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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...