NCLAT Reserves Order On Admission Of Contempt Plea Against Anil Ambani For Failing To Pay Minority Investor

Update: 2019-07-04 08:02 GMT

[ By Bobby Anthony ]The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reserved its order on whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against Reliance Communication (RCom) Chairman Anil Ambani and his officials for failing to pay minority investors like HSBC Daisy Investments (Mauritius).Earlier, HSBC Daisy had moved the appellate tribunal over alleged default of payment of Rs...

[ By Bobby Anthony ]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reserved its order on whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against Reliance Communication (RCom) Chairman Anil Ambani and his officials for failing to pay minority investors like HSBC Daisy Investments (Mauritius).

Earlier, HSBC Daisy had moved the appellate tribunal over alleged default of payment of Rs 230 crore by the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group-owned Reliance Infratel and stated that the company has not fulfilled an undertaking given by it.

It may be recalled that Reliance Infratel is undergoing insolvency along with RCom and another unit namely Reliance Telecom. RCom is weighed down by a debt of Rs 46,000 crore is undergoing insolvency process and recently it was handed over to a resolution professional from Deloitte.

The Deloitte resolution professional overlooking sale of assets told the appellate tribunal that RCom and its units are under a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and therefore can pay dues.

Incidentally, a legal battle between minority shareholders and RCom’s unit has been on for more than a year.

The minority shareholders had filed a contempt petition against Ambani for failing to clear dues worth Rs 232 crore, despite an earlier NCLAT order in June last year , which had stated that these dues had to be cleared within six months.

HSBC Daisy Investments and some other minority shareholders who together hold just over 4% in the Reliance Infratel tower company had opposed sale of assets on grounds that their consent was not sought for the asset sale.

Similar News