The case involves a petition by Bareilly Highways Project Limited seeking an extension of an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court on 12.08.2024. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the court's directions, the respondent No.2/SBI hurriedly convened a meeting via video conferencing on 03.09.2024 and rejected the petitioner's One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal without proper consideration. The petitioner alleges that the officials present in the meeting were not given proper introduction and were not asked any questions or queries. The respondent No.2/SBI refuted these allegations, stating that the persons present on behalf of the petitioner were heard in the meeting, and the issues were discussed threadbare before the OTS was rejected.
Bareilly Highways Project Limited filed a petition seeking an extension of an interim order. The petitioner had submitted an OTS proposal on 20.08.2024. The respondent No.2/SBI convened a meeting on 03.09.2024 and rejected the OTS proposal. The petitioner claimed that the rejection was unfair and unprofessional, alleging that the officials were not properly introduced and were not asked any questions. The respondent refuted these allegations, stating that the petitioner's representatives were heard and the issues were discussed. The minutes of the meeting dated 03.09.2024 indicated that the lenders found the settlement proposal not feasible due to reasons such as low settlement amount, non-compliance with bank guidelines, lack of definitive source of funds, and
…Sign in to view the parties.
Delhi High Cour…
Bareilly Highways…
The case involves a petition by Bareilly Highways Project Limited seeking an extension of an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court on 12.08.2024. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the court's directions, the respondent No.2/SBI hurriedly convened a meeting via video conferencing on 03.09.2024 and rejected the petitioner's One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal without proper consideration. The petitioner alleges that the officials present in the meeting were not given proper introduction and were not asked any questions or queries. The respondent No.2/SBI refuted these allegations, stating that the persons present on behalf of the petitioner were heard in the meeting, and the issues were discussed threadbare before the OTS was rejected.
Bareilly Highways Project Limited filed a petition seeking an extension of an interim order. The petitioner had submitted an OTS proposal on 20.08.2024. The respondent No.2/SBI convened a meeting on 03.09.2024 and rejected the OTS proposal. The petitioner claimed that the rejection was unfair and unprofessional, alleging that the officials were not properly introduced and were not asked any questions. The respondent refuted these allegations, stating that the petitioner's representatives were heard and the issues were discussed. The minutes of the meeting dated 03.09.2024 indicated that the lenders found the settlement proposal not feasible due to reasons such as low settlement amount, non-compliance with bank guidelines, lack of definitive source of funds, and
…Delhi High Cour…
Bareilly Highways…