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

2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 328

SUPREME COURT
T. V. Ramakrishnan, J
Infrastructure Leasing & Fin. Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
BPL Limited – Respondent
Company Appeal No. 5 of 2005 | MCA No. 84 of 2004



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shyam Divan
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Giri

A secured creditor's status is maintained despite an arbitration award, unless explicitly extinguished in the award. The Company Court must ensure that schemes are fair and comply with statutory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 391 - Scheme of arrangement - Application for holding a meeting of creditors and sanctioning scheme approved - Appeal against the order dismissing objections raised by an unsecured creditor contending change of status post-arbitration award - The court ruled the appellant's secured creditor status persisted despite the arbitration, given the registered charge - The criteria for Court's scrutiny of schemes emphasized both statutory compliance and fairness to dissenting creditors. (Paras 5, 26, 46)

(B) Jurisdiction of Company Court - The Company Court retains jurisdiction to supervise schemes even during ongoing litigation - The court must ensure creditor meetings were properly conducted and that the scheme is just and equitable to all classes. (Paras 5, 20)

(C) Arbitration and creditor status - The existence of an arbitration award does not inherently alter a creditor's secured status unless explicitly stated - Parties may retain collateral rights despite obligations being resolved through arbitration. (Paras 29, 44)

Facts of the case:
The respondent company, facing financial troubles, sought to restructure its operations through a scheme that transferred its CTV business to a joint venture. An unsecured creditor objected, claiming insufficient disclosure and that it was incorrectly classified within the creditor group due to a subsequent arbitration award.

Findings of Court:
The court found the scheme maintainable, affirming the creditor's status as secured due to registered hypothecation and dismissed the appeal of the creditor challenging the scheme's fairness. The scheme garnered the requisite approval from the majority of secured creditors.

Issues: The determination of the creditor’s classification and whether the arbitration award extinguished secured creditor status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that registered hypothecation maintains the creditor's status regardless of arbitration outcomes. Additionally, creditor schemes require adherence to procedural fairness and compliance with statutory provisions. The existence of an arbitration award did not nullify the charge unless explicitly stated.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of bpl limited's incorporation and restructuring. (Para 1)
2. objections raised by creditors against bpl's scheme. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's analysis regarding the maintainability of the scheme. (Para 5)
4. arguments concerning the status of the appellant as a secured creditor. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. bpl's reaffirmation of the appellant's creditor status. (Para 12 , 13)
6. court's supervisory role in approving schemes of arrangement. (Para 20 , 21)
7. contrasting the arbitration award and the hypothecation status. (Para 27 , 29)
8. discussion on the preservation of the charge of hypothecation. (Para 39 , 43)
9. final conclusion and directions regarding the scheme's meeting. (Para 47)

1. BPL Limited, the respondent herein, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act") and on 16.4.1963, certificate of incorporation in the name of the company as British Physical Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. was issued. The company became deemed public company and the word "Private" stood deleted with effect from 24.3.1981. Subsequently, the name of the company was changed to BPL Limited and fresh certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies on 16.3.1992. In the year 1982 the company had diversified its activities into Consumer Electronics, Colour Television Receivers, Black and White TV Receivers and Video Cassettes Recorders. The company embarked on various diversifications, expansion programmes and had facilities for manufacture of television, Alkaline batteries, colour monitors, etc. It also entered into the arena of manufacturing of refrigerators and electronic components through associate companies and had grown into a diversified group with multiple products and services. Due to manifold reasons, the company faced cash flow constraints which adversely affected its operations. It suffered a loss of Rs.287.8 crores in the last 18 months for the period ending on 30.09.2003 as there was decline of sales of goods. Due to the said loss, the debt of the company increased to 1494.57 crores as on 31.03.2003. As many a international brand had entered into the Indian market, the respondent company in order to keep pace with the technological advancement in the field of business initiated a comprehensive restructuring of its operations which primarily involved rejuvenating its main business through a joint venture with "Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd.", Japan and accordingly entered into a shareholder agreement. In terms of the agreement the BPL had to transfer its existing CTV business undertaking to the joint venture constituting BPL brand for CTV business manufacturing services, marketing and distribution. Both the companies BPL and Sanyo had equal partnership in the ratio 50:50 in the joint venture. The CTV business was valued at Rs.368 crores and BPL was required to invest approximately Rs.46 crores in the joint venture company and to receive a net cash inflow of Rs.322 crores. Initially, BPL proposed a scheme of arrangement which was finally modified and in the said scheme various business institutions and banks were involved. There were 36 creditors whose names featured in the scheme.

2. After approval of the scheme the respondent filed an application under S.391 (1) of the Act read with R.9 the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking permission for holding a meeting for consideration for approval of compromise or arrangement proposed to be made between companies and the creditors. The second prayer had been made for orders governing the procedures to be complied with. There were 15 respondents. After the application was filed forming the subject matter of MCA No. 84 of 2004 notices were issued and many financial institutions filed their counter affidavits / objections. The present appellant, Infrastructure Leasing & Fin. Services Ltd., which was the 8th respondent, filed its counter - affidavit and in it, had raised objections to the prayer for stay of various proceedings before numbe















































































































































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