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

2020 Supreme(Del) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
K.L. Enterprises Llp & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Finance Limited - Respondent
Original Miscellaneous Petition (I) (Comm) No. 102 of 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Vikram Nankani, Advocate, Prateek Sakseria, Advocate, Tishampati Sen, Advocate, Ashish Parwani, Advocate, Manish Jain, Advocate, Dikshat Mehra, Advocate, Abhisree Saujanya, Advocate, Aarti Kumar, Advocate, Arun Kathpalia, Advocate, Malvika Kapila Kalra, Advocate, Ravichandra Hegde, Advocate, Pranav Sarthi, Advocate, Ashish Venugopal, Advocate, Svadha Shankar, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Injunctive relief against the sale of pledged shares; Petitioners requested to stop the Respondent from selling shares pledged as security for a loan during the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic - Petitioners claimed to have complied with loan obligations, yet faced adverse market conditions requiring additional securities - Respondent, a Non-Banking Finance Company, invoked the pledge prematurely despite a nationwide lockdown. (Paras 1, 16, 70)

(B) Force Majeure - The Pandemic as ground for relief; The Court ruled that the absence of a Force Majeure clause precludes invocation of such relief, asserting the petitioners’ defaults predate the pandemic. The Court maintained that contractual terms must be adhered to despite unforeseen events. (Paras 68, 71)

(C) RBI Directions - Applicability to collateral; The Court noted that relationship between the loan agreements and RBI Guidelines suggests the secured assets must be of approved securities. Continued failure to comply with margin requirements allows lenders discretion in enforcing security rights. (Paras 60, 82)

(D) Balance of Convenience - It was determined that the Respondent's ability to recover funds from pledged shares must be protected amidst fluctuating market conditions while also considering the Petitioners' need for temporary relief following the pandemic. (Paras 74, 82)

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioners' business and loan obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. impact of covid-19 on petitioners' financial obligations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments regarding legal obligations and financial regulations during pandemic. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. discussion on the invocation of pledge and notice requirements. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. court's conclusions on obligations and consent order enforceability. (Para 58 , 60 , 62 , 78 , 82)

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") seeking directions to restrain the Respondent and/or any person claiming through and/or under it, from selling/transferring/alienating and/or encumbering and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the shares of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, pledged in favour of the Respondent as security for a loan taken by Petitioner No. 1.

2. Case as set out by the Petitioners is that Petitioner No. 1 is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm engaged inter alia in the business of investment including advisory services in wealth management. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have resigned from the Partnership Firm on 31.01.2020 and currently Petitioner Nos. 5 & 6 are partners of Petitioner No. 1. Respondent is a duly incorporated and registered Non-Banking Finance Company.

3. Vide a Sanction Letter dated 28.08.2019, Respondent sanctioned a LAS Facility for an additional amount of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- in favour of Petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 already had a sanctioned loan in its favour to the tune of Rs. 250,00,00,000/- and, therefore, as on 28.08.2019 the total amount of sanctioned loan in favour of Petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 350,00,00,000/-. On 11.11.2019, one of the Petitioners executed a Loancum-Pledge Agreement (first Loan Agreement) with the Respondent and vide this Agreement, Petitioners pledged all securities owned by them, to secure the LAS facility and were thereby able to provide security to the extent of Rs. 60,54,12,342/-.

4. Shortly thereafter, on 12.12.2019, Loan Disbursement Kit, containing inter alia; (i) a Loan-cum-Pledge Agreement signed between Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and the Respondent (second Loan Agreement) (ii) a Demand Promissory Note issued by Petitioner No. 2 in favour of the Respondent in the sum of Rs. 150,00,00,000/-; (iii) a Letter of Continuity in respect of the Demand Promissory Note (iv) an Irrevocable Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in favour of the Respondent, was executed. The various documents mentioned above are hereinafter referred to as "loan documents".

5. On 17.01.2020, Petitioner No. 4 was added as a Partner of Petitioner No. 1. Reconstitution of Petitioner No. 1 brought about a corresponding change amongst the Petitioners, towards discharge of their obligations in respect of the said loan. Petitioner No. 1 was the Principal borrower/pledgor from December, 2019, while Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 stood as co-borrowers/pledgors.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 complied with all the obligations under the loan documents, including but not limited to repayments thereof, maintenance of Minimum-Security cover/threshold/margin, etc. As on 27.02.2020, the outstanding loan amount was Rs. 185,18,72,811.98/-.

7. In February, 2020 as is well known, there was an outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic which wrecked havoc across all Industries, market infrastructure as also trade and business, at a Global level. This unprecedented Pandemic adversely impacted the business and cash flow of the Petitioners as the stock markets plummeted globally. Uncertainties caused due to the Pandemic, triggered sell offs in all the stock markets.

8. On 06.03.2020, Respondent sent a Loan Recall Notice to Petitioner No. 2, invoking Clause 4 of the First Loan Agreement. As per the said Notice, the outstanding loan amount was Rs. 168,12,39,830

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