S.G. Shah, J.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

Perused the record.

Speaking to minutes is allowed as prayed for. Thereby, wherever the dates are mentioned as 13.6.2014 and 13.6.2016 are to be read as 13.6.2017 as suggested in note of speaking to minutes. Moreover, the line in paragraph No.40(B) “there is reference of S4A – Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets, which is also introduced on the same day i.e. 13.6.2017 is to be corrected so as to delete the words “on the same day” in above line. Note of speaking to minutes is allowed and disposed of in above terms.

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore, with learned Senior Counsels Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, and Mr. Mihir Joshi, with learned advocates Mr. Keyur Gandhi for M/s. Nanavati Associates, Mr. Mahesh Agrawal, Mr. Nisarg Desai, Mr. Raheel Patel and Mr. Shriraj Khambete for the petitioner on 7.7.2017 and 12.7.2017.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Darius Khambhatta, with learned advocates Mr. Amar N Bhatt, Mr. Rajendra Barot, Mr. Nishanth Shashidharan, and Mr. Vivek Shetty for the Respondent No. 1.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ravi Kadam, with learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai, with learned advocate Mr. Nirag Pathak, Mr. Ameya Gokhle, and Ms. Grishma Ahuja for M/s. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., for the respondent No. 2.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel and Advocate General Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, with learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, with Mr. Sandeep Singhi with Mr. Siddharth Joshi for M/s. Singhi & Co. for the respondent No. 3 opposing the petition on 12.7.2017 and 13.7.2017.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsels Mr. Mihir Thakore and Mr. Darius Khambhatta, in reply on 13.7.2017 & 14.7.2017. Perused the record including notes of submissions.

6. The petitioner Essar Steel India Limited has invoked jurisdiction of the Court under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'IBC') by challenging the Decision of the Reserve Bank of India (in short 'RBI') vide their Press Release dated 13.06.2017 directing banks to initiate proceedings against 12 Companies including the Petitioner under the Provisions of IBC and the decision of Consortium of Lenders to initiate Petition under Section 9 of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and failure of the Consortium of Banks led By State Bank of India (in short 'SBI') to implement the package of debt restructuring approved by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner - Company.

7. The Respondent No. 1 is RBI, Respondent No. 2 is SBI, respondent No. 3 is Standard and Chartered Bank (in short 'SCB') and Respondent No. 4 is National Company Law Tribunal (in short 'NCLT').

8. The petitioner has prayed for following directions and order in form of a writ by the court:

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the decision of the Reserve Bank of India contained in Press Release dated 13.06.2017 directing the lenders to initiate proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in relation to the Petitioner.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the decision of the STATE BANK OF INDIA of filing proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in relation to the Petitioner;

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the decision of the Standard Chartered Bank of filing proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in relation to the Petitioner;

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction restraining the respondent No. 4 - adjudicating authority under Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad) from proceeding further with proceedings in the petition initiated under Section 7 of Bankruptcy Code by Respondent 2 and 3;

(e) Issue a writ, order or directing Respondent to place the Petitioner