V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 24th September, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition being W.P.(C) 5555/2018 filed by the appellant herein (Lakshmi Energy).

2. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was primarily for appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Reserve Bank of India to ensure compliance/implementation of its Guidelines/Circulars dated 30th January, 2014, 26th February, 2014 and 5th May, 2017, vis-à-vis the Joint Lenders Restructuring Agreement (JLRA) dated 27th June, 2015.

FACTS

3. The facts as averred in the appeal are that the appellant Lakshmi Energy, a Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 is involved in the business of processing paddy and exporting rice. In the year 2010, it had availed of certain financial assistance from a Consortium of Banks comprising of respondent nos. 2 to 5 herein with respondent no.2 (Punjab National Bank, hereinafter referred to as PNB) being the lead banker. Sometime in 2014 on account of non-conducive market conditions in the paddy/rice industry which adversely affected the appellant’s business, the drawing power of the appellant suffered heavily and the appellant company informed the consortium of banks accordingly. However, the account was not an NPA at that point of time.

4. Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its powers under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (‘Act of 1949’ in short) issued Guidelines on 30th January, 2014 by way of which it introduced the framework of identifying stressed assets and prescribed detailed steps that had to be taken by banks in order to re-vitalize such stressed assets. These Guidelines were further supplemented by another set of Guidelines issued on 26th February, 2014. The rationale behind the said Guidelines was to arrive at an early and feasible solution in order to “preserve the economic value of the underlying assets as well as the lenders loans”. According to the appellant on a conjoint reading of the said circulars, the following salient features are noted:-

1. Banks are to mandatorily constitute a Joint Lender’s Forum, i.e., JLF as soon as a loan account of any borrower is classified as SMA-2 or on the request of a borrower to that effect.

2. As soon as the aforesaid is done, JLF is to arrive at a suitable Corrective Action Plan, i.e., CAP in a time bound manner, which as per the said Guidelines can be either “rectification”, “restructuring” or “recovery”.

3. If the JLF chooses to opt for “restructuring” then a detailed Techno-Economic Viability (TEV) study has to be carried out in a time bound manner and if “restructuring” is thereafter found viable then a “restructuring package” has to be finalized in a time bound manner.

4. However, in accounts with exposure of more than Rs.5000 million, the said Guidelines further stipulate that the TEV Study will be subject to evaluation by an Independent Evaluation Committee, i.e., IEC (Constituted by RBI & IBA) before restructuring package is finalized by the JLF.

5. Once a Restructuring Agreement is executed, the same shall be complied with by both the lender as well as the borrower.”

5. It was the case of the appellant that in the light of the prevalent market conditions and its consequent impact on the appellant’s business the appellant approached the Consortium of banks with a request to constitute a Joint Lenders Forum (JLF) in terms of the aforesaid circulars and accordingly restructure the financial assistance it had availed from the banks. On 19th March, 2015 the JLF in its meeting considered the appellant’s request and formally adopted “restructuring” as the Corrective Action Plan (CAP). It was further decided that a Techno Economic Viability (TEV) study had to be conducted in terms of the extent RBI Regulations and M/s. Dunn and Bradstreet (D&B) was appointed for the ta