$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010381012026 + W.P.(C) 11861/2026 &CM APPL. 54871/2026 AGR STEEL STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Stuti Vatsa, Adv; Mr. Mayank Kamra,Adv.; Mr. Vijayant Goel, Adv. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akash Swami Mr. Akhilesh Tejpal Chirag Saini Advocate for Canara Bank Mr Jagdish Chandra (CGSC), Ms Maanya Saxena,.Advs. Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for R4 Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Mr. Shivam Shorewala, Ms. Rakshita Bhargava, Ms. Esha Singh, Advs for R5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 17.08.2026 CM APPL. 54872/2026 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 11861/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:59:16 “a. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the assignment of loans/loan accounts of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited by Respondents No. 4-12 in favour of a private entity, namely Hasaud Steel Limited, Special Purpose Vehicle of JSW Steel Coated Products Limited, was illegal and not permissible in accordance with the Guidelines on Purchase/Sale of Non Performing Assets bearing reference RBI/2005-06/54 DBOD.NO.BP. BC. 16/21.04.048/2005-06 dated July 13, 2005 [Annexure P-5], Guidelines on Sale of Stressed Assets by Banks bearing reference RBI/2016-17/56 DBR.No.BP.BC.9/21.04.048/2016-17 dated September 1, 2016 [Annexure P-4] issued by the Reserve Bank of India as Hasaud was neither an NBFC/FI/bank nor an asset reconstruction company and as such not an eligible transferee in terms of the then applicable guidelines/law; b. Upon allowing the prayer as mentioned above (Prayer a), consequently issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Deeds of Assignment executed by Respondents No. 4-12 (pursuant to the Order dated October 19, 2020 approving the resolution plan in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited), being in complete disregard and violation of Guidelines on purchase/sale of Non Performing Assets dated July 13, 2005, thus being illegal, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:59:16 invalid, arbitrary and non est; or in the Alternative of (a) and (b) above, Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Reserve Bank of India/Respondent No. 1 to consider and rule on the representations dated June 6, 2026 [Annexure P-1] issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1/RBI; c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ directing the Ministry of Finance and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to examine the records and reconsider the status of implementation of the Resolution Plan approved qua Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited by taking necessary steps to address the illegality in relation to the approval of the resolution plan of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited containing illegal/prohibited assignment of debt; or in the Alternative of (c) above Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India/Respondent No. 3 to consider and rule on the representations dated June 6, 2026 [Annexure P-2] in consultation with Respondent No. 2/Ministry of Finance, in relation to the non-compliances by the Respondents No. 4 to 12 pertaining to impugned assignment and in light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter titled Prashant Shashi Ruia vs. State Bank of India (Special Civil Application No. 11199 of 2019) read This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:59:16 with orders by the Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad in the matter titled State Bank of India vs. Prashant S. Ruia & Ors, OA No. 648/2018 vide Order dated March 11, 2022; d. Direct, at the interim/ad-interim stage, during pendency of the instant petition and/or till such period as this Hon’ble High Court may deem expedient and necessary to secure the ends of justice and to save the instant petition from being rendered infructuous, stay of recovery measures against the Petitioner (in its capacity as guarantor) including: (1) Original Application No. 743/2018 (now renumbered as TA No. 385 of 2022) titled State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited & Ors. filed by Respondents No. 4-10; (2) Original Application No. 1095 of 2019 (now renumbered as TA No. 353 of 2022) titled Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) vs. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited & Ors. filed by Respondent No. 11; and (3) Original Application No. 173 of 2021 titled Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Vikas Aggarwal & Ors. filed by Respondent No. 12 qua the Petitioner;.....” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, AGR Steel Strips Private Limited, is a corporate guarantor of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), which had availed term loans and working capital facilities from various lenders. 3. The Corporate Debtor’s account was declared an NPA on 04.06.2016, and CIRP was subsequently commenced on 20.07.2018. The This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:59:16 resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel Coated Products Limited was approved by the NCLT on 19.10.2020. Pursuant to the implementation of the resolution plan, between October and December 2020, the erstwhile lenders assigned their debt in favour of Hasaud Steel Limited (“Hasaud”), an SPV of the Resolution Applicant, and issued no-dues certificates to the Corporate Debtor. 4. The petitioner challenges the said assignment on the ground that Hasaud was not an eligible transferee under the RBI’s Guidelines on Purchase/Sale of NPAs dated 13.07.2005 and Guidelines on Sale of Stressed Assets dated 01.09.2016, as the regulatory framework permitting assignment to private entities was introduced only subsequently through the Transfer of Loan Exposures Directions, 2021. 5. The petitioner further challenges the continued recovery proceedings against it before the DRT, contending that, upon assignment and discharge of the entire debt of the principal borrower, no subsisting debt remains recoverable from the corporate guarantor. Hence the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised 2 submissions; (i) that in terms of the RBI Circular dated 01.09.2016, the stress assets cannot be assigned to an entity which is not a bank, NBFC, financial institutions, securitisation company or a reconstruction company and (ii) the assignment of debt to the respondent No. 13 is contrary to the said circular.He further states that after assigning the debt, the banks still continue to prosecute their claims against the petitioner. The same cannot be done. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:59:16 7. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, states that the same is permissible in the law in view of the resolution plan and more particularly paragraph 229 of the NCLT order dated 19.10.2020 in CA. No. 1393(PB)/2019 as the excluded rights were kept out of the purview of the assignment. The petitioner falls within the purview of excluded rights. 8. He further states that the issue in controversy has already been decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP 1223/2023 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is disputed by the petitioner. 9. However, he states that since the prayer of the petitioner is only seeking a direction to the RBI to consider the 2 representations dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure P1 and P2), he has no objection, if the same is so done. 10. For the said reasons, it is directed that the respondent No. 1 will consider the representations of the petitioner dated 06.06.2026 and decide the same within 6 weeks in accordance with extant rules, regulations, resolution plan and the orders of the Courts and Tribunals. 11. With these directions, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the aggrieved party to approach the Court in accordance with law. JASMEET SINGH, J AUGUST 17, 2026 / (MS) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/08/2026 at 15:59:16