# In the matter of Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Ruchi Global Limited CA(AT)(Ins) No. 387 of 2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-01-31. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00475. Oriental Bank of Commerce filed an appeal against the dismissal of its application under…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 31 Jan 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00475
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/oriental-bank-of-commerce-vs-ruchi-global-limited-ca-e20c0b62

## Summary

### Background

Oriental Bank of Commerce filed an appeal against the dismissal of its application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the Adjudicating Authority. The application was filed against Ruchi Global Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The dismissal was based on an Impugned Order dated February 14, 2019. The Appellant Bank had extended a Letter of Credit facility to the Corporate Debtor, which was non-fund based. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application because the Appellant Bank did not comply with the Inter-se Agreement dated January 27, 2012, which required giving notice to the lead Dena Bank before filing the application.

## Facts

Oriental Bank of Commerce (Appellant) extended a Letter of Credit facility to Ruchi Global Limited (Corporate Debtor/Respondent). This facility was non-fund based, and the Corporate Debtor benefited from it. The Corporate Debtor had outstanding dues to the Appellant Bank. The Appellant Bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against the Corporate Debtor, mentioning the amount in default. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application, observing that the Appellant Bank should have given notice to the lead Dena Bank as per the Inter-se Agreement dated January 27, 2012, between the consortium of banks. The Appellant Bank was part of a consortium of banks, including Dena Bank, Punjab National Bank, and Jammu &

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Inter-se Agreement between a consortium of banks, requiring notice to the lead bank …

**Ratio:** The Inter-se Agreement between different Banks is not binding in nature on the Corporate

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Inter-se Agreement is an agreement between the banks and does

…

**Interpretation:** The Inter-se Agreement is interpreted as a mechanism for the banks to manage

…

**Application:** In this case, the Inter-se Agreement requiring notice to the lead bank does not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Anant Bijay…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Oriental Bank of…
- **Respondents:** Ruchi Global…; M/s Ruchi Global…
- **Advocates:** H.P.Bha…; Nishant Bh…; +5 more

## Timeline

- **2019-02-14 — Impugned…**: Date of the Impugned Order by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the application filed…
- **2012-01-27 — Inter-se Ag…**: Date of the Inter-se Agreement…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/oriental-bank-of-commerce-vs-ruchi-global-limited-ca-e20c0b62