High Court of Bombay Makes Rule Returnable in Writs Seeking Compliance with RBI Master Circular on Loan Restructuring. Petitioners Allege Inability to Comply with Loan Obligations Due to Telecom Industry Downturn, Seek Direction to Banks Under Paragraph 6.4 of RBI Master Circular Dated 1 July 2015.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2019, GTL Infrastructure Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed a writ petition against Canara Bank, Corporation Bank, Indian Bank, Vijaya Bank, IDBI Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, and Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. The petitioner claimed that during 2007-2008, it availed financial facilities from various banks and financial institutions, including respondent Nos. 1 to 6, to expand its telecom business. Owing to unforeseen circumstances, increased competition, etc., the telecom industry suffered extensively and the petitioner was unable to comply with its loan obligations. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to forthwith comply with paragraph 6.4 of the Master Circular dated 1 July 2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). A related petition, Writ Petition (L) No. 223 of 2020, was filed by GTL Limited against the Union of India, RBI, IDBI Bank as Monitoring Institution, and numerous other banks and financial institutions, including overseas branches and an asset reconstruction company. Both petitions were heard together by a Division Bench comprising S. C. Dharmadhikari and R. I. Chagla, JJ. On February 3, 2020, the court issued Rule, with the respondents waiving service by consent, and made the Rule returnable forthwith. The judgment excerpt does not contain any further proceedings, arguments, or final decision. The extract ends abruptly while narrating the petitioner's inability to comply with financial commitments.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent banks are obligated to comply with paragraph 6.4 of the RBI Master Circular dated 1 July 2015.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith, but final determination not provided.

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 33

Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2019 and Writ Petition (L) No. 223 of 2020

2020-02-03

S. C. Dharmadhikari, R. I. Chagla

2020:BHC-OS:3129-DB

Mr. S. U. Kamdar, Mr. Navroz Seervai, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Ms. Priyanka Shetty, Mr. Y. R. Mishra, with respective associates

GTL Infrastructure Limited (in WP 1893/2019) and GTL Limited (in WPL 223/2020)

Canara Bank, Corporation Bank, Indian Bank, Vijaya Bank, IDBI Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (WP 1893/2019); Union of India, Reserve Bank of India, IDBI Bank, Dena Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Canara Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Andhra Bank, Union Bank of India, UCO Bank, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank, Vijaya Bank, United Bank of India, JM Financial ARC Limited, Amilife Insurance PCC Limited, Bank of Baroda (London), Bank of India (London), Indian Bank (Colombo), Indian Bank (Singapore), Indian Overseas Bank (Hong Kong), Pegasus CP One Limited – Class E, Punjab National Bank (UK), Syndicate Bank (UK), Al Salam Bank, Bahrain B.S.C., Standard Chartered Bank (Mauritius) Limited (WPL 223/2020)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking enforcement of RBI Master Circular on loan restructuring.

Remedy Sought

Writ of mandamus directing respondent banks to comply with paragraph 6.4 of the RBI Master Circular dated 1 July 2015.

Filing Reason

Petitioners availed financial facilities, faced financial distress due to telecom industry downturn, and sought restructuring.

Issues

Whether the respondent banks are obligated to comply with paragraph 6.4 of the RBI Master Circular dated 1 July 2015.

Judgment Excerpts

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule is made returnable forthwith. (Para 1) the petitioner claims that in and around 2007-2008, it availed financial facilities from various banks and financial institutions in India, including respondent Nos.1 to 6 with a view to expand its business. (Para 5) the petitioner was unable to comply wi (Para 5, incomplete)

Procedural History

Writ Petition No. 1893 of 2019 and Writ Petition (L) No. 223 of 2020 filed before the High Court of Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. By consent of parties, Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith on February 3, 2020. Both petitions were heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956:
  • Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970:
  • Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980:
  • Banking Regulation Act, 1949:
  • Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956:
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 1338 OF 2020
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Hears Appeals Challenging Single Judge’s Order That Set Aside SRA Approval of Developer Change; Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226 Questioned Due to High Power Committee Remedy. Appellants Contend Alternative Re...