ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of an agreement dated March 19, 2014, the respondent no.1 obtained a financial accommodation of Rs.70 crore for the purpose of developing projects namely, Dry Bulk Terminal at Paradip, Odisha. On March 19, 2014, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 also entered into a supplemental agreement recording the renegotiated terms and conditions of grant of the aforesaid financial accommodation by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 company as a corporate guarantor is a party to the said agreements dated March 19, 2014. The financial accommodation granted by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 was secured by first pari passu charge on the security package including charge on all fixed assets both present and future. The petitioner also has the charge on all book debts, operating cash flows, receivables of the respondent no.1 both present and in future. At the relevant point of time the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 companies were under the same management.
(2.) In the year 2016, the respondent no.1 committed defaults under the said loan agreement. By a letter dated February 21, 2017 addressed to the petitioner the respondent no.1 unequivocally admitted and acknowledged their dues to the tune of Rs.4830 crore as on February 21, 2017 and requested the petitioner for resettlement of the terms of loan, which was not accepted by the petitioner. In June, 2007 the respondent no.1 made a part payment of the outstanding dues to the petitioner. However, in spite of repeated assurances and representations held out to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 failed to pay its outstanding dues under the said agreements dated March 29, 2014. According to the petitioner Rs.24,09,78,854/- still remains outstanding from the respondent no.1.
(3.) The respondent no.1 had entered into a cargo handling agreement dated August 26, 2011 with the respondent no.3 for providing various services at the Dry Bulk Terminal at Paradip, Odisha and the petitioner was entitled to receive the consideration from the respondent no.3 for running such services. The respondent no.1 is an operational creditor of the respondent no.3. In a proceeding initiated against the respondent no.3 company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Supreme Court has confirmed the corporate resolution plan of Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court has also approved a list of operational creditors of the respondent no.3 and, as such, the respondent no.3 is entitled to receive Rs.68,65,23,829/- from the said Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. In view of the acknowledgement made by the respondent no.1 to pay its outstanding dues under the said loan agreement, by a letter dated December 14, 2019 the petitioner called upon the respondent no.3 not to disburse any sum to the respondent no.1 without setting apart Rs.24,09,78,854/- along with interest. The respondent no.3 has, however, refused to comply with the demand made by the petitioner.;