Case Law Details
Hindon River Mills Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. & Anr. (Delhi HC) – Notwithstanding IFCI Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation towards the “Company” in its capacity as an Operating Agency and notwithstanding Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. owing a fiduciary obligation, being appointed as a consultant, towards the’Company’; we find that there would be no breach of the said fiduciary obligation in law and additionally on facts, the former on account of the legal position as noted herein above and on facts, for the facts which we have noted in para 7 herein above i.e. that when Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was discussing the terms on which it would be acting as an advisor to the’Company’, evidenced by the e-mail dated August 26, 2006, it was made clear to the “Company”that this would not preclude Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. to participate in the auction process or assignment of debt by IFCI Ltd. to any other institution. The “Company”was clearly told that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was keeping open the option and the right to bid for the assets of the’Company’ or when the debt was assigned by IFCI Ltd. Thus, it is not a case where it can be argued that IFCI Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. acted in concert; clothing their acts in the secrecy of darkness and not known to the’Company‟. The’Company’ was clearly told by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. That notwithstanding it being appointed as a consultant by it, if IFCI Ltd. assigned the debts to a third party it was keeping its option open to participate in the bidding process.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Judgement Delivered On: December 08, 2011
LPA No. 112/2011
HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
