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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more