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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more