SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 182

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited - Appellant
Versus
R.K. Mohatta Family Trust and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1581 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 411 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No..... of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1078 of 2023)
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. M.s.ananth, Adv. Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Rohan Talwar, Adv. Mr. Karan Verma, Adv. Mr. Archit Jain, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yohaann Limathwalla, Adv. Mr. Angad Baxi, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Nair, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR Swapnil Sapkal,Adv. Mr. Neelabh Shreesh, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. For M/S. K. Ashar & Co., AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Rajesh Gautam, Adv. Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sumit, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Chopra, Adv.

The Court's decision emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of dissenting debenture holders and the application of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to extend benefits to retail debenture holders.

Headnote:

RP - Dissolution of Reliance Home Finance Limited - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151, Companies Act, 2013 - Section 71(10), Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019, SEBI Circular dated 13th October, 2020 - Standardisation of procedure to be followed by Debenture Trustee(s) in case of ‘Default’ by Issuers of listed debt securities

Fact of the Case:

RHFL defaulted on its loan obligations, leading to substantial debt. A RP was submitted by AIIL and approved by the consortium of lenders. The High Court dismissed the Interim Application seeking approval of the RP, leading to the appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the RP was beneficial to debenture holders and approved it with the caveat that dissenting debenture holders would be provided an option to accept the plan or pursue other legal means to recover their dues.

Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court had the power to approve the RP under Section 151 of the CPC, and whether the RP should be accepted in light of the interests of the debenture holders.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles established in the case of Rajkumar Nagpal, where it was held that the SEBI Circular should not disrupt the efforts undertaken by stakeholders, and the benefit under Article 142 of the Constitution of India should be extended to the retail debenture holders.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the RP preferred by AIIL, except for the dissenting debenture holders, and directed that dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the RP or pursue other legal remedies. The AIIL was directed to make the payments prior to 31st March 2023.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals challenge the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 16th December 2022, vide which the High Court dismissed the Interim Application (L) No. 33514 of 2022 in Commercial Suit (L) No. 162 of 2022 filed by Reliance Home Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘RHFL’), respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), seeking approval of the Resolution Plan (for short, “RP”) pertaining to its dissolution, in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1119. The appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 1078 of 2023 is filed by RHFL and appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 411 of 2023 is filed by Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as “AIIL”), a non-banking financial corporation, which had originally proposed the RP for RHFL.

3. The facts herein are taken from the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 411 of 2023 filed by AIIL, which, in brief, are as follows:

3.1 RHFL executed a number of Debenture Trust Deeds, of which nine were executed with the IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited, respondent No. 3 herein, for issuance of debentures on a private placement basis, having face value of Rs. 5 lakhs. These debentures were issued on 30th August 2018. It is pertinent to note that RHFL had, previously, taken upon itself substantial debt through loans from several banks and financial institutions.

3.2 In May 2019, RHFL defaulted on its loan obligations to various lenders. The outstanding debt was quantified to around Rs. 11,540 crore. It is important to note that its sister concern, Reliance Commercial Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘RCFL’), had previously defaulted on its loan obligations in March 2019.

3.3 On 6th July 2019, a consortium of lenders led by the lead bank, i.e., Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 4 herein, entered into an Inter-Creditor Agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICA’) in terms of clause 10 of the Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RBI Circular’). As per clause 10 of the RBI Circular, the lenders may enter into an ICA for implementation of a RP.

3.4 On 26th August 2019, RHFL committed default in relation to the Debenture Trust Deeds issued as well.

3.5 In January 2020, IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein, filed a company petition bearing No. 138 of 2020 before National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) under Section 71 (10) of the Companies Act, 2013 against RHFL and its holding company Reliance Capital Ltd., to make payment of Rs. 2,850 crore with interest due and payable to the debenture holders of RHFL, which includes the appellant herein.

3.6 During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, a RP for RHFL was submitted by AIIL on 19th June 2021, which, thereafter, was approved by the consortium of lenders who had entered into an ICA. Pertinently, 96% of the ICA lenders approved the RP. On 21st June 2021, a press note to that effect was published. On the same date, the NCLT, in the aforementioned company petition, directed RHFL to repay the debt owed to the debenture holders within five months. An appeal being Company Appeal (AT) No. 73 of 2021 against this order is pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT).

3.7 It is pertinent to note that the RHFL RP, as submitted by AIIL and approved by the ICA lenders, provided that 19,353 small debenture holders, comprising of individuals and HUFs having an exposure up to Rs. 5 lakhs, would get 100% of their principal dues under the RP.

3.8 Since the RBI Circular only regulated the debts owed to Banks/Financial Institutions, the consent of the debenture holders had to be taken as per a SEBI Circular dated 13th October, 2020, titled ‘Standardisation of procedure to be followed by Debenture Trustee(


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top