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

2019 Supreme(Del) 1632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Tirupati Buildings and Offices Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India & Another – Respondents
W.P.(C). No. 3356 of 2019, CM No. 23095 of 2019
Decided On : 01-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, Pulkit Deora, Mishika Bajpai, Sylvine Sarmah, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Suhail Dutt, Sr. Advocate, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep Parihar, Azhar Alam, Sankalp Goswami, Arun Aggarwal, Prateek Kushwaha, K.P.S. Kohli, Advocates.

A person who is not a party to a contract cannot enforce the contractual obligation.

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - LOCUS STANDI - ASSIGNMENT OF LOAN ACCOUNT - BIDDER - RIGHT TO ENFORCE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION - WHETHER PETITIONER HAS ANY LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE WRIT PETITION - WHETHER THE BIDDER HAS ANY RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company, had entered into a facility agreement with a consortium of banks for providing term loan facility. The consortium lenders assigned their interest to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. The petitioner and Edelweiss negotiated a restructuring proposal. The petitioner made payments in accordance with the restructuring proposal. The respondent No.2, erstwhile Dena Bank, filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the NCLT, New Delhi. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the assignment of the loan account to Edelweiss and to keep its insolvency application in abeyance.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. The Court observed that the bid to take over the loan of the Dena Bank in favor of the petitioner was submitted by Edelweiss and it was not the claim of Edelweiss that the said bid be decided. The Court further observed that the petitioner was not the bidder and hence, it had no right to enforce the contractual obligation.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to file the writ petition? 2. Whether the bidder has any right to enforce the contractual obligation?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition as it was not the bidder and hence, it had no right to enforce the contractual obligation. The Court relied on the following judgments: 1. Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 2. Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 3. Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002) 1 SCC 33 4. Babua Ram v. State of U P, (1995) 2 SCC 689 5. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 6. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 7. M S Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 552

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petition without adverting to the merits of the controversy and directed the petitioner to be at liberty to make a representation to the Competent Authority of the respondent No.2 for its consideration within two weeks. The Competent Authority of the respondent No.2 was directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Direct the Respondent No.1 to take a decision on the Assignment pertaining to the sale of the Loan Account of the Petitioner belonging to the Dena Bank i.e. Respondent No.2 herein, with respect to which a bid has already been placed by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited i.e. Respondent No.3, and which has been accepted by the Respondent No.2, within reasonable time preferably within one week;

(b) Alternatively, direct the respondent No.2 to go ahead with the assignment of Loan of the Petitioner to Respondent No.3 without waiting for the formal approval of the Respondent No.1 and

(c) Direct Respondent No.2, to keep its insolvency application in abeyance since the entire exercise related to sale of asset has been completed by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 has already been selected as highest bidder.

(d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that it had on December 17, 2008 entered into a facility agreement with State Bank of India, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Indore, Dena Bank, Bank of India and Vijaya Bank (hereinafter referred as ‘Consortium Lenders’) for providing term loan facility of Rs.250 crores. The State Bank of India was appointed as the lead Bank. That pursuant to the said facility agreement, the consortium lenders entered into Inter creditor Agreements on December 17, 2008, August 28, 2010 and finally May 29, 2012. That additional Inter Creditor Agreement dated August 28, 2010 was executed on account of an additional facility granted by the consortium lenders of Rs.52 Crores. An additional facility agreement was granted by the State Bank of India in the form of a bank guarantee of Rs.10 Crores. The final Inter Creditor Agreement dated May 29, 2012 was executed on account of a Facility Agreement dated May 29, 2012 executed between the petitioner and the consortium lenders to inter-alia synchronize the repayment schedule/resetting of term loan repayment installments sanctioned and disbursed by the consortium lenders, which in effect novate the terms of the foregoing facility agreements. The said final facility agreement was conceived to cover the cumulative amount of money lent by the consortium lenders in the sum of Rs.312 Crores.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the recitals F, G, H, I and J of the final facility agreement, the consortium lenders were to act in consonance such that any such action must be initiated by the lead bank or lenders’ agent. It is averred that the petitioner was servicing the facility provided by the consortium lenders, since the commencement of repayment schedule, as per the facility agreement, in October 2010 till July 2012. It is, however, due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, inter-alia inordinate delays in grant of various licenses and completion certificate by Delhi Development Authority and unplanned opening of hotels in Aero city due to which the inventory of rooms in Delhi doubled. The final license was granted by Delhi Pollution Control Committee on July 10, 2013. These events eventually led to financial stress for the petitioner, compounded by the continued mounting of interest, as a consequence of which the consortium lenders classified the credit facilities sanctioned by them as NPA on July 29, 2012.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the interregnum between the declaration of NPA, dated July 29, 2012 and the agreed repayment plan dated February 01, 2017 a number of assignments of interests took place pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is stated tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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