolvency resolution process - Direction under Section 35-AA for initiation of insolvency resolution process, should be in respect of default, but direction to be issued under Section 35-AB should be in respect of stressed assets - Directions to be issued under Section 35-AA are specifically for taking recourse to provisions of IBC, 2016 but Section 35-AB does not speak of IBC, 2016 at all - Above distinctions between Sections 35-AA and 35-AB assume significance in light of nature and source of power - It will be clear that direction issued by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of power conferred by Section 35-AB, has binding force only upto stage of final outcome reached in resolution process outside Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Hence measures taken by Andhra Bank under Securitization Act, 2002, after failure of the resolution process outside IBC, cannot be said to be violative of direction issued by RBI - Writ petitions dismissed.

Facts of the case:

Company in respect of which "Resolution Process" has been initiated in terms of provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed three writ petitions, challenging in first writ petition measures taken by secured creditors under Securitisation Act, 2002, purportedly in violation of directions issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 35-AB of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and challenging in second and third writ petitions, auction sale of some properties under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Findings of the court:

Hence the measures taken by the Andhra Bank under the Securitization Act, 2002, after the failure of the resolution process outside the IBC, cannot be said to be violative of the direction issued by the RBI

ORDER :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. A company in respect of which a "Resolution Process" has been initiated in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has come up with the above three writ petitions, challenging in the first writ petition the measures taken by the secured creditors under the Securitisation Act, 2002, purportedly in violation of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 35-AB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and challenging in the second and third writ petitions, the auction sale of some properties under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Securitisation Act, 2002, for short).

2. Heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. M. Laxminarasimham, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Andhra Bank, Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the auction purchaser, Ms. T. Vidya Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Canara Bank, Mr. Ch. Siva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Bank of India, M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocates & Solicitors, for Dena Bank, Mr. G. Vivekanand, learned Standing Counsel for United Bank of India, Mr. Manohar Reddy Nandyala, learned Standing Counsel for UCO Bank and Mr. B.S. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Union Bank of India and Vijaya Bank.

3. The first petitioner in these writ petitions is an infrastructure company, which had purportedly taken up several roads and irrigation projects. During the course of its business, the petitioner availed Fund based and Non-Fund based Term Loans and working capital limits from 14 banks. The account of the petitioner with the banks became a non-performing asset, during the period from 2014 to 2016. The names of the banks from which facilities were availed, the dates on which the accounts became NPA and the amounts outstanding as on the date of classification of NPA are filed by the petitioners themselves in the form of a tabular column as follows :

Sl. No.

Bank Name

Date of NPA

Amount due as on the date of classification of NPA (in crores)

1.

Canara Bank

30.5.2015

273.12

2.

Union Bank of India

30.12.2015

227.50

3.

Bank of Baroda

10.5.2014

419.68

4.

UCO Bank

31.1.2015

60.04

5.

Andhra Bank

31.12.2015

293.61

6.

Central Bank of India

30.1.2015

232.63

7.

Bank of India

31.12.2015

172.79

8.

Dena Bank

3.12.2014

123.50

9.

Allahabad Bank

31.12.2014

246.23

10.

Vijaya Bank

22.10.2014

15.00

11.

Corporation Bank

28.11.2014

298.14

12.

The South Indian Bank

31.3.2016

80.00

13.

United Bank of India

22.10.2014

124.94

14.

Bank of Maharashtra

31.12.2015

119.95

 

 

 

Rs. 2687.13 cr.

4. For securing the due repayment of the loans, the petitioners had mortgaged all the immoveable properties to various banks. About 11 items of properties were mortgaged to the Andhra Bank, one item mortgaged to the Bank of Baroda, 6 items of properties mortgaged to Bank of India and so on and so forth.

5. It appears that various banks have filed applications under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad, details of which are as follows :

Sl. No.

Case No.

Bankers Name

Amount Claimed

Rs. (in crores)

1.

OA No. 445/2016

UCO Bank

72.73

2.

OA No. 1145/2016

Bank of Maharashtra

74.03

3.

OA No. 1153/2016

Allahabad Bank

521.30

4.

OA No. 1333/2016

Dena Bank

1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top