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
| 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.