The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of Order I Rule 8 and 10 of the CPC, which allow a person to sue or defend on behalf of all those interested and empower the court to add or strike a party without an application. The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the lenders collectively executed the Master Amendment Agreement and are subject to the One-Time Restructuring scheme, and any order passed by the court will directly affect them.

ORDER :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

I.A. No.1746/2023 (u/O I Rule 10 CPC by proposed defendant Exclusive Capital Limited)

1. The present application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the applicant/proposed defendant, Exclusive Capital Limited, seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Allow the present Application and implead Exclusive Capital Limited, Bank of Maharashtra Limited, Axis Bank and Punjab National Bank Limited as Defendants in the captioned Suit;

b. Pass any other order or order that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the present application has been seeking impleadment of all the Lenders of the plaintiff in the captioned suit. Vide order dated 30th January 2023, notice has already been issued to the non-applicants and four weeks’ time was given to the non-applicants to file their replies/objection. It is submitted that no reply to the instant application has been filed on behalf of any non-applicant.

3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the applicant had been assigned the loan and overdraft credit facilities to the tune of approximately Rs. 122 crores extended to the plaintiff by IndusInd Bank Ltd. by the Deed of Assignment dated 28th December 2022. The plaintiff and IndusInd Bank had also entered into an Overdraft Facility Agreement dated 20th November 2017 for Rs. 5 crores and a Term Loan Agreement dated 29th September 2017. In addition to the same, IndusInd Bank also extended Sanction letter dated 24th September 2020 for Rs.23,13,741/- in favour of the plaintiff to be paid in three monthly installments starting from 31st January 2021. Accordingly, Funded Interest Term Loan for Rs.23,13,741/- was executed on 27th October 2020 between the plaintiff and IndusInd Bank.

4. It is submitted that on 6th August 2020, the Reserve Bank of India notified Resolution Framework for all borrowers stressed due to Covid-19 and enabled the borrowers and lenders to implement a one-time resolution for inter alia restructuring loans and granting concessions on account of financial difficulties of the borrowers. Pursuant to the notification, the plaintiff approached its lenders, including the IndusInd Bank, with a proposal of One-Time Restructuring of loan, overdraft and other credit facilities.

5. Learned senior counsel submitted that after certain negotiations, all lenders agreed to accept the plaintiff’s proposal for One-Time Restructuring and accordingly, a Consortium of lenders was formed comprising of Yes Bank/defendant no. 1, IndusInd Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Axis Bank and Punjab National Bank. On 9th December 2020, the resolution process was invoked by IndusInd Bank alongwith other lenders of the Consortium and on 23rd December 2020, an Inter-Creditor Agreement was executed between the Consortium. It is further submitted that a Master Amendment Agreement in June 2021 amongst the Consortium lenders/Banks, and amongst the plaintiff and the lenders a Trust and Retention Account Agreement and Funded Interest Term Loan Agreement were executed.

6. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1, vide its „Loan Recall cum Guarantee Invocation Notice’ dated 17th February 2022 issued to the plaintiff, sought to recall the loan facility granted to the plaintiff and called upon the plaintiff as well as its guarantors to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,22,92,43,603/-. The said Recall Notice has been challenged on behalf of the plaintiff in the captioned suit against the defendant no. 1.

7. It is submitted that on the first date of hearing, that is, 24th February 2022, the Predecessor Bench granted an ad-interim restrain on the defendant no. 1 from acting upon the Recall Notice. The said interim order has been continued since and remains to be in operation. While passing the said order, the Predecessor Bench prima facie found that the defendant no. 1 had sought to jettison t