LM: Debt-laden Suzlon may be an attractive bet for Canadian asset manager Brookfield

18 July 2019: India’s largest wind turbine maker Suzlon Energy Ltd, once a darling of the stock markets, defaulted on payments to bondholders earlier this week, thus again leading the company to knock at its creditors doors for a debt restructuring solution.

Following the default, secured creditors of Suzlon signed an inter-creditor agreement, under which the lenders will look to implement a strategy to resolve the stressed account.

One potential resolution that has emerged involves Canadian asset manager Brookfield Asset Management, which manages over $350 billion of assets.

Bloomberg reported on 11 July that the Canadian company is in talks with Suzlon’s creditors to restructure the outstanding bank loans of more than ₹11,000 crore ($1.6 billion), under a so-called one-time settlement plan.

While that’s good news for Suzlon and its lenders, what does the company offer Brookfield, which has so far invested in yield generating infrastructure and real estate assets in India?

Suzlon’s operations and maintenance (O&M) services business, which caters to almost all the Suzlon turbines installed in the Indian market and overseas, is probably the biggest attraction for Brookfield, said an infrastructure private equity fund manager on the condition of anonymity.

“Company’s valuation is largely dependent on O&M, there is not much juice left on the equipment side. Suzlon has installations overseas as well. They might be hoping that if they buy it at the right price then by offering these O&M services to the large base of installation they can make good money. These kind of transactions are happening globally,” he said.

Brookfield will look at it as a wider global play, he added. Brookfield manages $47 billion of assets under its renewable business, comprising a total portfolio of 18 gigawatts, which includes 4.8GW of operating wind assets.

Suzlon has an installed wind turbine base of over 15 GW, with about 12GW in India and 3GW in overseas markets including the US, Australia and Europe. Suzlon, in a recent investor presentation, said that it expects the industry to see new orders worth 6-7GW in FY20 and 8-9GW in FY21, indicating a strong future pipeline of orders.

In FY19, the company reported O&M services revenue of ₹1,907 crore, up 8.7% from the previous fiscal’s services revenue of ₹1,754 crore.

The O&M business, specifically in wind energy, is a very sticky business, making it an attractive proposition, said another investor.

“Unlike solar projects where you can outsource the O&M to a third party, for wind turbines you need many specialized skills and equipment and spare parts, as a result of which, to maintain, repair and improve a turbine, you ideally need to be that turbine manufacturer,” he said, requesting anonymity.

All the existing projects, which are going to operate for another five to 20 years, will continue to need to pay somebody to operate and maintain them, the person said.

A third person who also did not wish to be named said Suzlon’s pioneering position in wind energy sector means that the company also holds other interesting assets such as intellectual properties and a land bank.

“Suzlon happens to have one of the largest numbers of wind masts to gather wind data across the country. To build a wind project you need to have at least 3-4 years of on-site data, ideally, before you can actually build the project. Getting wind forecasting wrong can result in the whole economics of the project going for a toss. So, there is a lot of value in having these wind mast data,’ he said.

Suzlon’s ownership of land parcels is another asset that a buyer will see value in.

“Today, you need to have the highest wind resource sites to make these prevalent lower tariffs work. So, having access to some of these lands is an added advantage,” said the third person cited above.

An email seeking comment from Brookfield did not elicit a response.

The LiveMint reported

MC: IL&FS: NCLT allows govt to prosecute auditors Deloitte, BSR; C Sivasnkaran & 2 independent directors

18 July 2019: The NCLT has given a go-ahead to government to prosecute Deloitte and BSR Associates for their failure to detect and report the scams that took place across the now-bankrupt IL&FS group and 21 other entities, when they were the auditors of IL&FS Financial Services.

The NCLT in an order posted on its website on July 18 said the corporate affairs ministry can go ahead with prosecution based on the findings of the probe conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

But the posting does not mention its views on the government demand to ban these two auditors for five years from business, though.

The tribunal also allowed to the government plea to implead Udayan Sen, a partners of Deloitte, and BSR Associates partners Kalpesh Mehta and Sampath Ganesh.

Both these auditing companies any longer work with the group of the company, though.

The tribunal allowed prosecution of C Sivasnkaran and his group as the probe has revealed that management of IFIN abused their position by giving loans to the Siva group as some group companies failed to repay the earlier loans granted to them by IFIN.

Investigation also revealed Sivasankaran had personal relationship with Ravi Parthsarthy and Hari Sankran, the former chairman and the former vice-chairman of IL&FS Group.

Further, the tribunal also asked the corporate affairs ministry to implead Surinder Singh Kohli and Subhalakshmi Panse who were independent directors of IFIN and were part of the audit committee, but asked the government not to prosecute them the SFIO probe did not name them.

“Therefore, their prosecution is not justified at this stage but both Kohil and Panse, can be impleded as they were independent directors and were thus part of the audit committee,” the tribunal said.

According to the SFIO complaint it was alleged that the auditors were aware that IFIN was lending to defaulting borrowers through group companies hence suppressing its non- performing assets and not provide for the bad debt.

Moreover, SFIO report said, auditors failed to verify the end-use of bank loans and money raised via NCDs despite it being a regulatory mandate for verifying such things.

The SFIO report has found that the audit committee members colluded with the management and overlooked many impairment indicators in contravention of the accounting standards and principles of prudence.

In case of Panse and Kohli, the investigations revealed they were aware of the NPAs of the company and also knew that loans were being granted to group companies of existing defaulting borrowers in order to prevent them being classified as NPA.

As reported on Moneycontrol

FE: Yes Bank probing whistleblower claim

18 July 2019: Yes Bank is in the process  of carrying out an enquiry into a whistleblower’s allegations of irregularities in operations, potential conflicts of interest concerning a former chief and incorrect classification of non-performing assets (NPAs), the private bank said on Wednesday.

The bank became aware of an anonymous whistleblower complaint in September 2018, through communications from stock exchanges.

The private lender’s management then conducted an internal enquiry of these allegations under the supervision by the bank’s board of directors. The enquiry resulted in a report that was reviewed by the board in November 2018. Based on further inputs and deliberations in December 2018, the private lender’s audit committee engaged an external firm to independently examine the matter.

“The bank, at the direction of the audit committee and with the assistance of this external firm, is continuing to analyse the allegations in the whistleblower complaint,” the lender said in its notes to accounts for the June 2019 quarter.

It added: “Based on work done and findings till date, the bank has not identified any material financial statement implications. The bank will consider the implications of ongoing work once the examination of this matter is completed.”

Earlier this year, Yes Bank appointed Ravneet Gill as its managing director (MD) and chief executive officer (CEO) after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) denied Rana Kapoor a fresh three-year term. Lapses in compliance with asset classification norms are widely believed to be the reason behind the central bank’s decision.

In a call with analysts on Wednesday, the Yes Bank management responded to queries on the extent of Kapoor’s involvement in the bank. “So, the clear answer to that is other than the fact that he is the largest shareholder of the bank, he has no involvement, executive or non-executive, direct or indirect,” Gill said.

At its 15th annual general meeting (AGM) on June 12, the bank’s management is understood to have sidestepped shareholder queries with respect to former bank chief Rana Kapoor’s reported bid to reenter the bank through the board.

On June 11, rating firm Moody’s put Yes Bank ‘under review for a downgrade’, citing ongoing liquidity pressures in Indian finance companies and real estate firms that will negatively impact the credit profile of the bank, given its sizeable exposure to weaker companies in these sectors.

Shares of Yes Bank ended at Rs 98.45 on the BSE on Wednesday, 5.25% lower than their previous close. The bank’s June quarter results were released after the close of trade.

The Financial Express reported

MC: NCLAT ‘breached’ IBC provision by extending time limit, Jaypee buyers allege

18 July 2019: A group of 1000 Jaypee homebuyers have approached the apex court against the NCLAT’s direction to representatives of banks, allottees and other stakeholders to appear before it on July 17 to consider how the NBCC resolution plan could be amended for the benefit of homebuyers. The petition says that the “failure” of the resolution process presents a “frightening and extremely disturbing picture to homebuyers” and that “valuable time has been wasted” without reaching any constructive result.

The order of NCLAT on July 2 to reopen CIRP proceeding for negotiation, which has failed twice by now, is “beyond and contrary to the provisions of IBC” and it further “frustrates the Home Buyers as ultimately it will not lead to any affirmative solution,” they said in the petition.

They have also alleged that the NCLAT has “breached” the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provision by extending the time limit for completion of CIRP beyond 180 plus 90 days. They have said that there is no solution in IBC to the complex problem involved in this case.

“Because already two rounds of CIRP, the first from 09.08.2017 to 09.05.2018 and second from 09.08.2018 have been frustrated and there is no hope that further result of CIRP would lead to any solution and in the process only precious time would be lost further,” the petition filed by advocate M L Lahoty said.

In their petition to the Supreme Court submitted on July 16, the group of buyers has claimed that the interest of financial creditors as secured creditors, vis-à-vis the homebuyers, is totally opposite and “irreconcilable”. While the financial creditors, namely banks, would prefer the liquidation of the assets of the company and the realization of their funds, the homebuyers’ interest would only be served by the completion of projects, as well as the delivery of their apartments, and not by liquidation.

As for NBCC taking up completion of the stuck projects, the buyers expressed their apprehension, stating that the experience of over 48,000 homebuyers of Amrapali with regard to NBCC was “extremely frustrating” since NBCC had refused to invest and/or arrange any funds for the construction of the project due to which no further construction or completion work was being carried out.

The appellate tribunal (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) said in June that its priority was to take care of the interest of the home buyers. It asked the representatives of various stakeholders involved to appear before it in the next hearing on July 17 to find how NBCC’s plans could be altered for the benefit of all, specially the homebuyers. According to the bench, NBCC is a government company, and one can rely on it. It knows “the pain of allottees”, and wants to do justice for them, it added.

Challenging the order, the petitioners said, “The NCLAT has erroneously usurped the functions/powers of the resolution professional wherein NCLAT has sought to call the representatives of the financial creditors, the resolution applicant, the resolution professional, the allottees and the fixed deposit holders for conducting such renegotiation for the resolution plan on July 17 especially when the resolution plan has already been rejected once by the majority of the creditors after the expiry of the statutory period.”

In its revised bid, NBCC agreed to reduce the value of unsold inventories offered to lenders by around 25 percent. The public sector firm proposed that it would reduce the value of unsold inventories offered to lenders to Rs 1,300 crore from earlier Rs 1,750 crore.

Banks have been reluctant to acquire over 2,000 unsold flats, as proposed by NBCC in its revised offer.

However, NBCC did not dilute other conditions in its offer, including the exemption from future tax liability, mentioned in its bid. In its revised offer, NBCC proposed the infusion of Rs 200 crore equity capital, the transfer of 950 acres of land worth Rs 5,000 crore to banks and the completion of flat construction by July 2023 to settle an outstanding claim of Rs 23,723 crore of financial creditors.

But, it put several conditions for the implementation of its plan, including a demand to extinguish an estimated income-tax liability of Rs 33,000 crore over a period of 30 years arising out of the transfer of land parcels from Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) to Jaypee Group and seeking permission from YEIDA for any business transfer.

On this bid, lenders had reservations on certain relief and concessions sought by NBCC and sought clarifications from the firm. Clarifications from the NBCC were sought in the wake of IRP Anuj Jain flagging to the lenders that the state-owned firm’s bid was conditional and non-binding because of the two conditions.

Business conglomerate Adani group made an unsolicited and non-binding bid in June to acquire Jaypee Infratech. It is ready to infuse up to Rs 1,700 crore to expedite the construction of stuck housing projects of the debt-laden realty firm and deliver flats to home buyers.

As many as 13 banks and over 23,000 homebuyers have voting rights in the committee of creditors (CoC). Buyers have nearly 60 percent votes. For the bid to be approved, 66 percent voters should be in favour of the deal.

Earlier in May, creditors – including banks and homebuyers – rejected a bid by Mumbai-based Suraksha Realty through a voting process, following which the CoC decided to consider NBCC’s offer.

Jaypee Infratech went into an insolvency process in 2017 after the NCLT admitted an application by an IDBI Bank-led consortium seeking resolution of the realty firm. In the first round of insolvency proceedings, the Rs 7,350-crore bid of Lakshdeep, part of Suraksha Group, was rejected by lenders. Later in October 2018, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) started the second round of bidding process to revive Jaypee Infratech on the direction of NCLT.

As reported on Moneycontrol

FE: IBC recovery: Cabinet puts financial creditors back on top again

18 July 2019: Stung by the NCLAT orders that have trimmed lenders’ say on the recovery from what is envisaged in the insolvency code, the government has reinforced their authority in deciding how to disburse the proceeds under the insolvency process.  Essentially, this would mean financial creditors’ precedence over other claimants in laying hands on the recovered amounts would be cemented and the tribunals would find it impossible to upset the order of distribution prescribed in the code.

The Cabinet on Wednesday approved a clutch of amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code with an intent to make the resolution/liquidation process faster and also remove ambiguities, if any, that might have resulted in various NCLT/NCLAT benches giving rulings that were divergent and even went against the spirit of the legislation.

“Inclusion of commercial consideration in the manner of distribution proposed in resolution plan (will be) within the powers of the committee of creditors (CoC),” a government spokesperson tweeted after the Cabinet meeting. The CoC comprises only financial creditors.

The government thinks that the appellate tribunal’s order, asking secured lenders of Essar Steel to disburse a larger share of recoveries to operational creditors than what was decided by the CoC, was clearly against the intent of the IBC.

The NCLAT had trimmed lenders’ share of the recovery from 90% to 60%. “The proposed amendment clarifies that the CoC has the discretion to decide on the amount that operational creditors will get, with safeguards so that certain sum is indeed received by them,” said Sapan Gupta, national practice head (banking and finance), at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.

Sources said the government is also considering making a submission explicitly stating the intent of the law before the Supreme Court where the Essar Steel ruling has been challenged by the CoC led by State Bank of India. The idea is to ensure that the NCLAT verdict doesn’t set a precedent and undermine the CoC’s say on the distribution of recovery proceeds. Analysts say any such government intervention will potentially alter the apex court’s verdict in favour of banks in the Essar Steel case.

To cut delays, the amendments have mandated that the entire resolution process, including litigation, will have to be completed in 330 days. Currently, while the IBC allows a maximum of 270 days for resolution to be over, it doesn’t set any time-frame to complete the litigation process, resulting in several high-profile cases, including Essar Steel, dragging on months together.

At the time of its constitution, the CoC will also be empowered to decide on the liquidation of a stressed company (if there is no case for a revival of it), instead of waiting for months to entertain resolution plans for it. Analyst say as per the amendments, votes of financial creditors like home buyers will be cast “in accordance with the decision approved by the highest voting share (over 50%) of such financial creditors”.

“The law (IBC) is already very, very clear. But if there is any further clarity required to make it even more explicit, the government is open to doing that as well,” an official source had told FE earlier in the day. There should be no confusion that operational creditors were not on a par with the secured financial ones, he added.

While approving ArcelorMittal’s Rs 42,000-crore offer for Essar Steel, the NCLAT recently modified the resolution plan cleared by the CoC, holding that secured creditors will get only Rs 30,030 crore, or 60.7% of their (admitted) claims of Rs 45,559 crore, and the rest will go to operational creditors, treating the latter on a par with financial creditors. Operational creditors had made total claims of Rs 19,719 crore and could get Rs 11,969 crore, or 59.6%, as per the NCLAT’s order.

The earlier plan approved by the lenders had provided for 90% recovery for all financial creditors and around 20.5% for operational creditors (with dues of more than Rs 1 crore), based on their claims admitted by the adjudicating authority.

In another case, the NCLAT is trying to ensure that Provident Funds recover their dues ahead of secured lenders on grounds that it involves savings of people.

In the Essar Steel case, the NCLAT noted that distributing a larger share of the proceeds only to secured financial creditors at the cost of operational creditors was against the provisions of Sections 30(2) (b) and Regulation 38 (IA). However, legal experts have pointed out that Section 30(2)(b) clearly says that as long as the operational creditor gets a minimum of liquidation value, the CoC can decide on the amount to be distributed. Moreover, Section 31 says that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating authority, it is binding on the corporate debtor, employees, members, creditors and so on. They also say that Regulation 38, which says the amount due to the operational creditors under a resolution plan shall be given priority in payment over financial creditors, simply means that the former should get their money back earlier.

The CoC in its appeal before the apex court last week stated that it had the power to deal with all commercial aspects of the resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal India. Manoj Kumar, head (M&A, transactions and insolvency) at consultancy firm Corporate Professionals Capital, said: “The concept of fairness to all stakeholders (in distribution) is already provided in the law with a minimum guarantee of liquidation value to the operational creditors on priority, and the rest is left to the commercial wisdom of the resolution applicant. As the approving authority is CoC, all plans are bound to be tilted in favour of financial creditors and till the time the plan provides the minimum liquidation value to operational creditors, it cannot be considered as illegal.”

According to another amendment approved by the Cabinet, the financial creditors who have not voted for a resolution plan that is approved by a 66% majority and the operational creditors will get the resolution proceeds or the liquidation value, whichever is higher. “This will have retrospective effect where the resolution plan has not attained finality or has been appealed against,” the government said. This means the Essar case could be covered under it.

The Financial Express reported

ET: BoB-led lenders, JBF Industries to sign inter-creditor pact

18 July 2019: Lenders led by Bank of Baroda have decided to sign an inter-creditor agreement with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co backed JBF Industries under a June 7 circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, said two people familiar with the development.

Bank of Baroda had filed an insolvency resolution petition against the maker of polyester-based products at the Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal in September. However, the plea is yet to be admitted by the dedicated bankruptcy court. The tribunal posted the hearing for the case for August 27.

“Majority of the lenders signed the ICA last week. Though not all the lenders have signed, we expect that to happen,” said a banker privy to the case. “After everyone signs, we will get 180 days to chalk out a possible resolution plan.”

Sanjay Asher, the partner at law firm Crawford Bailey & Co who is advising JBF Industries, refused to divulge details since the matter is sub judice. A company spokesperson declined to comment.

Email queries to KKR and Bank of Baroda remained unanswered till the time of filing the story. The company’s standalone borrowings stood at Rs 1,623 crore as of March, while its liabilities were about Rs 1,000 crore.

According to the RBI circular, lenders must enter an ICA during the review of the borrower account within 30 days of the first default to any lender.

The new framework lays down parameters to be included in the ICA, including decision-making by lenders holding 75% by the value of total outstanding facilities and 60% by number, and protection of dissenting lenders.

KKR agreed to invest $150 million for 20% in JBF Industries and its overseas arm JBF Global Pte in July 2015. Subsequently, the company said in an exchange filing in August that KKR Jupiter Advisors, a unit of the PE’s credit arm, would acquire 100% of JBF Petrochemicals.

The Economic Times reported

LM: Yes Bank reports bad loans worth ₹6,230 crore in Q1, net profit slumps 91%

18 July 2019: Yes Bank Ltd on Wednesday reported a 91% drop in fiscal-first quarter profit on account of higher provisioning and lower other income. The management said the bank is looking to raise capital in the ongoing quarter.

The private sector lender posted a net profit of ₹113.76 crore for the quarter ended 30 June from ₹1,260.36 crore a year ago. Profit was lower than the ₹148 crore estimated by a Bloomberg survey of 13 analysts. The bank reported a loss of ₹1,507 crore in the preceding March quarter.

“I would say the first quarter was one of consolidation for the bank. The first and foremost part was the ongoing management transition, which I think is now complete. The second part was, given a common equity tier 1 (CET 1) ratio of 8.4%, it was a quarter for capital optimization. We will be looking to raise capital in the coming quarter,” said Ravneet Gill who took charge as managing director and chief executive officer on 1 March.

Asset quality deteriorated, with gross non-performing assets (NPAs) as a percentage of total loans rising to 5% as against 3.22% in the previous quarter. The bank saw an addition of fresh bad loans worth ₹6,230 crore in the quarter, even as it upgraded or recovered ₹1,680 crore and wrote off bad loans worth ₹340 crore. Of the net slippage of ₹4,500 crore, around ₹2,500 crore is from the book identified earlier.

On Wednesday, shares of Yes Bank lost 5.25% to close at ₹98.45 on BSE, while the benchmark Sensex gained 0.22% to close at 39,215.64 points.

The management clarified that the bank’s total real estate loans stood at ₹24,000 crore, of which 25% has been isolated as sub-investment grade (NPAs). The remaining 75% has minimal slippages, it said.

The higher slippages saw the bank’s provisions increase nearly three-fold to ₹1,784.11 crore during the quarter as against ₹625.65 crore the previous year. This includes a one-off mark-to-market provisioning of ₹1,110 crore due to rating downgrades of investments in companies of two financial services companies it did not name.

The management clarified that it does not expect any more major downgrades in the coming quarter, reiterating the credit cost guidance of 1.25% for fiscal year 2019-20.

On the operations side, the bank’s other income, which includes core fee income, dropped 25% to ₹1,272.66 crore in the quarter from ₹1,694.14 crore a year ago.

Net interest income, or the difference between interest earned on loans and that paid on deposits, increased 2.78% year-on-year (y-o-y) to ₹2,280.84 crore from ₹2,219.14 crore in the corresponding period last year. Net interest margin narrowed to 2.8% from 3.1% in the previous quarter on account of interest reversal. The bank’s loan book grew 18% y-o-y to ₹2.36 trillion, led by retail loans. Current and savings account ratio dropped to 30.2% of total deposits compared to 33.1% in the previous quarter while retail term deposits grew 37.7% y-o-y.

“The key issue with Yes Bank is capital constraints. The bank’s CET1 (Common Equity Tier 1 ratio) has reached 8%. Any further decline will attract problems for the bank. Hence, capital raising is the most important event for the bank,” said Ashutosh Mishra, head of research, Ashika Stock Broking.

The management said it has not identified any material implications on its financial statement from a whistle-blower complaint into alleged irregularities by its former managing director Rana Kapoor.

“The bank, at the direction of the audit committee and with the assistance of this external firm, is continuing to analyse the allegations in the whistle-blower complaint and work is currently ongoing,” it said.

Based on work done and findings till date, it said: “The bank has not identified any material financial statement implications and will consider the implications of ongoing work once the examination of this matter is completed.”

Amid concerns over Yes Bank’s weakening financial and operating performance, both foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs) cut their stakes in the lender during the quarter, BSE data showed.

FII holding fell to 33.69%, down from 40.33% a quarter ago.

DIIs—mainly mutual funds and insurance companies—now hold a 6.59% stake, against 9.54% in the March quarter. DIIs have reduced their stake for the fourth consecutive quarter.

According to its shareholding pattern on BSE, “UTI along with its various schemes” has reduced exposure by nearly 30 basis points to 1.32% from 1.61% in March quarter.

The names of three investors—HDFC Trustee along with its various schemes, Jasmine Capital Investments Pte Ltd and Vontobel Fund MTX Sustainable Asian Leaders—are not reflected on the list of Yes Bank’s public shareholders as of June 2019. It could not be immediately ascertained if these entities have partly or entirely sold their stakes. Shareholding patterns on stock exchanges show entries only for holdings above 1%. HDFC Trustee along with its various schemes, Jasmine Capital Investments Pte Ltd and Vontobel Fund MTX Sustainable Asian Leaders held 1.05%, 2.12% and 1.05%, respectively in the March quarter.

The LiveMint reported

FE: Allahabad Bank reports Rs 688-cr fraud by SEL Manufacturing

18 July 2019: State-run Allahabad Bank on Wednesday reported a fraud of Rs 688.27 crore by SEL Manufacturing. The Chandigarh bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initiated insolvency resolution proceedings against the Ludhiana-based textile company last year.

“We have to inform that a fully provided Non-Performing Account, viz. SEL Manufacturing Ltd (SELM) with outstanding dues of Rs 688.27 crore for which NCLT proceedings are in progress, has also been declared as fraud and reported to RBI as per regulatory requirement,” Allahabad Bank said in a stock exchange filing.

Notably, the lender on last Saturday reported a fraud of Rs 1,774.82 crore by Bhushan Power and Steel (BPSL), a week after Punjab National Bank had declared a fraud of Rs 3,805.15 crore by the same company for which JSW Steel is the highest bidder.  JSW Steel’s bid to acquire BPSL under insolvency resolution process is awaiting approval of the Delhi bench of NCLT.

In April 2018, the Chandigarh bench of NCLT had admitted an insolvency petition filed by SBI against SEL Manufacturing and initiated CIRP. Following this, the company had appealed against the admission of the petition and appointment of the interim resolution professional (IRP) with National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

“The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) has since been kept in abeyance vide order dated June 22, 2018 of High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The matter since been transferred to Supreme Court and is pending for adjudication,” SELM said after declaring its June quarter results on July 17.

The Financial Express reported