Bombay HC dismisses Ruchi Soya winding up petition
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has dismissed the winding up petition against Ruchi Soya Industries, the country's largest soya oil producer, which borrowed about Rs 200 crore from private sector lender IDFC Bank, the petitioner in the legal battle.
“In the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the respondent-company which has a temporary set back and is making a sincere attempt of its revival with the assistance of large number of the creditors, it would not be desirable and in the interest of all the creditors including the petitioner to pass any order of winding up against the respondent-company at this stage,” said justice R R Dhanuka in his judgement.
IDFC Bank filed the petition in July last year after Ruchi Soya had failed to repay its short term credit.
On May 21 last year, the respondent Ruchi Soya informed Bombay Stock Exchange that it would be convening a meeting on 30th May, 2016 recommending dividend for the financial year.
This triggered a spat between the two parties with the IDFC Bank reminding the company of its outstanding dues.
Ravi Kadam was the senior counsel for IDFC Bank while Ruchi Soya was represented by Mustafa Doctor, another senior counsel.
“We are relieved by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and will continue our efforts to work with our lenders including IDFC Bank to overcome the challenges being faced by the company,” said Ruchi Soya spokesperson.
“Our discussions with the Joint Lender Forum has been progressive and we are confident of a resolution of the various issues.”
However, other larger lenders including State Bank of India, IDBI Bank were apparently not in favour of the proposed winding up.
In September ET reported that private sector IDFC Bank and state-run lenders led by SBI and IDBI Bank were bickering over how to recover loans given to defaulter Ruchi Soya Industries.
“Powers of the Company Court under Section 539 of the Companies Act, 1956 are discretionary and have to be exercised cautiously and judiciously,” said the court judge.
“In the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the respondent-company which has a temporary setback and is making a sincere attempt of its revival with the assistance of large number of the creditors, it would not be desirable and in the interest of all the creditors including the petitioner to pass any order of winding up against the respondent-company at this stage.”
“In the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the respondent-company which has a temporary set back and is making a sincere attempt of its revival with the assistance of large number of the creditors, it would not be desirable and in the interest of all the creditors including the petitioner to pass any order of winding up against the respondent-company at this stage,” said justice R R Dhanuka in his judgement.
IDFC Bank filed the petition in July last year after Ruchi Soya had failed to repay its short term credit.
On May 21 last year, the respondent Ruchi Soya informed Bombay Stock Exchange that it would be convening a meeting on 30th May, 2016 recommending dividend for the financial year.
This triggered a spat between the two parties with the IDFC Bank reminding the company of its outstanding dues.
Ravi Kadam was the senior counsel for IDFC Bank while Ruchi Soya was represented by Mustafa Doctor, another senior counsel.
“We are relieved by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and will continue our efforts to work with our lenders including IDFC Bank to overcome the challenges being faced by the company,” said Ruchi Soya spokesperson.
“Our discussions with the Joint Lender Forum has been progressive and we are confident of a resolution of the various issues.”
However, other larger lenders including State Bank of India, IDBI Bank were apparently not in favour of the proposed winding up.
In September ET reported that private sector IDFC Bank and state-run lenders led by SBI and IDBI Bank were bickering over how to recover loans given to defaulter Ruchi Soya Industries.
“Powers of the Company Court under Section 539 of the Companies Act, 1956 are discretionary and have to be exercised cautiously and judiciously,” said the court judge.
“In the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the respondent-company which has a temporary setback and is making a sincere attempt of its revival with the assistance of large number of the creditors, it would not be desirable and in the interest of all the creditors including the petitioner to pass any order of winding up against the respondent-company at this stage.”
