IA No. 14641/2016 (O. 39 R.1&2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC)

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction seeking directions to the defendant to comply with its obligation under Letter of Approval dated 28.12.2013 (“LOA”), the Corporate Debt Restructuring Package (“CDR Package”), the Master Restructuring Agreement dated 27th March, 2014 (“MRA”) and the CDR Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). They sought permanent injunction whereby restraining the defendant from disposing of 81,00,000 equity shares of the plaintiff-company which were allotted to the defendant under the fraudulent inducement by them.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that they are primarily in the business of Engineering Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) of building Distribution & Transmission Infrastructure ("T&D") for domestic and international power sector clients. The defendant is a Banking Company and is a party to the CDR Package for restructuring the financial facilities provided to the plaintiff by 17 lenders, comprising of 16 banks (including the defendant-bank) and a financial institution. However, four banks and the financial institution were non-CDR lenders and did not consent to participate in the CDR Package. The CDR lenders, however, consented to participate in the CDR package. The defendant is also a party to MRA dated 27.03.2014 along with the plaintiff and 11 other CDR lenders. The said CDR package was sanctioned and approved by Corporate Debt Restructuring Empowered Group vide letter dated 28.12.2013 and further modified vide letter dated 03.02.2014.

3. The primary requirement of the plaintiff for its business is that of non-refund based facilities such as Letters of Credit (“LCs”) and Bank Guarantees (“BGs”). While LCs are required primarily for procurement of materials and services, BGs are required for the purposes of providing earnest money deposits, performance bank guarantees and other guarantees/securities for contracts and tenders. In the absence of access to BGs and LCs, the Plaintiff would not be able to perform its business and this will defeat the purpose of CDR Package. On request, the defendant enhanced the working capital facilities to the plaintiff from INR 12 crores to INR 36 crores. Out of this, INR 12 crores were fund based and INR 24 crores were non-fund based. These working capital facilities were increased over a period to INR 180 in the year 2010 of which INR 30 crores were fund based and INR 150 were non-fund based. The defendant along with 10 other banks entered into a Consortium Banking Arrangement and sanctioned facilities aggregating to INR 371 crores to the plaintiff, out of which INR 146 crores were fund based and INR 225 crores were non-fund based. The same were subsequently enhanced. The defendant also sanctioned a term loan of INR 88 crores vide sanctioning letter dated 12.04.2010 for erection of three power plants in Punjab. It is submitted that for reasons beyond control of the plaintiff, the business of the plaintiff showed downward trends and they through State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi, the lead Bank of the Consortium, made a reference to the Corporate Debt Restructuring Empowered Group ("CDR-EG") of Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell ("CDR Cell") for restructuring the facilities provided to the Plaintiff as per CDR guidelines issued by the RBI. It is submitted that CDR Mechanism is a voluntary non-statutory mechanism for restructuring of multiple/consortium advances of Lenders. Various guidelines in the master circulars issued by the RBI are binding on the defendant and other CDR Lenders. The legal basis to the CDR Mechanism is contractual based on the terms of the Debtor-Creditor Agreement, i.e., the MRA in the instant case, and the Inter-Creditor Agreement (“ICA”). The defendant, however, is a permanent member of the CDR Standing Forum and the Core Group. Plaintiff’s CDR scheme was