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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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