IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI BENCH, COURT- II

INTERVENTION PETITION No. 26 OF

2024

IN

C.P. (IB) - 686 (MB)/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Bank of Baroda

... Financial Creditor

V/s

Arch Pharmalabs Limited.

...Corporate Debtor

AND

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction

Company Limited,

...Intervener/ Applicant

Order delivered: - 15.05.2024

Coram:

Anil Raj Chellan Kuldip Kumar Kareer Hon’ble Member (Technical) Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Appearances For the Applicant : Ld. Senior Counsel, Mr. Prateek Seksaria a/w Kalyani Wagle ORDER Per: Coram

1. The present Intervention Petition no. 26 of 2024 has been filed by JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (“JMFARC”) under Section 60(5) of IBC, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking, inter-alia, following reliefs:

• To allow this Intervention Application and permit the Intervener/

Applicant to intervene in the captioned Company Petition numbered as C.P. (IB)- 686 (MB)/2023 as a necessary party;

• Present Intervener/ Applicant be heard before any order is passed in the captioned Company Petition numbered as C.P. (IB)- 686 (MB)/2023;

2. The Applicant submits that the Intervener/ Applicant is one of the financial creditors to the Corporate Debtor wherein the credit exposure is exceeding Rs. 9500 crores.

3. The Financial Creditor i.e. Bank of Baroda, has filed the present Company Petition for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process ("CIRP")

against the Corporate Debtor.

4. The Corporate Debtor was granted various financial aids, including term loans and working capital facilities from the Financial Creditor and 49 other lenders under various loan and security documents. In the year 2013, the loan accounts of the Corporate Debtor were classified as Non- Performing Assets by the aforesaid lenders. Responding to the Corporate Debtor’s initiative to enhance its operations, a corporate debt restructuring package ("CDR") was proposed in 2013 and was given effect to vide the Master Restructuring Agreement dated December 27, 2013 ("MRA"). However, the aforesaid restructuring failed.

5. Thereafter, the Intervener/ Applicant, acting in its capacity as trustee of various trusts, acquired the financial assets of the Corporate Debtor from 40 lenders representing about 97% debt of the Corporate Debtor, together with all the underlying security interest and all rights, titles and interests therein by way of executing various assignment agreements. Subsequently, the debt of the Corporate Debtor was restructured by the Intervener/ Applicant vide the Restructuring Agreement dated December 4, 2017 ("Restructuring Agreement").

6. Accordingly, the dues of the Corporate Debtor were restructured at Rs. 1400 crores vide the said Restructuring Agreement. Further, the Intervener/

Applicant acting in its capacity as lender also granted additional facility of Rs. 200 crores twice vide Additional Facility Agreements dated December 4, 2017 and May 27, 2021. By virtue of the above, the Intervener/ Applicant holds 100% of first charge and 100% of second charge on the secured assets of the Corporate Debtor.

7. The Applicant submits that they have an exposure of over Rs. 9500 crores in the Corporate Debtor, whereas the claim of Bank of Baroda is miniscule as compared to the Intervener/ Applicant herein. Moreover, Bank of Baroda is only an unsecured creditor for the majority of its debt and is a subservient charge holder for a small portion of its debt; whereas, the Intervener/ Applicant, being the 100% first charge and second charge holder on the secured assets of the Corporate Debtor, will be adversely affected, in case orders are passed in the present Company Petition without the Intervener/

Applicant being heard.

8. The Applicant submits that the Corporate Debtor specializes in manufacturing and sale of Intermediates and APIs, operating as one of the India’s leading standalone API Companies. With a focus on high growth, complex chemistry and superior margin therapies, it maintains 7 manufacturing units spread across M