FE: Sterling Biotech: NCLAT sets conditions for promoters to take back control

7 September 2019: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Friday set two preconditions — clean money certified by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and timely payment to the creditors — for the absconding promoters of Sterling Biotech to wrest back control of the insolvent firm. Failing which, the firm with a debt of over `9,000 crore will be sent back to liquidation.

NCLAT’s latest direction comes days after it termed “uncalled for” the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai bench’s order of liquidation of Sterling Biotech on the ground that an application to take the company out of the insolvency process filed under section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has got nothing to do with a promoter’s eligibility under section 29A provided the proposal has the backing of over 90% affirmative votes of the lenders.

“The order (on August 28) is a conditional one. We may also revert to liquidation if the amount is not paid. Liquidation order may be restored. You (promoters) will have to get the verification done as to whether the money is genuine or not. Only ED will say that, not bank. Our order is very clear that it should not be the proceeds of crime,” the three-member NCLAT bench, headed by its chairperson SJ Mukhopadhaya, said.

The bench, hearing an application moved by the liquidator of Sterling Biotech seeking clarification over the order passed by the NCLAT on August 28, said the ED has to be satisfied that the money the promoters deposit is clean money and not from the proceeds of crime.

While setting aside the NCLT’s May 8 order, the NCLAT had on August 28 said even if the corporate debtors’ assets are proceeds of crime, it does not bar the promoters to settle the matter with the creditors if they put in the money out of their own pockets.

“We want clean money to come back to India, the money which will come from personal sources,” the bench said.

The NCLAT also issued notice to Andhra Bank, lead banker to Sterling Biotech under whose plea corporate insolvency petition was admitted, asking it to state as to why its August 28 judgment be not clarified in view of the fact the promoters or shareholders or directors “have been allowed to pay in their individual capacity from their respective accounts and not from the proceeds of crime”.

“A clarification is required to be given as to what would be the steps to be taken, if section 12A application is not given effect within the time-frame, say 30 days from the date of order and whether to revert to the stage of liquidation for failure of compliance,” the bench said.

The bench directed that the liquidator be appointed by the adjudicating authority to function until further orders. It has asked ED’s counsel to remain present in the court on the next hearing, scheduled on September 23.

The Financial Express reported

ET: Sterling Biotech case: Far-reaching NCLAT order sets new bankrupcty precedent

4 September 2019: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside a lower court order to liquidate debt-ridden Sterling Biotech, allowing its promoters to take back control of the company once they make full payment to the lenders.

The ruling may well set a precedent that will have ramifications for companies willing to clear dues after they are admitted for insolvency resolution.

In an oral order last week, a threemember NCLAT bench presided over by justices SJ Mukhopadhyay and AIS Cheema along with member (technical) Kanti Narahari, set aside the May 8 order of the National Company Law Tribunal’s Mumbai bench and allowed withdrawal of a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

“The entire payment under OTS (one-time settlement) shall be made by the promoters and not through the corporate debtor or its properties,” the NCLAT said in its order. “The liquidator to continue till the entire payment is made to the lenders.”

In June, the NCLAT had stayed the corporate insolvency resolution process of Gujarat-based Sterling Biotech after its workmen and lenders challenged the NCLT order before the appellate tribunal.

The dedicated bankruptcy court in Mumbai had rejected the plea of the lenders, led by Andhra Bank, to withdraw from the CIRP process.

Over 90% of the lenders had approved the settlement offer of around Rs 3,945 crore and withdrawal of the insolvency case under Section 12 (A) of the IBC. The lenders received 5% of the default amount on the day of default. Total dues to the lenders stand above Rs 8,100 crore.

The Sterling group collectively owes its financial and operational creditors Rs 15,000 crore.

Nishit Dhruva, managing partner of law firm MDP & Partners and an advisor to the Andhra Bank, confirmed the development but refused to comment since the matter is still sub-judice.

Sundaresh Bhat, partner and leader of resolution process advisory at consultancy BDO, who is the RP for the company, also confirmed the development but refused to give details.

“In so far asset of the corporate debtor (Sterling Biotech) is concerned, if it is based on the proceeds of the crime, it is always open to the Enforcement Directorate to seize the assets of corporate debtor and act in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA),” said the NCLAT in its 28-page order. “However, it will not come in the way of the individual such as promoter, shareholder or director, if he pays, not from the proceeds of crime but in his individual capacity, the amount from his account and not from the assets of the corporate debtor and satisfies all the stakeholders including financial creditors and operational creditors.”

Sterling promoters Chetan Sandesara and Nitin Sandesara are absconding and believed to be in Africa. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the income tax department are looking into the dealings of the promoters.

Three companies of the group — Sterling Biotech, Sterling SEZ and trading arm Sterling International — are facing insolvency cases. In a separate development, the tribunal has also stayed the withdrawal petition of lenders to Sterling SEZ. These bankers too accepted a settlement offer from the promoters. Sterling SEZ owes around Rs 4,500 crore to its lenders.

The Economic Times reported

DNA: Lenders fail to attach Sterling Biotech’s overseas assets

22 August 2019: Banks have failed to take adequate safeguards to protect the loans extended to Sterling Biotech by attaching the oil assets of the promoters in Nigeria.

Instead of carrying out a prior examination on how this could be done by discussing with the Nigerian oil regulator, senior bank officials made a visit to the country years after issuing two standby letters of credit (SBLC) worth $230 million (Rs 1,500 crore) to the promoters Nitin Jayantilal Sandesara and Chetan Kumar Jayantilal Sandesara, who are now absconding, to raise money overseas.

Despite the officials travelling to Nigeria from September 17 to 23, 2017 to attach the oil assets of the Sandesaras, no action could be enforced. Initially, the agreement was that the overseas oil company, Sterling Oil Exploration & Energy Production Company Ltd (SEEPCO), would take responsibility for the unpaid loans of Sterling Biotech’s Indian companies, but the promoters failed to repay the loans and were classified as wilful defaulters.

The Sandesaras are defaulters of Rs 15,600 crore taken on behalf of their two Indian companies, Sterling Biotech and Sterling SEZ & Infra. While Sterling Biotech owes Rs 7,500 crore, its sister concern Sterling SEZ & Infra owes Rs 8,100 crore. Despite these loans being unpaid to the consortium of lenders led by the State Bank of India (SBI), two guarantees were offered to the group’s foreign outfit, SEEPCO, so that it could borrow from overseas.

“The banker group that went to Nigeria reported back that recovery of loans from the oil field assets could be done only if the Nigerian oil regulator agreed to substitute SEEPCO with new owners,” said one of the bankers. However, the banks failed to reassign SEEPCO’s participating interest right to any other investor. No effort was made to find another investor or use the good offices of the government of India for taking charge of interests in the oil fields. No visit to Nigeria was made before sanctioning the two SBLCs, the source said.

The first SBLC worth $130 million was issued on March 2014 while the second one of $100 million was approved in September 2015. SBI had fronted the guarantees on behalf of the other banks despite two of its loans to Sterling turning into non-performing asset (NPA) and the promoters being classified as wilful defaulters.

A detailed questionnaire sent to SBI and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) failed to elicit any response.

Andhra Bank, which is now leading the lender consortium, had initially referred Sterling Biotech to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on June 11, 2018. But later lenders of Sterling Biotech voted with a 90.32% majority to pull the case out of the NCLT. In March this year, the creditors told the court that they would withdraw the case and have a one-time settlement (OTS) with the promoters. However, they refused to give the details of the OTS to the resolution professional (RP) saying that they would inform the court at the appropriate time.

A source told DNA that the absconding promoters made an offer of Rs 5,500 crore, which is 40% of the total claims of Rs 15,000 crore of the banks.

Andhra Bank has petitioned through its lawyers AZB Partners and Nishit Dhruva from MDP and Partners to withdraw the case from the NCLT so that banks could settle part of the debt with a representative, Farad Darruwala, of the promoters. However, the NCLT court noted that in the OTS there is no mention whether Daruwala is authorised by the promoters, the Sandesaras.

The DNA reported

ET: Lanco Thermal Power gets financial claims worth Rs 24,000 crore

20 August 2019: Lanco Thermal Power, the holding company for investments in thermal power plants by Lanco Group, has received financial claims of Rs 24,000 crore, said two people with direct knowledge of the matter.

Among the 15-20 lenders to the company are Andhra Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Canara Bank, and IDBI Bank, sources said. The NCLT’s Hyderabad chapter admitted the case for insolvency proceedings on May 9 this year. Andhra Bank moved the petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Parveen Bansal, designated partner of Delhi-based AAA Insolvency Professionals LLP, was appointed the resolution professional. Bansal confirmed the quantum of financial claims to ET. Emails sent to individual lenders remained unanswered. Axis Bank declined to comment.

About 99% of the claims have been submitted by banks/financial institutions marked as indirect lenders, which extended loans to holding, subsidiary and associate companies. Most of these companies are undergoing insolvency process or are under liquidation. Direct lenders, with 1% of the claims, loaned funds to the holding company.

“The corporate debtor secured these loans by extending corporate guarantee or by pledge of share investments,” an executive linked to the resolution process said. Lanco Thermal Power also invested in a 10MW hydel plant located in Himachal Pradesh.

With no single bidder officially submitting any interest to buy all the assets, lenders may have to wait for liquidation to receive their dues. Bids were sought on July 24. “Preliminary interest has been shown by investors for submission of expression of interest. Nothing can be said at this stage about their seriousness for investments,” Bansal told ET.

The Economic Times reported

BS: Insolvency case: NCLAT stays eviction of Sterling Biotech from its premises

5 August 2019: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has stayed eviction of Sterling Biotech from its premises as the debt-ridden company was going under the insolvency resolution process and was under the moratorium period.

A two-member bench headed by NCLAT Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya upheld the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had asked Srei Infrastructure Finance, a financial creditor, to hand over the possession of the A and B wing premises of Laxmi Towers.

The appellate tribunal observed that although Sterling Biotech, which is presently going through liquidation, is not the owner of the premises it cannot be ejected or disturbed during the moratorium period as the company has to remain as a going concern.

“We hold that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has rightly directed the Appellant to hand over the possession of B’ Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers and rightly prohibited the Appellant from evicting the Corporate Debtor (Sterling Biotech) from A’ Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers,” said NCLAT.

However, it also said that “So far as the question as to who is the owner of A’ and B’ Wings premises of Lakshmi Towers and whether the Appellant has any right over the said property, such questions are not required to be determined in the proceeding under the I&B Code’.”

NCLAT also said if Sterling Biotech is saved during the liquidation proceeding or if it is sold to a third party along with the employees then, in such case, one may move before the Competent Court of law for appropriate decision.

Besides, the appellate tribunal also said that “the Liquidator cannot sell the assets of the premises in question.”

Resolution Professional of Sterling Biotech had moved NCLT against the financial creditor to return the possession of B Wing premises of Lakshmi Towers and restrain Srei Infrastructure Finance from taking any action in relation to A Wing premises, which had allowed it.

Following which, Srei Infrastructure Finance moved NCLAT.

It had contended that the property in question does not belong to Sterling Biotech and being a third party property, the order of Moratorium’ passed under Section 14 of the I&B Code’ will not be applicable.

Opposing it, the RP had submitted that it amounts to obstruction in the matter of keeping Sterling Biotech as a going concern.

Sterling Biotech, whose promoters Nitin Jayantilal Sandesara and Chetankumar Jayantilal Sandesara are absconding, has a total debt of over Rs 9,000 crore.

The Business Standard reported

LM: Bank of Baroda buys ₹3,000 crore DHFL loans

30 June 2019: Bank of Baroda (BoB) has entered into a transaction with Dewan Housing Finance Corp. Ltd (DHFL) to acquire loans worth ₹3,000 crore against its exposure to the non-bank lender, even as a lenders’ consortium to the stressed non-bank lender considers a resolution plan, two people aware of the development said.

BoB acquired the pool of loans made by DHFL and adjusted it against its loans to the non-bank lender, the people said, requesting anonymity. Since the acquired loans are higher-rated assets, the quality of BoB’s loanbook will improve.

“Now DHFL will only act as a collection agent for the bank for these loans. The bank will keep around 85-90% of the repayments to itself and the rest will go to DHFL,” one of them said.

Since BoB had an exposure of close to ₹6,500 crore to DHFL, this will be pared by a little less than ₹3,000 crore, the second person said.

“Securitization of assets often happens, but what is different in this case is that the borrower, instead of using the money for liquidity needs, is using it to cancel future term loan repayments,” a banking analyst said on condition of anonymity.

Purchases of loan pools by banks help inject liquidity into non-bank lenders. Banks often buy loans from shadow lenders comprising securitized retail loans to meet priority sector lending shortfall.

State Bank of India (SBI), the country’s largest lender, has an exposure of about ₹10,000 crore to DHFL, the bank’s chairman, Rajnish Kumar, told shareholders at its annual general meeting in June.

Other lenders to DHFL include Bank of India, Central Bank of India, Andhra Bank, Canara Bank, Punjab National Bank and Corporation Bank.

As of December, the non-bank lender had an outstanding debt of ₹1 trillion, of which 38% was in the form of bank loans, 47% from debt markets and 10% through deposits.

Emails sent to DHFL and BoB seeking comments remained unanswered till press time.

“This transaction has not been done as a consortium, but was only between Bank of Baroda and DHFL,” the second person said.

News agency PTI reported on Friday that lenders would take a call on their exposure to the stressed NBFC sector in the light of the Reserve Bank of India’s 7 June circular, which laid down guidelines for resolution of bad loans. “Resolution of any stressed assets either of NBFC or any other sector will be as per the June 7 guidelines of the RBI,” the report cited Kumar as saying.

On 4 June, DHFL delayed interest payment on non-convertible debentures worth ₹850 crore, following which its credit rating was downgraded to default by rating agencies Crisil and Icra. DHFL subsequently was able to make the interest payment within a seven-day grace period given by the bond holders.

On 25 June, DHFL said in a regulatory filing that it was yet to repay ₹225 crore of the total ₹375 crore worth of commercial paper to 12 investors. Since September, DHFL has met liability obligations of over ₹41,000 crore, it said in the same filing.

Mint reported on 20 June that DHFL sold ₹2,000 crore worth of its loan portfolio to offshore investors in a transaction led by SC Lowy, a banking group based in Hong Kong, citing two people aware of the development.

Since December, it has also sold stakes in several of its strategic assets, including affordable housing arm Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd, educational loan business Avanse and DHFL Pramerica Asset Managers. In January, it sold ₹1,375 crore of wholesale loans to foreign alternative investment management fund Oaktree Capital, which buys distressed loan portfolios at a discount.

As of 31 March, DHFL’s promoters include Wadhawan Global Capital Ltd (37.3%), Aruna Rajeshkumar Wadhawan (0.76%), Dheeraj Rajeshkumar Wadhawan (0.57%) and Kapilkumar Wadhawan (0.57%).

The LiveMint reported

DC: Sterling Biotech: ED attaches assets worth Rs 9,778 crore

27 June 2019: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached assets worth over Rs 9,500 crore in connection with its money laundering probe against Gujarat-based pharmaceutical firm Sterling Biotech, which is allegedly involved in a multi-crore bank fraud case.

The agency in a statement issued here on Wednesday said that they have issued a provisional order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for attachment of properties linked to Gujarat-based pharmaceutical firm Sterling Biotech. This is one of the biggest attachment of assets order issued by the agency and in this, most of the properties attached are based abroad, a senior official said, adding that the total value is Rs 9,778 crore.

“Four oil rigs and an oil field named OML-143 in Nigeria, four Panama registered ships— ‘Tuljabhawani’, ‘Varinda’, ‘Bhavya’ and ‘Brahmani’, a Gulfstream jet registered in the US and held in the name of SAIB LLC, and a residential flat in London have been attached”, the federal probe agency said in its statement. The holding company of the ships is Atlantic Blue Water Services, it added. The alleged Rs 8,100 crore bank loan fraud is being alleged to have been perpetrated by the Vadodara-based pharma firm and its main promoters Nitin Sandesara, Chetan Sandesara and Deepti Sandesara, all of whom are absconding.

The Sandesaras are also under probe for their alleged nexus with some high-profile politicians by the ED as also by the CBI and the Income-Tax department under criminal sections that deal with corruption and tax evasion respectively. The ED, in the past, has attached assets worth Rs 4,730 crore in this case. “The main promoters (of the Sterling group) have not only siphoned off loan funds to finance their Nigerian oil business but also for their personal purposes,” the agency said.

Investigations revealed that the group was engaged in round-tripping of standby letters of credit (SBLCs) funds to the tune of Rs 4,500 crore by violating conditions laid by the RBI while sanctioning the loan”. It is alleged that the company took loans of over Rs 5,383 crore from a consortium led by Andhra Bank, which had turned into non-performing assets. The ED registered a criminal case in the alleged bank loan fraud case based on a CBI FIR and chargesheet.

The promoters of the firm, also alleged to be the main conspirators of the bank fraud, are absconding and have been reported to be based in Nigeria from where India is trying to extradite them.

The Deccan Chronicle reported

DNA: CBI investigates on what basis banks gave loans to struggling Sterling Group

25 June 2019: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is investigating officials and examining documents of banks that have lent money to the Sterling Group, which is facing insolvency proceedings over debts of Rs 15,600 crore, Zee Media has reported.

The Banking and Securities Fraud Cell of CBI has been examining documents and questioning officials of the lender banks for eight days. The focus of the CBI’s investigation is to understand on what basis the loans had been sanctioned and if due processes were followed or not.

Many of the banks that lent to the Sterling Group are PSU banks – Andhra Bank, UCO Bank, Union Bank, SBI, Indian Overseas Bank, Allahabad Bank, Bank of Baroda and Bank of India.

The Sterling Group is owned by Nitin Sandesara and his family. The Group owned by Sandesara family, who have fled the country to avoid legal proceedings. Sterling Biotech owes more than Rs 7,500 crore and Sterling SEZ owes over Rs 8,100 crore.

Apart from CBI, Enforcement Directorate is conducting investigation against the Sandesara family. The ED had already moved to the PMLA court and registered a complaint under the recently-enacted Fugitive Economic Offenders Act against Nitin, Chetan and Dipti Sandesara, and Managing Director (MD) Hitesh Patel. Other than Patel, Chetan and Dipti are also MDs of the company.

In March 2019, it was reported that Hitesh Patel was nabbed by the Interpol after a red corner notice (RCN) was issued in his name.

The DNA/Zee News reported

DNA: SBI, banks gave defaulting Sterling owners Rs 1.3k cr guarantees

11 June 2019: The State Bank of India’s (SBI) loan sanction process to a subsidiary of debt-laden pharmaceutical company Sterling Biotech has come under a cloud.

A consortium banks led by the SBI provided guarantees of Rs 1,298.10 crore to Sterling Biotech’s overseas oil subsidiary when the promoters of the company, Nitin Sandesara, Chetan Sandesara, Dipti Sandesara and Hitesh Patel, were already in the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) wilful defaulters’ list. Two domestic companies, Sterling Biotech and Sterling SEZ & Infrastructure Ltd, had unpaid dues of Rs 15,500 crore to a clutch of domestic banks.

The guarantees were in the form of Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC), which the SBI said was to secure the stressed domestic loan.

The RBI, which probed these loans sanctioned to Sterling, observed that the company may have round-tripped the funds to the SBI to make their accounts standard temporarily. The guarantees helped the Sterling promoters to raise money abroad, RBI observed.

However, the central bank did not respond to a detailed questionnaire sent by DNA Money despite repeated reminders.

The guarantee was extended in September 2015 to Sterling Global Oil Resources Ltd (SGORPL), which is the overseas subsidiary of the Sterling group that operates an oil field in Nigeria. The money was to be utilised to set up infrastructure for undertaking exploration, production and evacuation activities in the oil business and the cash flows were to serve as a security for the domestic loan.

As of now, Sterling Biotech owes over Rs 7,500 crore while its sister concern, Sterling SEZ, has an outstanding dues worth Rs 8,100 crore to a consortium of banks.

The banking regulator had asked SBI to escalate the matter to the board, which was then headed by Arundhati Bhattacharya, to scrutinise the loan sanction process. However, no action was taken by the SBI, and both the regulator and the bank seem to have glossed over the issue.

The bank’s financial support to Sterling’s oil subsidiaries in Nigeria was undertaken despite the country was being on the high-caution list of SBI. The promoters of Sterling Biotech are being investigated for money laundering by the Enforcement Directorate, and are absconding.

“The guarantee was given so that the liabilities of the two stressed companies were taken over by the foreign subsidiary, Sterling Oil, which had far better security as the Nigerian oil fields were onshore. It had quality crude, with low production cost, and, thus, gave the bank better security,” said an official defending the bank’s loan sanction. However, the foreign subsidiary failed to generate any cash flows to the domestic companies, and Sterling Biotech was admitted in the bankruptcy court.

Meanwhile, Andhra Bank, leading the same clutch of banks, is fighting in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to withdraw the case and go for a settlement with the promoters of Sterling by taking a haircut of 64% on the outstanding debt. Of the admitted claims of Rs 9,000 crore, the company is willing to repay about Rs 3,000 crore.

The Mumbai bench of NCLT has raised questions over the manner in which the lenders agreed to settle their claims with the absconding promoters under 12A and to withdraw the insolvency plea so that they can get back the company.

Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) allows one more chance to the corporate debtor to settle its defaults and get the company out of insolvency proceedings after settling the claims of the lenders.

“The Committee of Creditors (CoC) was interested in getting their money without verifying the source of funds. If such a plan is approved in the guise of section 12A, then this will defeat the statutory provision of section 29A and the promoters will get the control of the company at a discount of approximately 64 %, a sum of Rs 3,110 crore as against a total claim of Rs 9,053 crore,” NCLT had said. Section 29A bars defaulting promoters from bidding for a stressed company.

While NCLT ordered liquidation of the company, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has stayed the liquidation order on June 7, saying it is a going concern. Next hearing is slated for July 16.

RBI’s Investigation

  • RBI, which probed the loans, observed that the company may have round-tripped the funds to the SBI to make their accounts standard temporarily.
  • The guarantees helped the Sterling promoters to raise money abroad, RBI observed 

The DNA reported

ET: The tribunal Tuesday directed HDIL to clear Rs 98 crore dues in four weeks to BoI as per the agreed terms or be ready to face the consequences

5 June 2019: The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday said the BSE-listed real estate developer will have to pay Rs 98 crore to Bank of India within four weeks. HDIL owes around Rs 520 crore to Bank of India and it had agreed to pay it in tranches.

The company is facing insolvency petitions filed by Bank of India, Corporation Bank and Syndicate Bank among other lenders.

“There was a one-time settlement (OTS) and the firm was supposed to get money from a cooperative bank to repay as per the OTS schedule, but due to the election the bank delayed giving us money,” senior counsel Navroz Seervai told NCLT, appearing for the builder. “There are several lenders and so far, the company has paid about Rs 800 crore to its lenders which shows that the company is genuine. However, the company is now seeking a mere four weeks to pay the dues as per the schedule.”

Rohan Agrawal of MDP & Partners, who represented Bank of India, argued that the first case was filed in 2018 and the company had given an undertaking that it will settle it through OTS. The bank had to file a fresh case because the company had failed to do so, he said. Other public-sector banks including Syndicate Bank (Rs 57 crore), Union Bank of India (Rs 15 crore), Corporation Bank (Rs 7.42 crore) and Dena Bank (Rs 2.75 crore) have filed separate petitions under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against HDIL to recover their dues.

After hearing the arguments, the division bench comprising Bhaskara Pantula Mohan and V Nallasenapathy had granted four weeks to HDIL to repay Rs 98 crore to Bank of India and around Rs 10 crore to Syndicate Bank as per schedule. The tribunal has adjourned the case to July 4.

Cases filed by Corporation Bank, Union Bank of India and Dena Bank will be heard on June 26. Last year, the company had settled two similar bankruptcy petitions filed by Jammu & Kashmir Bank and Andhra Bank by paying about Rs 334 crore and around Rs 40 crore, respectively.

An email to HDIL remained unanswered as of press time Tuesday.

The company, known for slum rehabilitation projects in Mumbai so far, has total debt of Rs 1,996.43 crore.

In a recently held an investor conference call, HDIL announced that it has reduced debt this year by 18.3% on a consolidated basis and by 20% on a standalone basis, in line with its guidance.

The Economic Times reported