- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
NCLAT directs estranged McDonald’s partner Vikram Bakshi to deposit Rs. 5 crore for permission to travel overseas
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed Vikram Bakshi, the estranged McDonald’s partner and his wife Madhurima Bakshi to deposit Rs. 5 crore each for permission to travel abroad. The NCLAT had restrained Bakshi from travelling abroad on September 18, 2019.Bakshi’s counsel informed the NCLAT that Bakshi would soon clear the dues of Hudco. But the NCLAT said he would...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed Vikram Bakshi, the estranged McDonald’s partner and his wife Madhurima Bakshi to deposit Rs. 5 crore each for permission to travel abroad. The NCLAT had restrained Bakshi from travelling abroad on September 18, 2019.
Bakshi’s counsel informed the NCLAT that Bakshi would soon clear the dues of Hudco. But the NCLAT said he would have to furnish the security deposit first before he can travel abroad.
The NCLAT order stated that “Fraud is committed by you. You have violated the orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). You can violate our order also,"DRT has asked not to transfer (your share) and you transferred it in violation of its order.”
In September, NCLAT had said it will review the settlement between fast food major McDonald's and its Indian partner Vikram Bakshi over the sale of his shares in Connaught Plaza Restaurants Ltd (CPRL).
McDonald's wholly owns CPRL after Bakshi transferred his share in the joint venture to the US-based firm. CRPL had temporarily shut down its 160 stores and reopened 13 restaurants in Delhi and its suburbs in May. On May 6, McDonald's and Bakshi had told NCLAT that they were working towards an out-of-court settlement to end their dispute.
Both Bakshi and McDonald’s had approached the NCLAT to withdraw cases filed against each other but it was opposed by Hudco, which is claiming Rs. 195-crore dues from Bakshi.