13 Ateet Bansal vs. Unitech Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Company Appeal (AT) No. 216 of 2019 Date of order: 25th February, 2020
There should be no sympathy with the defaulting company and its directors. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed the Company to repay the amount to its Deposit Holders along with Interest pursuant to the provisions of Section 73(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 45Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
FACTS
• Mr. AB was a depositor who had placed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as a Fixed Deposit with M/s. UL for three years and an amount of Rs. 1,45,217 was payable to the depositor (Mr. AB) upon maturity on 1st June, 2016.
• Through an application under Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, M/s. UL proposed to make payment to its depositors of matured amounts along with interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment through a rescheduled plan.
• Mr. AB approached M/s. UL several times since his Fixed Deposit got matured with them, but on all such occasions, the Company did not pay any attention to Mr. AB’s demand and never replied regarding the outstanding payment.
• Mr. AB filed a Company Petition in March, 2019 before Hon’ble NCLT, Delhi Bench under Section 73(4) of Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 45Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 for repayment of maturity amount of the aforesaid deposit with 12.5% interest p.a. due thereon as per the terms and conditions of the deposit. The said petition was admitted by the Hon’ble NCLT, New Delhi Bench. Thereafter, no reply was filed by M/s UL and the order dated 30th May, 2019 was passed directing the Company to pay Rs. 1,45,217 to Mr. AB with pendent lite ( while the suit continues) and future interest @ 10% from the date of filing till the date of receipt.
• Mr. AB argued that NCLT, New Delhi Bench had erred in giving pendent lite and future interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing till receipt thereof instead of 12.5% p.a. as per the terms and conditions of the deposit and has also failed to appreciate that the interest should have been awarded from the date of maturity.
• Mr. AB further argued that National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, has failed to award the interest amounting to Rs. 60,507, which was calculated at 12.5% p.a. from the maturity date on the matured amount for the delayed period till September 2019.
• Mr. AB stated that the NCLT order has failed to appreciate that Section 76A of the Companies Act, 2013 provides punishment for contravention of Section 73 or Section 76 of Companies Act 2013.
• Mr. AB, being aggrieved party, preferred an appeal before the National Company Law Appellant Tribunal (NCLAT) against the order passed by NCLT, Delhi Bench.
• Before NCLAT, M/s UL had submitted that with respect to certain ongoing disputes against the Respondents, the Managing Directors of the Respondent Company filed Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the company or directors, and Mr. AB has taken no coercive steps against M/s UL and its directors.
• Also, the Supreme Court further directed for the appointment of Amicus Curie (Friend of a Court) to create a portal where the persons who have invested with the Company by way of fixed deposits shall give the requisite information.
HELD
• NCLAT observed that M/s UL taking the shelter of Supreme Court order was creating hurdles in the process of law such as accepting notice and then not appearing/ postponing the hearing.
• NCLAT also observed that we should have no sympathy with the defaulting company and its directors. NCLT has reduced the rate of interest for which no justification has been given and also for not awarding interest from the maturity date to filing of the petition.
• NCLAT further noted that the NCLT order was a reward to the defaulting company and punishment to the honest depositor running from pillar to post to get his amount back with interest.
• NCLAT further observed that if M/s UL tries to get fresh deposits from the Public, the company will not get at cheaper rate but at a higher rate since the depositor will place fresh deposit seeing the risk factor of the deposit.
In view of the above observations the order of NCLT was set aside and the following order was passed:
• Mr. AB was entitled to a decree under his respective matured FDR. The amount was decreed in favour of the respective appellant together with pendent lite and future interest @ 12.5% p.a. from the date of maturity of the respective FDR until receipt thereof.
• M/s. UL was liable to pay Rs.50,000 towards cost of litigation, costs etc.
14 Brillio Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. Registrar of Companies, Karnataka and Regional Director South Eastern Region, MCA [2021] 163 CLA 449 (NCLAT) National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Company Appeal (AT) No. 293 of 2019 Date of order: 19th April, 2021
Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for the reduction of the share capital simpliciter without it being a part of any scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Security Premium Account can be utilized for making payment to shareholders in respect of reduction in capital
FACTS
• The Board of Directors of M/s BTPL received a request from non-promoter shareholders to provide them with an opportunity to dispose of their shareholding in the Company. Board of M/s BTPL resolved on 24th January, 2019 to reduce the equity share capital from the existing Rs. 21,72,50,000 to Rs. 20,82,97,363 by reducing Rs. 89,52,637 equity shares from non-promoter equity shareholders. It proposed that the premium be paid out of the Securities Premium Account (SPA). Further, an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was held on 4th February, 2019 wherein by special resolution duly passed by 100% members present, voted in favour of the resolution for the reduction of the Company’s share capital.
• M/s BTPL, thereafter filed a petition before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bengaluru bench in accordance with Section 66 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and NCLT directed M/s BTPL to issue notices to the Regional Director, Registrar of Companies and Creditors of the Company.
• Thereafter, the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, South-East Region, Hyderabad represented by Registrar of Companies, filed their observations before NCLT with respect to the proposed Scheme of Reduction of the capital of M/s BTPL.
• NCLT, based on the objections/observations submitted by the Office of Regional Director, held that as per Section 52 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, SPA may be used only for the purpose specifically provided thereunder. Selective reduction in equity share capital to a particular group involving non-promoter shareholders, making the company as a wholly-owned subsidiary of its current holding company (M/s GCI Global Ventures), and also returning the excess of capital to them would tantamount to an arrangement between the company and shareholders or a class of them and hence, it is not covered under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013.
• NCLT further held that the case may be covered under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 wherein compromise or arrangement between the Company and its creditors or any class of them or its members or any class of them is permissible. Therefore, M/s BTPL failed to make out any case under Section 66, and thus, the petition was dismissed with the liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with the law.
• M/s BTPL being aggrieved with NCLT order preferred an appeal against the said order before National Company Law Appellant Tribunal (NCLAT).
HELD
• NCLAT after hearing both the parties passed an order with following reasons as listed below:
|
Sr. No.
|
Objections raised by Regional
Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, South-East Region, Hyderabad before
NCLT
|
Responses to the objections and
Reasoning given by NCLAT
|
|
(i)
|
No proper genuine reason has been given for the reduction of
share capital.
|
NCLAT held that it cannot be said that M/s BTPL has not given any
genuine reasons for reduction of share capital as M/s BTPL had filed certain
emails received from the non-promoter shareholders with the request to provide
them with an opportunity to dispose of their shareholding in the petitioner
company.
|
|
(ii)
|
Consent affidavit from creditors has
not been obtained.
|
NCLAT held that NCLT had
erroneously stated that no consent affidavits from creditors have been
produced with regard to the reduction of share capital. M/s BTPL had provided
sufficient proof with respect to the delivery of notice to the unsecured
creditors. No representation was received from the creditors within three
months. Therefore, as per proviso to Section 66(2) of the Act, it shall be
presumed that they have no objection to the reduction.
|
|
(iii)
|
Security Premium Account cannot be utilized for making payment
to the non-promoter shareholders.
|
NCLAT was of the view that SPA can be
utilized for making payment to non-promoter shareholders, by taking into
consideration various Judgements and responses from M/s BTPL that SPA is
quasi-capital and section 52(1) specifically provides that SPA has to be
treated as if it was the paid-up share capital of the Company. Such Account
can be statutorily utilized for the purposes set out in Section 52(2) and (3)
of the Act and hence reduced without Tribunal’s approval, but for other
purposes, it can be utilized by resorting to the reduction of share capital.
|
|
(iv)
|
Consent from 171 non-promoter
shareholders who were not traceable has not been obtained, and the claim of
such shareholders has not been secured or determined.
|
NCLAT found no force in the argument
of the Regional Director as M/s BTPL had specifically mentioned that the
amount to be paid to the untraceable non-promoter shareholders would be kept
in an Escrow Account, and thereafter it would be transferred to Investor
Education and Protection Fund.
|
|
(v)
|
Selective reduction of shareholders is not permissible.
|
As per Section 66 of the Act, reduction of
share capital can be made in ‘any manner’. The proposed reduction is for the
whole non-promoter shareholders of the company. NCLAT held that
selective reduction is permissible if the non-promoter shareholders are being
paid the fair value of their shares. In the present case, none of the
non-promoter shareholders of the company have raised objection about the
valuation of their shares.
|
|
(vi)
|
The Petition for reduction of capital
under Section 66 of the Act, is not maintainable. However, it may be filed
under Section 230-232 of the Act.
|
NCLAT held
that Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 makes provision for the reduction
of share capital simpliciter without it being part of any scheme of
compromise and arrangement. The option of buyback of shares as provided in
Section 68 of the Companies Act, 2013 is less beneficial for the shareholders
who have requested the exit opportunity.
|
Therefore, NCLAT had set aside the order passed by the NCLT. Thus, the reduction of equity share capital resolved on 4th February, 2019 by the special resolution was confirmed.
15 Bank of Maharashtra vs. Videocon Ltd. & Ors Company Appeal (Ins.) No. 503, 505, 545, 529, 650 of 2021 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Date of order: 5th January, 2022
FACTS
1. Videocon were repaying the agreed instalments to the consortium of lenders led by SBI till 2015. The VIL, along with 13 other companies of Videocon groups, were classified as ‘SMA – 2’ in the year 2016 onwards. Entities of Videocon group (along with its 12 Domestic subsidiaries) were under CIRP due action taken by SBI under Section 7 of the Code.
2. The Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 8th August, 2019 passed the consolidation order and partially allowed SBI’s Application and directed the consolidation of the CDs out of the 15 Videocon Group companies.
3. Total claims of Rs. 72,078.5 crore has been filed, out of which claims of Rs. 64,637.6 crore had been verified and accepted for CIRP by the RP.
4. The plan provides a meagre amount of Rs. 2,962.02 crore against an admitted liability of approx. Rs.65,000 crore.
RULING IN CA NO. 545 OF 2021
1. This case is related to Trademark License Agreement (TLA) dated 7th July, 2005 between Electrolux Home products and Electrolux Kelvitor Limited, which got merged to the CD. The Appellant was entitled to terminate the
TLA if the CD underwent any event that resulted in the Dhoot family no longer being in control. The Appellants were entitled to terminate the TLA once CD is admitted to CIRP.
2. The Adjudicating Authority in IA 527 of 2019 held that the Agreement should continue for at least a year from the date of approval of the plan as per the existing Terms and Conditions as a transitional arrangement.
3. The NCLAT observed that: The Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 527/2019 has adjudged the agreement dispute. The Adjudicating Authority has made an error of judgment by permitting Agreement during transitional arrangement for a year or so and thereafter parties to decide as per their mutual understanding. Hence, it is prudent to remand the matter back to CoC for a review in accordance with the law.
RULING IN CA (INS.) NO. 650 OF 2021
1. It was filed to include all assets owned by Videocon group, particularly, foreign oil and gas assets are not included in the information memorandum as also no valuation thereof has been considered while the claim of lenders of foreign oil and gas assets of Rs. 23,120.90 crore being considered as claims without considering the corresponding assets – foreign oil and gas assets for which the borrowings were used.
2. The RP is submitted that explanation – b to Section 18 of the Code specifically excludes the assets of any Indian and foreign subsidiary of the CD from the purview of the terms Assets.
3. The NCLAT observed that: in ‘finance and accounts’ there is a matching concept of liability and its corresponding assets wherever liability is considered, the corresponding assets is supposed to exist in the form of the assets or the liability / borrowings which have been used to finance the losses. In any case, the commercial wisdom of CoC is non-justifiable as already laid down by multiple judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and
is dismissed.
RULING IN CA (INS.) NO. 503, 505 AND 529 OF 20211. Resolution Plan does not provide ‘upfront’ payment in priority to the DFC as provided in Section 30 of the Code R/w IBBI Regulation 38. The plan proposes that NCD will be issued to the DFC redeemable after a significant period of around five years which does not qualify as ‘payment’ in terms of Section 30 (2)(b) of the Code.
2. NCLAT observed following:
a. Direction by the Adjudicating Authority to the SRA to pay the DFC by cash instead of NCD amounts to modification of the Resolution Plan. This is a domain of the CoC & not the Adjudicating Authority.
b. It is the CoC that has got the final decision-making authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court has already held in CoC of Essar Steel (supra) that the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as commercial decisions are concerned, they are the supreme authority. They have the full power to decide one way or other any resolution based on input provided to them or otherwise.
c. In the judicial forum, once an order is passed by a particular authority for, an example, by the Adjudicating Authority, it cannot review its order or judgment except as permitted under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 r/w Rule 154 of the NCLT, Rules 2016. The same judicial authority can only rectify any mistake apparent from record, either on its own motion or brought to its notice by the parties. So, the power of review under the judicial arena lies with the higher judiciary.
d. The CoCs are the best judge to analyze, pick up and take prudent commercial decisions for the business, but they are also subjected to test of prudence to ensure fairness and transparency.
e. The Adjudicating Authority does not have the power to modify and change the plan as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Shasidhar and CoC of Essar Steel.
f. The CoC is not functus – officio on the approval of the Resolution plan, and accordingly, the judicial precedents clearly established that the Adjudicating Authority and this Tribunal is competent to send back the Resolution plan to the CoC for reconsideration
HELD
• Section 30 (2)(b) of the Code has not been complied with, and hence, the approval of the Resolution Plan is not as per Section 31 of the Code. Accordingly, the approval of Resolution Plan by the CoC as well as Adjudicating Authority is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to CoC for completion of the process relating to CIRP in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
