TOI: Debt recovery tribunals not functional, bank moves SC

7 June 2020: The banking industry has sought relief from the Supreme Court from the double blow dealt to it by Covid pandemic. First, it depressed financial activities and second, Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) have remained shut for more than two months due to lockdown, seriously impeding recovery of dues.

Kotak Mahindra Bank, through senior advocate V Giri, told a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde, Justices A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy on Friday that non-availability of DRTs and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) during lockdown denied the banking and financial institutions the essential forum for recovery of their dues under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Securitisation and Recovery of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

The bench issued notice to the Centre and asked the bank to give a copy of the petition to solicitor general Tushar Mehta. “We want to know about the functioning of DRTs and DRATs,” the bench asked the Centre.

The bank’s petition also raised the issue of snail-paced process in the DRTs and DRATs because nearly half of the presiding officers’ posts are lying vacant. “At present, 18 of the 39 DRTs across the country do not have permanent presiding officers, and also lack competent quasi-judicial and judicial staff,” it said.

The bank said while the SC, high courts and even district courts have provided for video-conference hearing of urgent matters to mitigate hardship in the absence of regular judicial forums, DRTs and DRATs have made no provision for facilitating e-hearing of urgent debt recovery matters which the banks want to be adjudicated.

It said though e-filing facility has been provided at only five DRTs at Delhi, Kolkata, Dehradun, Mumbai and Chennai, no facility is being given for urgent hearing of these matters, thus preventing the banks and financial institutions from getting interim relief.

“Adjudication of debt recovery cases by DRTs and DRATs are critical for the stability of banking and financial institutions and, by extension, the economic health of the country,” it said.

The petitioner feared that absence of urgent adjudication of debt recovery cases could lead to an increase in the number of NPAs in the books of the bank. “Because of delay in disposal of matters, the value of the mortgaged assets held by the petitioner bank rapidly deteriorates resulting in a drastically reduced recovery. Extremely delayed recoveries of debts adds to the problem of liquidity and reduces the lending capacity and/or willingness to lend,” Kotak Mahindra said.

Source: The Times of India

CNBC-TV18:COVID-19: Lenders can’t drag defaulters to bankruptcy court as govt floats IBC ordinance

5 June 2020: The government, via an ordinance, has amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to prevent companies that have defaulted from being pushed into insolvency proceedings to prevent persons impacted by COVID-19.

The key laws in the IBC pertaining to this — Sections 7, 9 and 10 — have been suspended as defaults have been rising due to the unprecedented COVID-19 situation.

The ordinance reads that no application for initiation of CIRP will be filed for defaults arising on or after March 25, 2020 for 6 months or up to one year.

The Union Cabinet on June 3 cleared the proposal to suspend the insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to avoid companies at large from being forced into insolvency proceedings for non-performing assets during the COVID-19 period starting from 25 March.Provisions of Section 10A will not apply for defaults on or after March 25 until the next six months up to one year. The move is on the back of the government giving its nod to the proposal to introduce a new clause — 10A, under section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The section makes it clear that creditors cannot drag any company to courts/insolvency proceedings.

Source: CNBC-TV18

LM: Lenders weigh changes in ICA for speedy resolution

1 June 2020: Consortium lenders are planning to accord greater rights to the lead lender by amending their inter-creditor agreements (ICA), two people aware of the matter said, aimed to speed up decision-making in debt resolution as they brace for a surge in bad loans.

Under ICA, lenders jointly appoint a lead bank which functions on behalf of the entire group, and crafts a resolution plan to be approved by two-thirds of the members. According to the persons cited above, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) is discussing the changes, which will take effect once approved by its members.

“Instead of the earlier norm of getting majority lenders to approve all decisions, some will be left to the lead lender. We are trying to make the minimum voting requirement dynamic, depending on the requirement,” said the first of the two bankers quoted above.

For instance, when new lenders want to join an existing ICA, existing ones have to approve it, a lengthy process. The new ICA will allow the lead lender to unilaterally approve it. This essentially means that State Bank of India (SBI), the lead lender in most lending consortia, will be able to sidestep other dissenting lenders in some matters, quickening decision-making.

“If major lenders take a decision, then the smaller lenders should not be holding it back. There are cases where just because one lender has not given a no objection certificate (NOC), the entire process has stalled and that is what we want to change in the new ICA,” said the second banker cited above.

The second banker said that in large consortia with more than 20 lenders, it becomes difficult to get everyone on board. “We are fixing the voting as per the nature of the requirement. Suppose it is a simple NOC, the lead lender can be empowered to approve it without putting it to vote. Then, there will be certain requirements where we would need approval of 60% lenders by number and 75% by value,” the second banker said.

However, in cases where there is a resolution to change the existing management of a company, it would require approval of all lenders as it affects everyone.

“A lot of sectors may require restructuring and additional loans, but if the time taken in these decisions is too long, then it will simply kill the asset. Otherwise, it takes a lot of time to get a go-ahead from every lender,” said the second banker quoted above.

Source: Livemint

FE: Government proposal: MSMEs may seek own insolvency

27 May 2020: While insolvency proceeding against fresh defaulters are proposed to be suspended for a year to soften the Covid-19 blow, the government is considering a proposal to allow MSMEs to approach the adjudicating authority to declare them insolvent if they so wish to pursue a resolution of their stressed assets.

However, creditors can’t drag MSMEs to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) during this one year. If approved, the move will be part of a special framework under Section 240-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that the government has proposed to bring in to offer certain flexibilities to MSMEs battered by the pandemic, sources told FE.

Data available with insolvency regulator IBBI show, proceedings in 2,170 cases were going on as of March 2020. Typically most of the insolvent firms are MSMEs, so any relief to such small businesses will benefit a large number of units, say analysts.

While sections 7, 9 and 10 of the IBC would remain suspended for all firms once a proposed Ordinance is implemented, the flexibility enshrined under section 10, which allows corporate debtors to approach the NCLT (typically to avoid coercive action by creditors), could be retained for just MSMEs to give them additional options, one of the sources said.

Another source said the government may consider allowing “pre-packaged” insolvency for MSMEs under the proposed framework. The “prepackaged” bankruptcy scheme typically allows a stressed company to prepare a financial reorganisation plan with the approval of at least two-thirds of its creditors (and shareholders) before the filing of an insolvency application by any party at the NCLT. The resolution plan so reached can then be placed before the NCLT for approval, so that it can be implemented. Such a scheme, already prevalent in countries like  the US, could aid the existing insolvency framework and cut costs and time of the resolution process. The corporate affairs ministry has been exploring the feasibility of implementing the “pre-packaged” scheme in the Indian context for quite some time.

In a huge relief to cash starved firms, the government recently said Covid-19-related debt would be excluded from the definition of default.

Already, in a bid to insulate small businesses from being dragged to the NCLT, the default threshold for triggering insolvency has recently been raised to Rs 1 crore from just Rs 1 lakh earlier.

While larger firms have greater abilities to absorb risks, MSMEs have been most vulnerable to the damaging impact of the pandemic. So, extending flexibility to them at this juncture remains critical.

This will also complement the Centre’s latest measures under the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan scheme in ensuring that MSMEs get adequate credit to resume operations. For instance, MSMEs will be eligible for the recent package, including additional, collateral-free working capital loan (up to 20%) with a cap of Rs 3 lakh crore (with official guarantee), subordinate debt of Rs 20,000 crore and Rs 50,000-crore fund of funds to bolster the equity base of MSMEs that have growth potential and need some hand holding. Just the collateral-free loan move is expected to help 45 lakh units, the government has said.

Source: Financial Express

Mondaq:UAE Notified As A Reciprocating Territory Under Section 44A Of Civil Procedure Code

29 March 2020:  INTRODUCTION : The purview of this article is the impact of addition of United Arab Emirates to the notification dated 17th January 2020 G.S.R 38 (E) issued by Ministry of Law and Justice. This notification allows filing of an execution proceeding under the Civil Procedure Code 1908 of a decree passed by UAE Courts in India.

When a certified copy of a decree of any Superior Court of UAE has been filed in a District Court in India, the Decree may be executed as if it had been passed by the District Court in India. As opposed to filing of a fresh suit prior to the notification coming into force. The amendment ensures cooperation between the laws of two sovereign states. UAE becomes the 11th country to be notified as reciprocating territory.

It all started with India entering into a bilateral Agreement with UAE in October 1999 on Juridical and Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters for the Service of Summons, Judicial Documents, Commission, Execution of Judgements and Arbitral Awards (the “1999 Agreement”) which would enhance the cooperation between the states which is inevitably necessary for various Indian businesses that are based in UAE.

The notification provides for the following Courts in UAE to be Superior Courts:

(1) Federal Court-

(a) Federal Supreme Court;

(b) Federal, First Instance and Appeals Courts in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain and Fujairah;

(2) Local Courts-

(a) Abu Dhabi Judicial Department;

(b) Dubai Courts;

(c) Ras Al Khaimah Judicial Department;

(d) Courts of Abu Dhabi Global Markets;

(e) Courts of Dubai International Financial Center.

A decree passed by a State which is a non- reciprocating territory shall not be executed directly by the Indian Courts. In such cases a fresh suit has to be filed on the basis of the judgement, which shall be considered as the cause of action for the said suit. In the said suit wherein the judgement of a non- reciprocating territory is construed as the cause of action, the decree passed by a non- reciprocating territory shall be treated as another piece of evidence.

REQUIREMENTS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908:Irrespective of the decree being reciprocating or non- reciprocating, the decree must comply with the requirements set out in Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Section 13 reads as under: A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except—

(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdication;

(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of 2 [India] in cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) where it has been obtained by fraud; (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in 2 [India].

Under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 direct enforceability of a foreign decree requires compliance of Section 13, 14(1) and 44A of the Code.

Section 14(1) reads as under: The Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.

Section 44A reads as under:

(1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of 3 *** any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in 4 [India] as if it had been passed by the District Court.

(2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.

(3) The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.

Under the provisions of Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, a decree passed by the superior court of a reciprocating territory can be enforced, only after the same is notified by the Central Government.

Pursuant to Explanations under Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 a “reciprocating state” means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section ; and “superior courts” with any reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.

(a) UAE decrees are now distinguished from non-reciprocating decrees (which require starting afresh by filing a suit in India). In the case of Marine Geotechnic LLC v/s Coastal Marine Construction and Engineering Ltd.([2014]183CompCas438(Bom), the Bombay High Court held that there are two types of decrees i.e. reciprocating and non-reciprocating decrees. Decrees from territories which the Central Government has notified as ‘reciprocating’ under Section 44A of CPC are decrees from reciprocating territory all other decrees are decrees from non-reciprocating territories.

(b) There will be an increase in the number of UAE court cases seeking recovery of funds from Indians.

(c) Considerable reduction in time for executing the decrees passed.

(d) The decree holder shall only be burdened to satisfy the courts in India about the test under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(e) Recovery of the amount due in a faster way.

(f) The limitation period under the Limitation Act would be extended upto 12 years as opposed to the limitation of 3 years for filing a fresh suit.

(g) Transgression of the comprehensive procedure laid down under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 of filing a fresh suit.

Reportedly as on date the UAE banks have to recover Rs. 50,000 crores from Indians who have defaulted in repaying the banks. One of the options available for recovery of debt is under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 but recently in Usha Holdings LLC. Vs Francorp Advisors Pvt Ltd (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2018) the National Company Appellate Tribunal held that NCLT shall not be the proper authority in deciding whether the foreign decree is valid or not.

While deciding on the issue the NCLAT referred to its judgement in Binani Industries Limited vs Bank of Baroda & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 82 of 2018) wherein it clearly articulated the objective of IBC i.e. maximising the value of the corporate debtor and not recovery of debt.

The said notification was a desired impetus which was required since last 20 years to actually enforce the bilateral agreement between the countries that took place in 1999. Furthermore, this would be a welcoming change for the legal industry in the country as this notification would bring with it a wave of foreign litigation based on the decrees by the Superior Courts in UAE. This is a change that would flourish, strengthen the ties and bring in strategic investments between the two countries.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

As reported on Mondaq

NIE: NCLAT allows promoters to regain control of firms at liquidation stage

4 September 2019: Opening up a new window for promoters looking to retain control of their companies facing bankruptcy proceedings, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that shareholders and owners can reach a settlement with the creditors when their entity is under liquidation and an official liquidator has been appointed by the insolvency court.

In the liquidation case pertaining to Sterling Biotech, the NCLAT has set aside a bankruptcy court order to liquidate a debt-ridden company while allowing its promoters to take back control of the firm after making full payment to the lenders.

The ruling may set a precedent that will have ramifications for companies willing to clear dues after they are admitted for insolvency resolution. In one such case, promoters of insolvent Essar Steel have expressed their willingness to take back its company after settling in full all debt. 

However, the matter is still pending in the bankruptcy court after a prolonged legal battle and ArcelorMittal’s successful resolution proposal for Essar Steel is awaiting the final order. 

IANS had reported in April that promoters who are barred from the resolution process of insolvent companies may get a chance to regain control after settling dues at the liquidation stage. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) also provides for taking a company out of the resolution process after admission if 90 per cent of the creditors agrees to it. 

In a Sterling Biotech oral order given last week, a three-member NCLAT bench comprising justices S.J. Mukhopadhyay and A.I.S. Cheema and member (technical) Kanti Narahari set aside the May 8 order of the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) Mumbai bench and allowed the withdrawal of a petition filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). 

In its order, the appellate tribunal said that settlement would have to be done by the promoters under a one-time settlement (OTS) and not through the corporate debtor or its properties. The appointed liquidator can continue until the entire payment is made to the lenders.

Earlier in April, the NCLAT had made a similar observation on the liquidation case pertaining to Amar Dye Chem Ltd. 

In that matter, the promoter-director of the company had filed a scheme of compromise in winding up proceedings before the Bombay High Court where the liquidator had already been appointed. The matter was transferred to the NCLT Mumbai bench on the basis of a notification dated December 7, 2016. 

Legal experts say the appellate tribunal’s order could open the way for a fresh resolution even when a company is being liquidated, by giving the opportunity to the promoters to come up with a viable plan.  

The New Indian Express reported

FE: Guarantee for NBFC assets: Rules framed with tough riders

14 August 2019: The finance ministry on Tuesday notified a scheme to enable public-sector banks (PSBs) to implement a crucial Budget announcement under which the government would offer a one-time partial guarantee to the banks to buy pooled assets worth Rs 1 lakh crore of financially-sound NBFCs this fiscal. This will cover their first loss of up to 10%.

As per the scheme, the assets will be purchased by the PSBs at fair value and they must be rated by credit rating agencies accredited by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The government, however, set some tough criteria for the NBFC/HFCs to get relief. The guarantee will be given for the assets of those NBFCs whose capital to risk (weighted) assets ratio was not below the minimum regulatory requirement of 15% as of March 31, 2019. Similarly, the capital adequacy of an HFC must have been 12% or above at the end of March. Their net non-performing assets should not have crossed more than 6% as of end-March.

They should have made a net profit in at least one of the last two preceding financial years (FY18 and FY19). The NBFCs/HFCs should not have been reported under SMA category by any bank for their borrowings during last one year prior to August 1, 2018.

NBFCs/HFCs will pay a fee equivalent to 0.25% a year of the fair value of assets being purchased by the bank under this scheme to the government (must be routed through the purchasing bank).

The window for the guarantee will open for a period of six months (from Tuesday), or till such date by which assets worth Rs one lakh crore get purchased by banks, whichever is earlier.

Those whose assets are sold under this scheme should rework their asset-liability structure within three months to have positive ALM in each bucket for the first three months and on cumulative basis for the remaining period. “At no time during the period for exercise of the option to buy back the assets, should the CRAR go below the regulatory minimum. The promoter shall ensure this by infusing equity, where required,” the government said.

The guarantee provided by the government on the assets will be valid for 24 months from the date of purchase and can be invoked on the occurrence of default.

The NBFCs/HFCs can have the option to buy back their assets after 12 months as a repurchase transaction, on a right of first refusal basis.

Only those NBFCs that are registered under the RBI Act, excluding those registered as micro-finance institutions and core investment companies, are eligible for the scheme. Similarly, only those HFCs registered with the National Housing Bank (NHB) are eligible.

Assets originated up to March 31 will only be eligible under this scheme and they should be standard in the books of NBFCs/HFCs on the date of sale. The pool of assets should have minimum rating of ‘AA’ or equivalent at fair value prior to the partial credit guarantee by the government.

NBFCs/HFCs can sell up to a maximum of 20% of their standard assets as of March 2019, subject to a cap of Rs 5,000 crore at fair value. “Any additional amount above the cap of Rs 5,000 crore will be considered on pro rata basis, subject to availability of headroom,” the ministry said.

The underlying assets should represent the debt obligations of a homogeneous pool of obligors and individual asset size in the pool is capped at Rs 5 crore (i.e. asset pool should be sufficiently granular).

The purchasing bank can invoke the GoI guarantee if the interest and/or instalment of principal remains overdue for a period of more than 90 days (i.e. when liability is crystalised for the underlying borrower) during the validity of such guarantee, subject to the condition that the guarantee is for the first loss up to 10%.

The Financial Express reported

ET: Home buyers welcome SC ruling, say move to help claim dues

10 August 2019: The Supreme Court’s judgment on Friday re-affirming the rights of end-use home buyers as financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is expected to provide protection and a hope of recovering of their dues especially in projects that are stuck for long with no possibility of delivery in sight.

There are around 1.74 lakh stalled housing units across the top seven cities — Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, Pune, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai and Kolkata — and their buyers can now stake claims to their dues by initiating insolvency proceedings against the errant developers.

This is also expected to limit loan delinquencies of banks and housing finance companies who have exposure to retail borrowers. While being a confidence booster for end-use home buyers, the ruling will further the consolidation process in the sector, weeding out non-serious developers. Investors, however, may not be able to cite this judgement to exit stuck projects.

“The SC judgment re-affirms the rights of the home buyers as financial creditors under IBC. This is a landmark judgment so far as genuine home buyers are concerned. However, this may not be a happy news for the investor-home buyers who have initiated IBC against the developers for seeking exit from their investments on account of the current condition of the real estate market,” said Abhilash Pillai, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

The apex court said that the IBC gives an additional forum to the home buyers to raise grievances, adding that the provisions under the IBC, Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA) and the Consumer Protection Act will work harmoniously. The court further said that in case of any conflict between the three Acts, the provisions of the IBC will prevail.

“It is a big boost for home buyers as they now have another legal platform to deal with unscrupulous real estate developers. As doubts about legal validity of the said amendment is now cleared, home buyers as a member in the committee of creditors (CoC), will be also able to protect their interests better if builders themselves or banks or any other stakeholders drags a company to NCLT. The ruling will help in bringing sanity to the real estate sector,” said Abhay Upadhyay, president, Forum For People’s Collective Efforts.

Developers, however, will have two defences available under the IBC. One, if the home buyer has defaulted on payment under the builder-buyer agreement, then there will be no entitlement to relief including payment of compensation. Two, under Section 60 (5) of the IBC, the developer can contest the buyer’s insolvency plea at the NCLT on the grounds that it has been filed fraudulently with malicious intent.

“It is a balanced judgement. With a slowdown in the real estate sector, many home buyers are looking for cancellations, that won’t be possible now. Also, speculative investors won’t be able to use the IBC to get exits,” said Kishore Jain, president-Bengaluru, CREDAI.

Developers’ association NAREDCO welcomed the judgement saying that it gave home buyers an equal footing as secured financial creditors.

“This will enable the completion of projects ultimately benefiting both lenders and home buyers. The liquidity crisis looming over the sector as an outcome of a consecutive policy reforms has caused multiple problems for NBFCs and banks,” said Niranjan Hiranandani, national president, NAREDCO.

According to ANAROCK research, as many as 220 projects equaling 1.74 lakh homes are completely stalled in the top seven cities alone.

The Economic Times reported

MC: In a first, NCLT allows 13 Videocon group cos to be clubbed

8 August 2019: To speed up the resolution process and also to get better value, the National Company Law Tribunal in a first on August 8 allowed the resolution professional (RP) to consolidate 13 of the 15 Videocon Group companies into a single entity, citing similarity in their operations.

While the nascent domestic bankruptcy law is silent on consolidating different the books of insolvent companies, citing larger interest of lenders and other stakeholders, the Mumbai bench drew examples from British and American bankruptcy laws.

“We heard the arguments both for consolidation and against it. I think it is time to introduce consolidation of accounts with similar operations. As there are no domestic laws to draw from, I have taken some guidance from the British and American laws.

“Under certain circumstances they have allowed consolidation and under some they have even rejected it. So, of the 15 companies, 13 can be consolidated into a single account, having a direct link and interlink of accounts which will maximise their value,” tribunal judge MK Shrawat said.

The tribunal also appointed Mahendra Khandelwal as the RP of the consolidated unit.

The other two organizations–Trend Electronics and KAIL –will have separate resolution process, the bench said and explained that these two companies have separate sources of income and after segregation they can survive and get better value.

The resolution process of the consolidated Videocon Group companies and Trend Electronics and KAIL will begin from the day of this order.

Separate RPs will also be appointed for Trend Electronics and KAIL, the tribunal added.

In January, the lenders led by SBI had sought citing procedural consolidation of the 15 Videocon Group saying it will maximise the value of assets and all stakeholders will benefit from such a move, apart from speeding up the resolution process.

The flagship Videocon Industries’ debt stood at Rs 19,506 crore as of March 2018. The group is among the 40 largest defaulters identified by the Reserve Bank’s first list for insolvency in late 2016.

The company has its core businesses in consumer electronics and oil & gas exploration, while the subsidiaries are into manufacturing, sale and distribution of consumer goods. The lenders plan to first auction the electronics business estimated to be worth USD 2 billion.

Some of the units referred to the NCLT include Value Industries, Trend Electronics, KAIL, Millennium Appliances, Applicomp, Sky Appliances, Techno Electronics, Century Appliances, PE Electronics, Next Retail, Evans Fraser & Co and Videocon International Electronics. PTI SM BEN.

As reported on moneycontrol