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

2021 Supreme(Guj) 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
Sebacic India Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 7158 of 2021
Decided On : 25-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.N. Soparkar Sr. Advocate with Mr. Monaal J. Davawala.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pranav G. Desai, Mr. Sandip C. Bhatt.

Point of Law: when the decision making process of the Bank is found to be not irregular or illegal or arbitrary in any form this Court is unable to exercise the discretion.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Production of sebacic acid - Demand for sebacic acid across world - Petitioner that petitioner is an unlisted public Company incorporated provisions of Companies Act and is engaged in production of sebacic acid which is manufacture from castor oil with a plant with an installed capacity MTPA with by-products such as –Octonal Glycerine Fatty Acids and Sodium Sulphate - Plant of petitioner is largest in country and is ranked among top ten in world - Sebacic acid is a niche product and there is only one another company operating in India which has an installed capacity MTPA and rest all companies producing sebacic acid are based in China - Whole world depends only on India and China for manufacturing this product

Finding of the Court: Court from record it is found that there are proceedings pending before NCLT and next listing date of proceedings reflecting on page which clearly reflects inter-se conflict which is not likely to so easily overcome and this aspect is also appears to have been considered by Bank and as such decision making process arrived at by Bank cannot be to be unreasonable in any form - Now it appears that proceedings are already initiated before DRT and it appears to have been numbered as Original Application and as such also it is not possible for this Court to examine issue any further - About continuing guarantee or about applicability of the provisions related to continuing guarantee as well as revocation of continuing guarantee in view of Section of Contract Act onward this Court would not like to much dwell upon it in view of aforesaid peculiar background of facts no reliefs deserve to be considered and hence no case is made out by petitioner to call for any interference

Result: Petition dismissed

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

    “7(a) quash and set the impugned letter and subsequent email at Annexure-A to this petition to the extent of restricting the petitioner’s withdrawals from its CC account resulting in stoppage of operations and direct the respondent Banks to allow usage of the CC limits forthwith ; and /or

(b) as an interim arrangement for a maximum period of 3 months, direct the Respondent Banks to accept the petitioner’s offer to surrender 10% of export collection made by the Company which would immediately reduce the CC limits till the strategic investor steps in; and/or ;

(c) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operating of the impugned letter and email at Annexure-A to this petition;

(d) any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;

(e) to provide for the costs of this petition.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is an unlisted public Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the production of sebacic acid which is manufacture from castor oil with a plant with an installed capacity of 10,000 MTPA with by-products such as 2-Octonal, Glycerine, Fatty Acids and Sodium Sulphate. The plant of the petitioner is the largest in the country and is ranked among the top ten in the world. Sebacic acid is a niche product and there is only one another company operating in India which has an installed capacity of 8,000 MTPA and rest all companies producing sebacic acid are based in China. The whole world depends only on India and China for manufacturing this product.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that primary raw material required for the production of the sebacic acid is castor oil and India produces 80-85% of the world’s castor oil of which Gujarat produces 70% and supplies to the rest of the world including China and castor oil is classified as a commodity and is purchased on a spot basis without any credit. The petitioner has asserted that certain other materials such as caustic soda, sulphuric acid and catalysts are also required as a part of the process for the production of sebacic acid and the demand for sebacic acid across the world is 1,00,000 MTPA of which 50% is consumed in China and balance is supplied to the world. The petitioner caters to the markets in North America, EU and Japan and has a marquee clientele base which regularly buys the product from the petitioner. Once the clients start using this product, it is difficult to change their manufacturing process and hence it is critical source of raw material even for them as well.

2.2. The petitioner has further asserted in the petition on oath that with the capacity outlay of Rs.65.20 crores, of which respondent no. 1 – State Bank of India (Rs.37 crores) and respondent no.2 i.e. Central Bank of India (6.20 crores) extended term loans totalling to Rs.43.20 during the year 2010-11. In addition to this the respondent – Banks have also granted cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs.28 crores and due to project delays, the debt was restructured in the year 2013 and the term loans were rescheduled and the total term loan debts outstanding as on May, 2013 of Rs.42.88 crores were to be repaid on March, 2019. It is imperative to point out even at this stage restructuring stage TEV report conducted on the behest of the respondents clearly showed that the petitioner’s company unit was technically feasible and economically viable and which is also case till date. After analyzing to this consortium approval letter dated 10.05.2013 came to be issued restructuring the petitioner’s debt.

2.3. During the passage of this period, the working capital facilities (CC Limits) have also been reduced from the earlier Rs.28 crores and currently stand as below :

Bank Sanctioned Limit (in crs.) O/s as on 19/4/21 (

              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