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

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...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more