NCLAT hauls up Vikram Bakshi, asks him to deposit security to go abroad

Appellate tribunal asks Bakshi and his wife to deposit Rs 5 crore each as security before flying out of the country

Vikram Bakshi
Aashish Aryan New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Oct 23 2019 | 11:33 PM IST
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) came down heavily on the former McDonalds India promoter Vikram Bakshi and observed that he had committed a fraud by not following the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) orders prohibiting sale of his shares in the company.

Bakshi, the former head of McDonalds India Private Limited, and his wife Madhurima Bakshi had on Wednesday moved an application seeking permission to go abroad. The court, while accepting their plea, said they must deposit Rs 5 crore each as security by Thursday before flying abroad.

“The fraud has already been played by you by selling shares in violation of DRT orders. You have already violated their (DRT’s) orders. You can violate our orders too…once you leave who will go and catch hold of you?” a two-judge Bench led by Chairperson Justice S J Mukhopadhaya observed.

The NCLAT had on September 18 barred him from leaving the country without informing it or the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) first. The appellate tribunal had then also said that the deal between Bakshi’s Connaught Plaza Restaurants Limited (CPRL) and McDonalds India would not be given effect to until further orders. During that hearing, NCLAT had also said that prima facie, the agreement between Bakshi and McDonalds was in violation of the DRT's orders.

Earlier this year on May 7, Bakshi and McDonald's India had informed the NCLAT that the two parties were working on an out-of-court- settlement to settle their six-year-old dispute. According to the terms of the settlement, McDonald’s India has bought over the 50 per cent stake held by Bakshi and his wife in CPRL for an undisclosed amount.

However, before the deal could be given effect, Hudco sought to be heard by the NCLAT before the final approval for McDonalds India Private Limited-Vikram Bakshi out of court settlement was given the go ahead. Hudco had claimed that it was owed Rs 190 crore dues by a company owned by Vikram Bakshi, the managing director of CRPL and that those dues must be cleared from the money that Bakshi got from his deal with McDonalds India.

Bakshi had, in 1995, inked a deal with McDonald’s to open outlets in India. The partnership, a 50:50 joint venture between McDonald’s India and Bakshi’s Connaught Plaza Restaurant (CPRL), was inked in a way such that Bakshi’s CPRL would be responsible for opening and managing McDonald's outlets in north and east India.

One subscription. Two world-class reads.

Already subscribed? Log in

Subscribe to read the full story →
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

Topics :NCLATVikram BakshiMcDonald's IndiaMcDonald's vs Vikram BakshiMcDonald's dispute

Next Story