Monthly Archives

April 2021

dhfl insolvency case

Analyzing DHFL Insolvency Case

By Cases, Media Coverage No Comments

DHFL Insolvency Case

On May 25, 2021, a panel of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) comprised of Justice A.I.S. Cheema and Mr. V.P. Singh stayed an order from the NCLT’s Mumbai bench. The order directed the creditors of Dewan Housing Finance Corp, to consider a  settlement offer from its promoter Mr. Kapil Wadhawan in the DHFL insolvency case which is considered to be one of the largest failures of any Non- Banking Finance Company(NBFC) and Corporate governance failure.

Brief Facts of the DHFL Insolvency Case

The key facts of the case are that SEBI launched an investigation into Dewan Housing Finance Ltd after an accusation was made by an internet portal (DHFL). They hired an outside audit company to look into and evaluate DHFL’s finances.

Due to such probes by multiple credit agencies, the long-term credit ratings of DHFL were downgraded. On 30th May 2019, DHFL conveyed to the stock exchange its inability to publish its 4rth Quarterly report. It also delayed the payment of commercial papers of Rs 950 crores. 

As of 6th July 2019, DHFL had public deposits of only Rs 6,188 crores which fell from a staggering amount of Rs 10,166 crores in 2018. The consortium of banks and credit agencies led by SBI formulated a Debt Resolution plan, but the plan failed, thus RBI moved DHFL to NCLT for insolvency proceedings. On 29th November 2019 RBI filed an application for  Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against DHFL under IBC, 2016.

On 19th May 2021 NCLT’s Mumbai Bench had directed that the settlement offer of Rs 91,158 crore from DHFL’s former promoter should be placed for consideration and voting before the Committee of Creditors(COC). The COC also filed a separate appeal with NCLAT against the Mumbai Bench’s order.

Contentions by the Counsels

On behalf of the COC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued against the NCLT judgment of May 19th, 2019. He added that neither the NCLT nor the COC has the authority to issue such an order.

Section 29A of IBC, 2016 states that “A person shall not be eligible to submit a resolution plan if such person, or any other person acting jointly or in concert with such person” Section 29A also prohibits a promoter who is classified as a non-performing asset in the Company. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. 

Advocate for the Resolution applicant also contended that the proposal by  Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. was approved by CoC and RBI also showed no objection. The counsel for Wadhawan informed the court that the underlying goal of Wadhawan’s settlement offer was to maximize the value that creditors would get.

Judgment

The NCLAT decided that the case needed to be heard and stayed the NCLT ruling, but added that the appellant’s pending status would not prevent the NCLT from ruling on Piramal Capital’s offer for DHFL. The Case next will be taken on 25th June 2020.

 Analysis

  • A promoter cannot make a settlement offer in an insolvency case, according to Section 29A of the IBC. So the settlement offer presented by Mr. Wadhawan even though to maximize profits is against Section 29A. But in the past NCLAT has turned over the decision of NCLT involving section 29A in the case of Sterling Biotech’s case.
  • In the said case a settlement offer by promoters was accepted by the COC and Insolvency proceedings can be withdrawn at any stage as long as 90 percent of the COC gives its approval to voters. This was introduced in the newly added section 12A of IBC, 2016.
  • The Court also directed the NCLT to decide “at the earliest” the application filed by the administrator.
  • The NCLAT also highlighted that the creditors should be given more time and they did not appreciate the hurry imposed on the Administrator and the COC to accept the 2nd settlement offer.

 


Tags: corporate governance failure, dhfl, dewan housing finance corporation, dhfl housing finance, dewan housing, dhfl insolvency case, dewan housing finance corporation ltd, dewan housing finance dhfl, dhfl insolvency, national company law appellate tribunal, dewan housing finance

the model tenancy act 2019

Analysis of The Model Tenancy Act 2019

By Real Estate, Media Coverage No Comments

The Model Tenancy Act 2019

A shelter is certainly one of life’s most basic needs. Housing shortages have become a growing concern in India as a result of the country’s rapid urbanization. People frequently choose rental property owing to a lack of resources or the incapacity to construct their own homes.

Despite the government’s goal of providing inexpensive housing, many homes are overcrowded, indicating that housing, whether owned or rented, is out of reach for a large portion of the population. In India, each state has its own tenancy legislation. The Transfer of Property Act of 1882 (TPA) is a federal statute that controls subjects not covered by state law.

For a long time in India, codified legislation created specifically for rent-related issues in real estate has been ignored. The lack of a comprehensive framework has impeded the expansion of rental housing, resulting in limited investment in India’s rental housing market. 

The past effort to codify tenancy regulations was the Draft Model Tenancy Act, 2015. However, the majority of nations failed to comply.

However, this worked as a foundation for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, which released the draft Model Tenancy Act, 2019 which aims to regulate rental housing by a market-oriented approach while trying to balance the interests of both the landlord and tenants.

The MTA was written with the interests of landowners and tenants in mind, and it establishes adjudicatory organizations to provide for quick dispute settlement. It also aims to provide a transparent and responsible rental environment for migrants, professionals, employees, students, and the urban poor, as well as foster a healthy ecology.

The development of Rent Authorities has played a crucial role in attaining the Act’s aims. Section 29 of the MTA calls for a rent authority to be appointed by an official with at least the rank of Deputy Collector. The Rent Authority has the same powers as the Rent Court, including issuing UIDs, researching disputes, conducting investigations, and imposing fines or compensations based on the merits of cases.

Sections 32 and 33 of the Act, respectively, established Rent Courts and Rent Tribunals. They have sole jurisdiction to hear and consider petitions involving conflicts between landowners and tenants, as well as matters related to and ancillary to such disputes.

The matter must be resolved within 60 days by the Rent Court or Rent Tribunal in order to be expedited. The Rent Tribunal hears appeals from the Rent Court’s orders. Furthermore, a Rent Court or Rent Tribunal order may be enforced as a civil court judgment.

As stated above, the main aim of MTA is to eliminate the fear of landlords regarding getting repossession of their premises and increase the growth of investment in the rental sector.

Keeping this view, MTA proposes to give protection to landlords by way of deducting security deposits, and eviction criteria u/s 21. Or by applying the rent authority for cutting off or withholding any essential supply or services on the premises. 

If the landlord tries to cut off/withhold service, the tenant is in the same boat. MTA not only protects landowners, but also tenants’ interests, such as succession rights, affordable housing, rights to repair and maintain adequate living conditions, return of advance/security in specific circumstances, and so on.

Thus, MTA is a positive development in India’s rental market. The creation of the new adjudicating authority will serve to relieve the pressure on the country’s courts in tenancy situations while also allowing cases to be resolved more quickly. However, it would be fascinating to watch how many states apply MTA since it is merely a model and not required by all states.

 


Tags: model tenancy act 2019, model tenancy act, the model tenancy act 2019, model tenancy act 2021, transfer of property act 1882, tenancy legislation, transfer of property act, tenancy act

leave and license agreement

Demarcating a Lease from a Leave and License Agreement

By Real Estate, Media Coverage 3 Comments

Lease from a Leave and License Agreement

With each passing day, the pandemic’s consequences have grown to unprecedented heights. The harshness of it has been felt most acutely in the real estate industry, where the capacity to pay rentals for both commercial and residential units has been harmed as a result of unemployment and substantial salary cutbacks.

 The fact that neither landlords, property owners, nor tenants are aware of the differences between the two agreements is worrying, as the terms “lease,” “leave,” and “license” are frequently used interchangeably in common usage. Nonetheless, though the term can be used interchangeably, the rights under both these agreements are distinctive to their own and thus, can be invoked only on circumstances arising concerning it.

When dealing with land or property, the phrase “lease” is frequently employed. As a result, it’s fairly typical to confuse a leave and license with a lease. A lease is formed when one person, under the terms of a contract, transfers or leases his property to another person for a certain length of time in exchange for a regular or lump-sum payment.

A leave and license agreement, on the other hand, is a temporary arrangement between a licensor and a licensee under which the licensee is authorized to use and occupy the licensor’s immovable property, entirely or partially, for the purpose of doing business or staying there in exchange for a specified amount of rent.

Furthermore, the rent can be determined according to their mutual agreement and must be acknowledged by both parties. As a result, the purpose of this essay is to focus on the differences between a lease and a leave and license agreement, as it is critical that both parties grasp the essence and elements of the latter.

A lease is a transfer of a right in a specified immovable property that is made with an interest in the property in favor of the lessee and that does not end with the death of the leasor or leasee.

It’s also worth noting that it’s both transferable and inheritable; as a result, it’s common to see a sub-tenancy formed by the tenant, with the tenancy continuing after the tenant’s death.  Also, a lease can come to end only according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract between the parties.

 Furthermore, by entering the contract in his capacity, a lessee can protect the possession. In contrast, a license is a just bare permission without any transfer of an interest to the other party which ends with the death of either the grantor or the grantee as it is a personal contract, thereby it is not transferable or heritable and can be withdrawn at the pleasure of the grantor.

Unlike the leasee, though a licensee is in possession of the property, it is not entitled to any improvement or accessions made to the property.

During these exceptional times, knowing the above-mentioned basic distinctions is especially critical, as the continuing epidemic has resulted in various lockdowns across India, with commercial spaces having to close, implying that companies are compelled to fire staff or reduce salaries.

As a result, on the one hand, this has had a significant impact on people’s ability to pay rents/licenses/compensation, and on the other side, firms that have entered into an LLA are now having difficulty paying their rents or licenses.

The government made an attempt to safeguard the parties in these agreements by recognizing the incident as a “Force Majeure event,” which is also recognized by the government as a “natural calamity,” as stipulated in the Force Majeure provision in the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2017, and which is irrevocable and can come to the licensee’s and lessee’s rescue.

The Bombay High Court recently rejected relief to a party claiming force majeure protection because of the Covid-19 outbreak in Standard Retail Pvt Ltd v M/s G S Global Corp and Ors[1]. It was noted that the injunction would not be able to save the petitioners from their contractual responsibilities to make payments.

These challenging circumstances have increased the need for individuals to grasp their rights under these two separate accords, which need a fundamental comprehension of their aspects. Consequently, notwithstanding the ambiguity surrounding the agreements, it can be shown that their properties are distinct and may be used in a variety of scenarios.

 


Tags: lease from, leave and license agreement, leave and licence agreement, leave & license agreement, contractual responsibilities, personal contract, online leave and license, leave and licence, leave and license agreement online, leave and license