Skip to main content

Offshore investors cannot seek legal recourse for assured return investments, says Bombay HC

In a landmark verdict that can severely impact several foreign investors and their investments in Indian real estate projects, the Bombay High Court has ruled that offshore investors cannot seek legal recourse for their assured return investments in India. The court has upheld that FDI in real estate can be made only by way of equity and not debt by way of any fixed return. These assured return investments typically happen through structured quasi debt instruments.

The court has refused relief to Dutch government-backed financial institution FMO against realty developer Hubtown in a suit for recovery of its investment of over Rs 532 crore.

It has observed that the structure of the deal was devised to circumvent restrictions imposed by the FDI regulations. The ruling, for sure, will force many current and future transactions involving FDI into real estate to go for major restructuring.

The court observed that the conduct of FMO in routing the FDI investment through subsidiaries of Hubtown Ltd, Vinca and Amazia against the issuance of optionally partially convertible debentures (OPCD), establishes that FMO was aware that no investment could have been made with a fixed return without bearing an equity investment risks.

In the case filed by IDBI trusteeship Services, on behalf of FMO, against Hubtown as the guarantor, the court has declared the transaction involving FDI with assured returns was a "colourable device" and artificially structured transaction that violated the FDI regulations in India.

The court ruling complicates an issue that has been a cause of endless disputes in the past, with some Indian promoters trying to wriggle out of their commitments under the pretext that the foreign partners cannot claim a fixed return. But the dust had somewhat settled with the government as well as the Reserve Bank of India endorsing such deals. Under the circumstances,it remains to be seen how regulators would view the court verdict.

Foreign investors expect the ruling to affect the sentiments and capital flow towards India.

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/offshore-investors-cannot-seek-legal-recourse-for-assured-return-investments-says-bombay-hc/articleshow/47535796.cms

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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more