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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more