&w=3840&q=100)
NCLT allows govt to freeze Gensol Engineering accounts in fraud probe
The Ahmedabad bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday permitted the central government to freeze the bank accounts and lockers of Gensol Engineering Ltd, its 10 subsidiaries, and several individuals after multiple investigations revealed major financial irregularities, The Economic Times reported.
In an order on Wednesday, the NCLT said the companies had diverted funds—raised for specific purposes—to related parties, a serious violation of the Companies Act, 2013.
'The funds, raised for specified purposes by the companies, were illicitly transferred to various related parties, in gross violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013,' the NCLT said, as reported by Live Mint.
Widespread impact of fraud allegations
The tribunal noted that 'the pattern of illegal fund diversion, asset misstatement, and share price manipulation has caused irreparable harm to public shareholders, creditors, and other stakeholders".
The court's order is based on findings by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The MCA had sought 10 urgent actions in the case, which the tribunal has approved.
The court said Gensol Engineering and related parties 'have committed grave violations of corporate governance norms", including 'diversion of company funds by the promoters and allegations of manipulating financial statements and illegal alienation of assets".
The NCLT concluded that the MCA, Sebi, and SFIO findings 'prima facie support the petitioner's claims of systemic fraud involving substantial public interest,' and accordingly granted interim relief. The next hearing is scheduled for June 3.
Personal liability for directors
The MCA has invoked Section 339 of the Companies Act, which could make company directors and officers personally responsible for debts if fraud is proven.
The tribunal also directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Indian Banks' Association to freeze the bank accounts and lockers of those under investigation.
Further, the court barred the individuals and companies from selling, mortgaging, or transferring properties, securities, or valuables.
Insolvency and past enforcement actions
Earlier this month, state-owned Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (Ireda) initiated insolvency proceedings against Gensol over a loan default of ₹510 crore. Ireda has also approached the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) of the Delhi Police.
The matter gained wider attention after Sebi, on April 15, barred Gensol's founders from trading in the stock market or holding leadership roles in any listed company. Sebi also ordered a forensic audit of the company.
Sebi's investigation revealed that the Gensol promoters, Anmol and Puneet Jaggi, had allegedly used loans from Power Finance Corporation (PFC) and Ireda for personal expenses.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
RBI's gold loan direction brings clarity, standardisation, greater consumer protection, says Manappuram Finance MD
'The 'Lending Against Gold and Silver Collateral Directions, 2025' notified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Friday has brought clarity, standardisation, and greater consumer protection to the gold and silver loan segment, said V. P. Nandakumar, Managing Director and CEO of Manappuram Finance Ltd. 'The guidelines on valuation, assaying, and loan-to-value (LTV) ratios are timely and progressive. In particular, the provision allowing a maximum LTV ratio of 85% for loans amount up to ₹2.5 lakh. It will significantly benefit small-ticket borrowers,' he said. Stating that the new directions have consolidated and replaced earlier circulars, he said these have create a uniform code applicable to all regulated entities, including NBFCs, banks, and cooperative institutions. 'These guidelines aim to promote transparency, ethical practices, and prudential discipline while enhancing financial access for individuals and micro-enterprises,' he said. Highlighting that the continued eligibility of gold jewellery, ornaments, and coins as collateral reflected the RBI's recognition of the critical role of gold loans in meeting short-term liquidity needs, he said the standardised assaying process—mandating borrower presence and use of reference prices from the Indian Bullion and Jewellers Association (IBJA) or SEBI-regulated exchanges—would foster uniformity across the industry. 'Manappuram Finance has long adhered to rigorous valuation norms, and we view this framework as an endorsement of our transparent and ethical lending model,' he emphasised. On the revised LTV guidelines, Mr Nandakumar said, 'The RBI has prudently capped LTVs at 85% for loans up to ₹2.5 lakh, 80% for loans between ₹2.5 and ₹5 lakh, and 75% for loans above ₹5 lakh. These thresholds strike a balance between borrower access and systemic stability. We are fully aligned with these stipulations and will implement them rigorously.' Regarding bullet repayment loans, he acknowledged the RBI's cap of 12 months for such loans, with renewals allowed only upon creditworthiness and interest repayment. On the customer conduct and protection norms, he said, 'The emphasis on clear documentation, borrower communication, and transparent auction procedures aligns with our customer-first approach. We already involve borrowers in the assaying process and provide detailed disclosures in loan agreements, and these practices will continue.' On collateral management, he said, 'We place the utmost importance on secure storage, stringent internal audits, and surprise verifications. The RBI's directives reinforce our long-standing commitment to safeguarding customer assets.' Welcoming the RBI's provisions for fair compensation in the event of loss, damage, or delayed return of pledged assets, and its emphasis on disbursing loans directly into verified bank accounts in compliance with KYC and Income Tax Act provisions, he said' These directions reflect the regulator's focus on integrity, accountability, and customer rights. 'We are fully prepared to implement the new guidelines well ahead of the April 2026 deadline. We believe this framework will further bolster public trust in gold loans as a reliable and responsible source of credit,' he stated.
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
Govt. asks Commissioners of ULBs in Andhra Pradesh to ensure no person is engaged in manual scavenging
Following the directions issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as part of its judgment on April 23, the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA&UD) Department has asked the Commissioners of all the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to ensure the strict implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The court had emphasised the need for timely payment of compensation and provision of full rehabilitation measures, including employment to the spouse, free education to children, and appropriate skill training to the kin of the deceased sewer workers. Following the directions, the department had on June 6, 2025, directed the Commissioners of all the ULBs in the State to see to it that no person was engaged in manual scavenging and that all cleaning operations were fully mechanised. 'Manual entry into sewers or septic tanks shall be strictly prohibited under all circumstances,' an official release said. The release added that in exceptional cases, where manual intervention was unavoidable, prior approval must be obtained from the Commissioner concerned and all prescribed safety equipment must be provided in accordance with the PEMSR Act, 2013. In the event of death in a sewer or septic tank, irrespective of whether the deceased was employed directly, indirectly, or through a contractor, an ex gratia of ₹30 lakh shall be mandatorily paid to the next of kin by the agency concerned, the release said. The department also asked the Commissioners to ensure that FIRs were promptly registered against any individual, agency, or contractor under relevant sections, and set up a dedicated helpline or mechanism for reporting violations and grievances related to manual scavenging. The Commissioners had been asked to create awareness among municipal staff, contractors, and the public on the legal prohibitions and penalties associated with manual scavenging, and the rights and rehabilitation measures available to the affected persons. The 2013 Act deals with the provisions of sanitary latrines, identification of manual scavengers and their rehabilitation, responsibilities of local authorities for elimination of insanitary latrines, implementation mechanism, procedure for trial, vigilance committees and miscellaneous.
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
Speed of doing business for ease of doing business: Streamlining India's corporate restructuring
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of .) Corporate restructuring is the process of reorganising a company's structure, operations, or ownership through mergers, acquisitions, demergers, or other arrangements, to improve efficiency, unlock value, or respond to changing market a vital mechanism for a dynamic market in India, listed companies alone have a market capitalisation of over USD 5.13 trillion, and corporation tax alone had a GDP contribution of a little over 3% in the last financial year. With such high stakes, streamlining the corporate restructuring process is essential. A smooth, efficient restructuring regime means companies can adapt quickly, investors gain confidence, and the overall business climate remains long ago, corporate restructurings in India used to be court-driven and extremely drawn-out processes. The Companies Act 2013 sought to modernise this by shifting jurisdiction from High Courts to a specialised tribunal. Thus, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was empowered to approve or reject schemes of arrangement, mergers, demergers, and other corporate restructuring plans for both listed and unlisted practice, while NCLT did bring some improvement over the High Courts, the gains have been limited. Over time, NCLT's workload expanded dramatically beyond just Companies Act schemes. Notably, with the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, NCLT became thein India. The tribunal that was meant to fast-track restructuring approvals found itself swamped with thousands of bankruptcy cases, in addition to other company law matters. The transfer of jurisdiction achieved one goal, moving matters out of the general courts, but it also inadvertently concentrated a vast array of complex proceedings (from mergers to insolvency to shareholder disputes) in a single institution, leading to bottlenecks in the restructuring approval process once data on NCLT case pendency and throughput underscore the severity of the challenge. As of March 2025, over 15,000 cases were pending before the NCLT. This congestion directly translates into delays. On average, companies must wait 9 to 12 months or more from the time of filing a scheme of arrangement to finally get NCLT approval. It is not uncommon for straightforward mergers, even those approved by all shareholders and regulators, to languish for several months awaiting a tribunal hearing and order. Such delays impose significant costs: business plans are put on hold pending legal sanctions, synergies from mergers are deferred, and uncertainty looms over employees and investors.A key reason for the delay is theof NCLT's. Under the IBC, resolution proceedings are time-bound (330 days outer limit, though often extended) and tend to dominate tribunal schedules due to their urgency and the stakes involved. As a result, merger/demerger applications (which have) oftenAnother issue is that the NCLT process suffers from the delicacy of efforts. For listed companies, before approaching NCLT, a scheme must be vetted by SEBI (via stock exchanges) for compliance with securities laws and minority shareholder protection. After SEBI and shareholders' approval, the matter goes to NCLT, which primarily checks whether due process was followed. In effect, NCLT's role in many merger cases is largely supervisory, ensuring legal compliance, rather than. This raises the question: Is the extra layer of NCLT approval always necessary, especially in casesA favourable jurisprudence is ideally one that minimises judicial intervention in routine business matters. In this regard, India can draw valuable lessons from global models that have struck a more efficient regulatory balance. The United States, for instance, adopts a market-led, regulatory-overseen model where corporate mergers typically do not require court approval unless a dispute arises. Regulatory bodies like the SEC and the antitrust authority step in only for specific oversight, and even those processes are governed by well-defined, time-bound frameworks. This clarity and predictability reduce legal uncertainty and allow corporate transactions to close swiftly, often in under three months. A similar principle underlies Singapore's restructuring framework, where administrative merger routes are standard and courts play a role only when necessary. A step ahead of USA in terms of regulatory feasibility, Singapore's Companies Act permits court-free statutory amalgamations, where two companies can merge simply by gaining shareholder approval and notifying the regulator (ACRA), thereby further reducing the role of state (let alone judiciary) in what essentially is supposed to be a market driven practice. The United Arab Emirates also conducts corporate mergers under its Commercial Companies Law, following an administrative process, requiring no court approval unless objections arise from creditors or significant minority shareholders. Even then, the objection period is capped at 30 days, after which the merger proceeds by default. The UAE has further institutionalised time-bound regulatory review: its Competition Committee, empowered under the 2023 Competition Law, must assess large merger notifications within 90 days. Globally, trust is placed in regulatory frameworks and judicial intervention, reserved for exceptions, is not the norm. By emulating global best practices, India has the opportunity to reimagine its corporate restructuring the Indian government signalled in the latest budget that it similarly intends to extend and simplify such speedy merger processes for a broader set of companies. In the Union Budget speech in February 2025, the Finance Minister announced that 'requirements and procedures for speedy approval of company mergers will be rationalised. The scope for fast-track mergers will also be widened and the process made simpler.' The government has shown intent, and thus, a timely policy recommendation is stated objectives of efficiency and regulatory comity with globally aligned standards can be achieved in two unlisted entities, a potential path to fast-track restructuring is to expand the mandate for the Regional Directors (RDs) of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), who already oversee certain corporate approvals. India's legal framework already contains a germ of this idea in the form of 'Fast Track Mergers.' The Companies Act, 2013, provides a simplified route for certain small mergers (e.g. between a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, or between two small companies) where NCLT approval is not required. This fast-track mechanism is narrow in scope, applicable only to small firms or intra-group restructurings. However, it demonstrates the viability of bypassing the tribunal when matters are straightforward or low risk. In fact, to make fast-track mergers more effective, the government amended the rules in 2023 to enforce strict timelines: the RD must ordinarily confirm within 45 days (if no objections) or 60 days (if minor objections) of receiving the scheme, failing which the scheme is deemed the government can create a 'Corporate Restructuring Authority', akin to SEBI, for approving schemes of arrangement of unlisted companies. Such an authority would operate under the MCA and specialise in corporate restructurings of privately held companies with a mandated timeline crossing which the proposal shall be considered passed per defaltam. NCLT shall only be resorted to in cases where the proposed authority finds something amiss. Such a dedicated body would bring several advantages: it would build expertise in restructuring, corporate valuation, accounting, and legal compliance for merger schemes, leading to more consistent and informed decisions; it would be more accessible; and it could maintain faster turnaround times. In essence, unlisted companies would get a regulator dedicated to their restructuring needs, ensuring they are not left behind in the push for listed companies, a compelling case can be made that the final approval of merger/demerger schemes should be handled by the SEBI, without requiring NCLT intervention. SEBI is already deeply involved in the process. As the capital markets regulator, it reviews and comments on every scheme of arrangement involving a listed firm. No listed company merger or demerger can even be filed at NCLT without prior SEBI approval and a compliance certificate from the stock exchange. In other words, SEBI serves as a first-line gatekeeper. SEBI has the expertise and mandate to protect investors, which is the core concern in listed-company restructurings. The NCLT's authority in such cases is primarily to act as a watchdog, ensuring the procedure was fair, minority shareholders and creditors were not short-changed, and all legal formalities are in order. Thus, by the time a scheme has passed through SEBI and shareholder approvals, the role left for NCLT is quite limited and arguably adds redundant delay.A useful precedent exists in India's banking sector. Bank mergers do not go to NCLT at all. They are governed by a separate mechanism under the Banking Regulation Act, wherein the final authority to sanction the merger lies with the RBI, not a court or tribunal. This framework has worked well to facilitate faster consolidation in the banking industry, a testament to the efficacy of this could play an analogous role for listed non-bank companies, where it could act as a nodal authority, cutting out several months of waiting and procedural hearings, leading to shorter timelines for deal closure, reduced legal uncertainty, and one less layer of regulatory cost for listed-company schemes entirely to SEBI, expanding fast-track merger eligibility, and creating a dedicated Corporate Restructuring Authority under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for unlisted firms would not only cut down on procedural bottlenecks but also align India's business landscape with the regulatory agility of leading economies. This must be a timely reform to power the
