Skip to main content

Non-payment of dues against a foreign exchange derivatives contract is wilful default - SC

A Supreme Court ruling on 11th Dec, to the effect that non-payment of dues against a foreign exchange derivatives contract by a company will qualify as wilful default, will arm banks with greater powers to deal with such cases. In 2008, several companies posted losses on derivatives contracts and dragged banks to court claiming these had been mis-sold to them.

Companies had argued that since a derivatives contract was not a loan, they could not be categorised as ‘wilful defaulters’ even if there were outstandings against such contracts.
However, a bench headed by Justice AK Patnaik upheld a similar ruling by the Bombay High Court in August 2011, setting aside the Calcutta HC’s order of September 2009 which said a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular, issued in 2010, was not applicable to forex derivatives.
“Bankers are relieved that they can now take steps to recover their dues,” said Dipak Gupta, joint MD, Kotak Mahindra Bank. “The ruling clarifies that a wilful default is not just on a loan but also on a derivatives product.”

Added Ashish Parthasarathy, head of treasury at HDFC Bank, “It is a payment obligation towards a bank whether it’s loan or a derivative, which is what the court has ruled.”

Senior counsel Bhaskar Gupta said: “The order implies that the companies will be forced to pay up.”
The SC order related to three different petitions challenging the contrary findings of high courts.

Kotak Mahindra Bank had challenged the Calcutta HC’s judgment while Emcure Pharmaceuticals and Finolex Industries, the two companies classified as willful defaulters by their lender banks, appealed against the Bombay HC order.
“If the banks did not have any procedural lapse and presented scenario analyses to clients, then ethically, clients should pay up,” said KN Dey, director, Basix Forex & Financial Solutions.

Several of the cases have already been sorted out between banks and their customers. For instance, Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals, which had entered into derivatives contracts, one of them in Swiss Francs, ultimately paid Axis Bank Rs 25 crore in an out-of-court settlement. Sundaram Brake Linings also resolved the issue through an out-of court settlement. In 2009, after Finolex Industries refused to pay Deutsche Bank, the bank approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT alleging it was a willful defaulter. ICICI Bank had declared Emcure Pharmaceuticals a willful defaulter for not paying up on a derivatives deal. In the Calcutta HC, Hindustan National Glass had challenged Kotak Mahindra Bank’s decision declaring it a willful defaulter.

The companies argued that the RBI covers only defaults in “borrower-lender transactions” and that derivatives transactions did not involve a borrower-lender relationship. As such, they did not fall within the purview of the RBI circular. Companies also felt that once termed as a willful defaulter, they might find it difficult to access credit from other banks.

The genesis of the spurt in derivatives contracts lay in the increasing use of the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc as ‘carry trade’ currencies given that interest rates in these countries were relatively low. However, the sharp depreciation in these currencies against the dollar resulted in mark-to-market losses on these contracts. In July 2010, the RBI issued guidelines for currency options and banned exotic derivatives. Currency options have ever since remained subdued and are still avoided by companies. “Options are becoming popular, but it is a slow process,” said P Mukherjee, head of treasury at Axis Bank.

Case Ref: 2012 STPL(Web) 719 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (Appellant) Vs HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS & IND. LTD. & ORS. (Respondents)
EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & ANR.  (Appellant) Vs  ICICI BANK LTD. & ORS. (Respondents)
FINOLEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.   (Appellant) Vs  RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. (Respondents)

Ref to http://www.financialexpress.com/news/sc-ruling-to-aid-banks-in-forex-derivatives-defaults/1043920

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even