9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff. 2. Breach of covenants relating to fixed assets cover and profits cover by the first defendant company. 3. Compliance with the conditions laid down by the Controller of Capital Issues. 4. Allegations of mala fide intentions behind the plaintiff's application. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit by the Plaintiff The first defendant company argued that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff lacks locus standi, asserting that only the trustees of the debenture trust deeds can maintain such a suit. The court examined the terms of the relevant debenture trust deeds, letters of offer, and debenture certificates to determine the validity of this contention. The court noted that the covenants in the trust deeds are for the benefit of the debenture-holders, making them beneficiaries under the trust deeds. Therefore, despite the remedies to enforce these securities vesting in the trustees, debenture-holders are entitled to enforce covenants for their benefit. The court cited the Supreme Court's observation in M. C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore, recognizing the right of a beneficiary under a trust to enforce contracts for their benefit. Consequently, the suit was deemed maintainable, and interim relief could not be refused on the ground of non-maintainability. 2. Breach of Covenants Relating to Fixed Assets Cover and Profits Cover The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant company breached the covenants relating to fixed assets cover and profits cover. The court examined the relevant covenants in the debenture trust deeds, noting that the company was required to maintain a margin of 40% on the fixed assets and the aggregate nominal value of outstanding debentures and other loans ranking pari passu. The court found that the company had complied with the fixed assets cover covenant, as the depreciated value of fixed assets was shown to be approximately Rs. 146 crores, providing adequate cover for the debentures and loans amounting to Rs. 81 crores. However, the court found that the company did not comply with the profits cover covenant, as the average profits were not sufficient to cover twice the amount of interest payable on the debentures and loans. 3. Compliance with Conditions Laid Down by the Controller of Capital Issues The plaintiff contended that the company had not complied with the conditions laid down by the Controller of Capital Issues, specifically the submission of periodic reports. The court noted that this was a matter between the Controller and the company, and the company would have to rectify any non-compliance. The court did not find this issue to be a significant factor in deciding the motion. 4. Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions Behind the Plaintiff's Application The first defendant company alleged that the plaintiff's application was mala fide, aimed at bringing the company's working into difficulty on behalf of its trade rivals. The court acknowledged the unusual nature of a debenture-holder with a small holding engaging in such a significant legal battle. The court noted the unanimous resolutions passed by the debenture-holders and the consent given by financial institutions holding a majority of the debentures, casting doubt on the plaintiff's representative character. However, the court preferred to dispose of the motion based on the disclosed material and merits, irrespective of the alleged motives. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit was maintainable, and the first defendant company had complied with the fixed assets cover covenant but not with the profits cover covenant. The court did not find the issue of compliance with the Controller of Capital Issues' conditions to be significant. The allegations of mala fide intentions were acknowledged but did not influence the court's decision. The court ordered that debenture-holders of the third series who wished to recover amounts payable under their debenture certificates could do so if they applied within 12 weeks. The proposed allocation of debentures would be subject to the outcome of the suit, and there would be no order as to costs. The application for a stay was rejected, allowing the first defendant company to issue the new debentures.
|
