Uncategorized – SSARVI Consultancy LLP

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GINDA) v. Roma Unicorn Designex Consortium

Posted on February 21, 2023February 21, 2023 by admin

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GINDA) v. Roma Unicorn Designex Consortium

NCLAT, Principal Bench

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 180 of 2022

With

GNIDA v. Earth Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 629 of 2022; Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 630 of 2022

NCLT allows extension of CIRP period by six months and allows the Resolution Applicant to again participate in the process.

Background of the Case:

The three appeals filed by the same appellant challenge orders passed by the NCLT arising out of the same CIRP under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

Appeal No. 630 of 2022 was filed to challenge the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the NCLT wherein the RP filed an application under S. 30 (6) approving the resolution plan submitted by Roma Unicon Disgnex Consortium.
Appeal no. 629 of 2022 was filed against order dated 08.06.2021 wherein the the resolution plan made by M/s Alpha Corp Development Pvt Ltd was approved.
Appeal no. 180 of 2022 was filed against order dated 07.12.2021 wherein GNIDA was directed to implement resolution plan dated 05.04.2021.

Facts of the Case:

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is an Authority constituted under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 for the development of certain areas in the Uttar Pradesh into urban and industrial township. The Authority under the above 1976 Act is empowered to acquire the land, develop the same and make allotment of plots on lease basis. The Appellant vide allotment letter dated 19.03.2010 allotted to the Builder Residential/ Large Group Housing Plot No.GH-04, Sector 01, Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh with area of 73900 sq. mtrs to a Consortium consisting of – (i) M/s Earth Infrastructures Limited; (ii) Raus Infras Ltd.; and (iii) M/s. Shalini Holdings Limited @ Rs.10050 per sq. mtr.
Under the terms and conditions of the Builders Scheme, the Consortium was to form a Special Purpose Company (SPC). A separate corporate legal entity namely – M/s Earth Towne Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (“Earth Towne”) was incorporated on 21.07.2010.
The Appellant executed a Lese Deed dated 01.09.2010 in favour of M/s Earth Towne Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., which consisted – M/s Earth Infrastructures Limited as a Lead Member and M/s Raus Infrastructure and M/s Shalini Holdings Ltd. as Members. The Earth Infrastructures Ltd. had 78% of shareholding and other two Members had 11% of shareholding in the Special Purpose Company.
As per terms and conditions of the registered Lease Deed dated 01.09.2010 M/s Earth Towne Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. was to develop and market the project on demarcated Plot No.GH-04, Sector 01, Greater Noida. The Lease Deed was executed for consideration of the total premium of Rs.74,26,95,000.00 and 10% premium was paid. Balance 90% premium was to be payable in 16 half-yearly instalments. Interest @ 12% per annum was to be paid after 24 months.
After the execution of the Lease Deed on 01.09.2010 an unregistered Development Agreement dated 09.09.2010 was entered between Earth Towne and Earth Infrastructures Ltd., where First Party – Earth Towne was to develop the land. The development rights were given to the Earth Infrastructures Ltd. by the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement also stipulated that Earth Towne shall remain the lease right holder of the Scheduled Land and the Second Party shall only have the permission to enter into the Scheduled Land only for carrying out the development/ construction activities, as a Licensee. The area sharing ratio between Earth Towne and Earth Infrastructures Ltd. was 18% and 82%. On an application made by Lessee – Earth Towne, the Appellant had sanctioned building plan for construction on Lease Land. The Project was known as Earth Towne Project.
Another Lease Deed dated 04.02.2008 was also executed by the Appellant in favour of M/s Neo Multimedia Ltd. A Development Agreement was entered between M/s Neo Multimedia Ltd. and M/s Earth Infrastructures Ltd. on 25.04.2011, under which the development and construction was to be carried out by Earth Infrastructures Ltd. on an area of 58866.03 sq. mtrs on Plot No.TZ-01, Sector-Tech zone in Greater Noida.
Similarly a third Lease Deed dated 01.09.2009 was executed by the Appellant in favour of M/s Nishtha Software Pvt. Ltd. A Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 20.02.2010 was entered between M/s Nishtha Sofware Pvt. Ltd. and the Corporate Debtor. A Development Agreement was entered between M/s Nishtha Software Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Earth Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. for land area of 20911.23 sq. mtrs at Plot No. 48, Sector-Knowledge Park No.05, Greater Noida.
The Earth Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. was to develop, as per the Development Agreements, on lands owned by Earth Towne, M/s Neo Multimedia Ltd. and M/s. Nishtha Sofware Pvt. Ltd. The Earth Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. started three Projects namely – Earth Towne Project, Earth Techone and Earth Sapphire Court. The building permissions were obtained by the Lessees for the aforesaid three parcel of lands for construction of the Projects advertised. A large number of homebuyers booked the residential flats in the aforesaid three Projects and paid substantial amount, which were received by the Developer and in few cases also by Lessee of the respective land parcels. The Projects were registered with UP RERA
On an Application filed by Financial Creditor – Mr. Deepak Khanna against the Earth Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) under Section 7, the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 06.06.2018 commenced CIRP against the Earth Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. One Shri Surinder Kumar was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP”) and subsequently Shri Akash Singhal was appointed as RP.
The RP prepared the Information Memorandum in June 2019 regarding the Corporate Debtor, where details of all the three Projects (which are subject matter of three Appeal(s) under consideration) were given. Form-G was issued inviting Expression of Interest for the Corporate Debtor on 19.04.2019. Thereafter on 22.05.2019. while issuing Expression of Interest the Resolution Plans were invited for the entire Project of the Corporate Debtor, individually or collectively.
The Appellant on 18.09.2019 has sent a letter to RP claiming dues on the subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor namely Earth Towne for an amount of Rs.148,37,46,148/-, arising out of the Lease Deed executed on 01.09.2010.
In pursuance of the request for Resolution Plan, Resolution Plans were submitted. Roma Unicorn Designex Consortium filed its Resolution Plan for the Earth Towne Project, which Resolution Plan was approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) in their 14th Meeting held on 26.08.2019 with 100% voting share. The said Resolution Plan was subsequently on an Application filed by the RP has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 05.04.2021.

Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. submitted its Resolution Plan for four Projects. The Resolution Plan submitted by Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. was approved in 19th Meeting of the CoC held on 11.11.2019. On an Application filed by Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 08.06.2021 approved the Resolution Plan filed by Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd. with regard to two projects, i.e., Earth Sapphire Court and Earth Techone.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.630 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order dated 05.04.2021, approving the Resolution Plan of Earth Towne.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.629 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order dated 08.06.2021, approving the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Alpha Corp Development Pvt. Ltd
In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.180 of 2022, which has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2021, an IA No.4235 of 2021 was filed by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium praying for certain directions against the Appellant including the direction to transfer the lease land in favour of the Successful Resolution Applicant. The IA No.4235 of 2021 was opposed by the Appellant by filing a reply. It was submitted by the Appellant in reply to the Application that land was allotted to M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited and two other Companies and the lease was executed in the name of Earth Towne Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent (Appellant herein) submitted that proposed transfer is against the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed. The Appellant stated that claim of the Appellant was never vetted, verified and determined, hence, the prayer made in the Application be rejected. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties passed an order on 07.12.2021 allowing IA No.4235 of 2021.
The Appellant aggrieved against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority has filed these three Appeal(s).

Issues:

Whether in the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, i.e., Earth Infrastructures Limited, the assets of the land holding companies, i.e., subsidiary of the Corporate Debtor can be treated to be assets of the Corporate Debtor?
Whether, in the Resolution Plans submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicants, i.e., Roma Unicon Designex Consortium and Alpha Corp Development Private Limited, the assets of the subsidiary, i.e., lease lands could have been dealt and the Resolution Plan could legally contain a clause for transfer of the lease hold rights by the Appellant in favour of Successful Resolution Applicant without there being any prior permission from the Appellant?
Whether assets of the subsidiary companies can be dealt with in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of holding Company?
Whether the Appellant was required to be made party to the CIRP proceedings and heard before approval of any resolution plan dealing with the Project land?
Whether, Resolution Professional acted within the ambit of I & B Code in giving a certificate that Resolution Plans submitted by Roma Unicon Designex Consortium and Alpha Corp Development Private Limited are in accordance with the provisions of the Code?
Whether Appellant was aware of the development carried out by the Corporate Debtor on the lease land before commencement of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor?
What is the way out in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

Arguments:

By Appellant:

It was the Appellant who was owner of the lease lands,

Appellant

Respondent

The Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum as prepared in June, 2019 has disclosed the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Details of five projects were separately included. In the Information Memorandum it is stated that the Corporate Debtor has development and selling rights of five projects and land is allotted to different land-owning companies which are the subsidiaries of Earth Infrastructure Ltd. With regard to project Earth Towne, the name of land-owning company in the Information Memorandum was wrongly mentioned as Earth Infrastructures Limited, Raus Infra Ltd. and Shalini Holding Ltd. whereas they were members of the consortium in whose favour land was allotted but by virtue of Lease Deed executed dated 01.09.2010 and the land-owning company was “Earth Towne Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

The Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional, Mr. G. P. Madaan refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution Professional in the Information Memorandum has given all the details regarding the land-owning companies and the details of the developer who has development and selling rights over the five projects. It is submitted that the Information Memorandum has also given details of the claim which was received from the Appellant. The Resolution Professional has also shared the letter of its dues of Rs.148,37,46,148/- received from the Appellant claiming to be dues of Earth Towne. It is submitted that it was the Corporate Debtor which was making all payments against the Lease Deed dated 01.09.2010 and Earth Towne was nothing but alter ego of Corporate Debtor. Appellant was not vigilant of its claim. Appellant was well aware of the insolvency process which was initiated against the Corporate Debtor.

Judgment: (Quoted)

Answer 1: In the CIRP Process of Corporate Debtor that is Earth Infrastructure Limited, assets of the Land Holding Companies cannot be treated to be assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Answer. 2: Resolution Plan submitted by Roma Unicon Designex consortium and Alpha Corp Development Private Limited could not have dealt with the project land which was a land leased out by the Appellant in favour of the Land Holding Company.

Answer 3: Assets of the Subsidiary Company cannot be dealt with in the CIRP Process of Holding Company without the permission of the Lessor.

Answer 4: Appellant was required to be made party to the CIRP Process before approval of any resolution plan dealing with project land.

Answer 5: We direct the Registry to forward the Copy of this Order to IBBI to examine the work and conduct of RP and take such action as it may deem fit and proper.

Answer 6: The knowledge by the Appellant of carrying out development by the corporate debtor cannot be read as their consent to transfer the land in favour of the Successful Resolution Applicant or any other person.

Answer 7:

Looking to the stage at which the projects are as on date and looking to the fact that allottees have paid hundreds of crores rupees in the above three projects to the Corporate Debtor and waiting for possession of the flat for last several years, we have to find out ways and means to save the interest of the allottees as well as the interest of the Appellant. We are of the view that Resolution Professional jointly with Flat Buyer Association of respective projects be permitted to make an Application to the Appellant seeking permission for transfer of land in favour of the proposed resolution Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.180, 629 & 630 of 2022 107 applicants so as to execute the necessary transfer deeds in favour of the allottees subject to payment of dues of the Appellant. It shall be open for the Appellant to enter into an arrangement with the Resolution Applicant and Flat Buyer Associations for payment of dues and thereafter it may permit transfer of the land so ultimately allottees be given rights and the projects can be developed by the SRA. 92. The RP has to publish a fresh Form-G inviting fresh Resolution Plans with specific condition that resolution plans shall be presented before the COC for consideration only when dues of the appellants are paid and permission of appellant is obtained for transfer of lease land. The Roma Unicon as well as Alpha Corp shall also be permitted to file resolution plans. The Appellant shall recalculate the dues and communicate to the Resolution Professional and Flat Buyers Associations without charging any penal interest within 15 days. Fresh Resolutions Plans so submitted will be considered and examined by the RP and be submitted before CoC for fresh consideration and approval. The application of Resolution Plan may be filed for approval of the plan, thereafter.

Conclusion:

In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of these Appeals, in following manner:

The Order dated 05th April, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Order dated 08th June, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and Order dated 07th December, 2021 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.180, 629 & 630 of 2022 108 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in I.A. No. 401(ND)2017 are set aside.
The Appellant is directed to recalculate its dues payable by the respective land holding companies without charging any penal interest and communicate the same to the Resolution Professional and the Flat Buyer Association(s) of three projects within 15 days of this order.

The appellant is made party to the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor and shall be entitled to participate in the process hereinafter.

After receiving the details of the dues, the Resolution Professional shall publish a fresh Form-G containing a condition that Resolution Plans received in pursuance of request for Resolution Plan shall be placed for consideration after receiving prior approval of the Appellant for transfer of land in favour of the proposed resolution applicant subject to arrangement for payment of dues of the Appellant.
The Appellant shall consider granting permission for the transfer of project land under the three projects as above on the terms and conditions as finalized by the Appellant with Resolution Professional and flat buyer associations of respective projects.
The Resolution Plan so received shall be again examined by the Resolution Professional and placed before the CoC for fresh consideration. All consequential steps shall be taken thereafter. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.180, 629 & 630 of 2022 109.

All above steps till the submission of application by Resolution Professional before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of the plan, if any, shall be completed within six months from today.
The CIRP period is extended for a period of six months from today.

About the Author- The summary of this order has been composed by the Associates of SSARVI Resolution Services LLP. SSARVI stands for “Special Situation Assets Resolution, Viability & Investment Advisory”. It provides services like Insolvency and Resolution, Litigation, Strategic Debt Restructuring, distress assets sale or investment, to all stakeholders like lenders, borrowers, suppliers of goods/services, statutory authorities and others.

SSARVI is having presence in Delhi, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bangalore etc. SSARVI Resolution Services LLP provides support services to Insolvency Professionals. SSARVI have an experienced team of Insolvency Professionals, Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Experiences Graduates and BCOM Graduate and Advocates who provide pro-active strategies and time bound solutions for addressing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Fast Track Resolution Process, Liquidation and Winding up. SSARVI is empanelled with IBBI panel for ALL INDIA NCLT LOCATIONS, January 1, 2023 to June 2023 for IRP, RP, BT, Liquidator.

Whether Adjudication Authority has the power to direct the COC to consider a Resolution Plan after approval of the Resolution Plan of Successful Resolution applicant?

Posted on April 28, 2022May 2, 2022 by admin

COURT:NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

CITATION: STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD. v/s SHRI AVIL MENEZES, RP of AMW AUTOCIMPONENT LTD & Ors.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 89 of 2022

FACTUAL MATRIX:

An appeal was filed by Successful Resolution Applicant of Steel Strips Wheels Ltd challenging the impugned order which was filed by the respondent 3 under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which the Adjudicating Authority has impugned.

The facts of the case are, the CIRP was already initiated against the Corporate Debtor, AMW Auto Component Ltd and Form G which is Invitation for Expression of Interest/Resolution Plan was issued.

The COC had fixed the final date for the submission of the resolution plan. Whereas, the appellant has submitted its Resolution Plan.Later, the Appellant was communicated by Resolution Professional that COC has decided to consider the Resolution Plan of the Appellant.

After that,the Adjudicating Authority allowed 8 weeks’ time to complete the CIRP and the Appellant submitted its revised Resolution Plan. In the COC meeting which was held the resolution plan which was submitted by the appellant was considered and approved by the COC with 98.55% voting shares.

Interim Application was filed by Resolution Professional for seeking approval of the Resolution Plan which was submitted by the Appellant. Respondent 3 requested Resolution Professional to submit joint resolution plan. So, this request was put forth by Resolution Professional before the COC.

In the COC meeting, it was held that the resolution plan was already submitted by the appellant and the same has been approved and the application for approval of plan has been filed by the Resolution Professional before Adjudicating Authority and due to that new Expression of Interest cannot be considered.

So, Respondent 3 filed an Interim Application to the Adjudicating Authority impleading the COC and the Resolution Professional and prayed for permitting the Applicant to intervene in the IA which was filed by the Respondent 1 seeking approval of resolution plan.

Also, the Resolution Professional and COC be directed not to not to consider the Resolution Plan of the Appellant.

This application was allowed and passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Aggrieved by the said order, thelearned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Resolution Plan of the Appellant has been already approved by the COC with 98.55% voting shares and the Application for approval of the Resolution Plan has also filed and is pending before the Adjudicating Authority.So, there was no point for the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order for consideration of the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No.3.

Also, the period for submitting the Resolution Plan had expired and Respondent 3 has no authority to submit any Resolution Plan. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 3 submits that the Resolution Plan submitted by them is a joint Resolution Plan.

It has also submitted that the Appellant itself had failed to submit the Resolution Plan before the final date of submission fixed by the COC so keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Code, in the interest of the Corporate Debtor the Respondent 3 should be permitted to submit Resolution Plan.

Both the parties have referred and relied on judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

The request which was received by the Respondent 3, the Resolution Professional stated that the joint expression of interest submitted by the respondent was discussed and deliberated and unanimously opined that since the appellant’s plan has already been approved by the COC and the Plan Approval Application has already been filed by the RP before the Learned Adjudicating Authority, so a new expression of interest cannot be considered.

Also, the COC in its meeting has clearly refused to consider the plan of Respondent 3 after over of CIRP which the fact was communicated by the Resolution Professional to the Respondent 3.

As per the code, COC could not consider the Resolution Plan of Respondent 3 after the approval of plan of the Appellant.

The respondent 3 has also not mentioned clearly why COC should consider the resolution plan of Respondent 3. There was no valid reason.

It was held by the Supreme Court that CIRP is a time-bound process[1] with a specific aim of maximizing the value of asset with strict timelines which need to be adhered to by all the parties, at all stages of the CIRP.

After hearing both the parties and with the consideration of Supreme Court’s, it is said that there is no valid reason given by the Adjudicating Authority for permitting the consideration of plan of Respondent 3.

The consideration of the Resolution Plan of Respondent 3 shall be breaching both timeline as well as the finality of the Resolution Plan of the Appellant which was approved by the COC.

After discussion the learned counsel for the appellant, the IA filed by the respondent can be rejected on two grounds[2] that:

The respondent 3 has come after the submissions of approved resolution plan to the Adjudicating Authority and
The COC or RP has not sought any relief to recall the approved resolution plan and for allowing them to reconsider the approved resolution plan along with the new resolution plan offering better value.

The Tribunal noticed the judgment[3] of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the COC to consider the second Resolution plan submitted before the Authority.

So, in this present case the Tribunal supports the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant.

Thus, after viewing everything there was no valid reason indicated in the order of the Adjudicating Authority for permitting the COC to consider the Resolution Plan of the Respondent 3. The Hon’ble Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble Adjudicating authority.

[1]Ebix Singapore Private Limited vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd &Anr

[2]Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd vs Dushyant Dave &Ors

[3]Committee Of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd vs Satish Kumar Gupta

TCS Q4 results | Net profit rises 7% YoY to Rs 9,926 crore, revenue grows to Rs 50,591 crore

Posted on April 11, 2022April 11, 2022 by

“Increasing participation in our customers’ growth and transformation journeys, and an all-time high order book provide a strong and sustainable foundation for continued growth ahead, ” said CEO Rajesh Gopinatahan.

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS), India’s largest IT services company and the second most valuable firm, on April 11 reported a consolidated net profit of Rs 9,926 crore for the fourth quarter ended March 2022, registering a 7 percent on-year growth. On a sequential basis, the growth in profit is 2 percent. The company had reported a consolidated profit after tax (PAT) of Rs 9,246 crore in the corresponding quarter last year. In the December quarter, its PAT stood at Rs 9,769 crore. The consolidated revenue for TCS during the January – March period stood at Rs 50,591 crore, up 16 percent from the year-ago quarter, aided by all-round growth across business verticals, stable deal wins and an increase in transformation spends by corporates. Revenue has increased by 3 percent on a quarterly basis. In constant currency, the increase in revenue is 14.3 percent year-on-year (YoY). The company had reported consolidated revenue of Rs 43,705 crore in the corresponding quarter a year ago. Its revenues during the October-December period came in at Rs 48,885 crore. For the full year period (April-March 2022), the consolidated profit was recorded at Rs 38,327 crore, which is a growth of 18 percent from a profit of Rs 32,430 crore reported for FY21. –ADVERTISEMENT– Ads by RELATED STORIES Over 95% of TCS employees still working from home TCS adds over 1 lakh freshers in FY22, to hire 40,000 freshers in FY23 Consolidated revenue for FY22 stood at Rs 1,91,754 crore, a 17 percent rise from the revenue of Rs 164,177 crore reported for FY21. In constant currency, the growth in revenue was 15.4 percent on year. Though the supply side issues created headwinds for the industry as a whole, demand continued to be strong during the quarter as well as the full year across all markets, industries, and services, with growth led by Cloud, Cyber Security, Enterprise Application Services and IoT & Digital Engineering, the company said in its earnings release. “We are closing FY22 on a strong note, with mid-teen growth and adding the maximum incremental revenue ever”, said Rajesh Gopinathan, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director. “Increasing participation in our customers’ growth and transformation journeys, and an all-time high order book provide a strong and sustainable foundation for continued growth ahead”, Gopinathan added. Deal Wins The company recorded its highest ever order book TCV (total contract value) of $11.3 billion during the quarter, taking the total deal TCV value to $34.6 billion for FY22. Business Performance Verticals All verticals of the business grew in mid to high teens during the quarter. Retail and CPG (consumer product group) grew the most at 22.1 percent due to the opening up of economic activities post the Omicron scare. Manufacturing vertical witnessed a growth of 19 percent while Communications & Media returned a growth of 18.7 percent. Technology & Services vertical grew by 18 percent; Life Sciences and Healthcare grew 16.4 percent during the quarter while BFSI grew by 12.9 percent. On a full year basis, Retail and CPG led the pack with a growth of 20.6 percent, Manufacturing rose 19.4 percent, Life Sciences and Healthcare grew by 19.2 percent, BFSI witnessed a growth of 16.7 percent, Technology & Services grew by 15.8 percent while Communications & Media grew by 14 percent. Geographies The largest market of the company, the North America witnessed a healthy growth of 18.7 percent during the quarter while UK and Continental Europe grew by 13 and 10.1 percent, respectively. Among the emerging markets, strong growth of 20.6 percent was witnessed in Latin America while Middle East & Africa grew by 7.3 percent. The company’s business in India witnessed a growth of 7 percent and Asia Pacific market returned with a growth of 5.5 percent. Full year growth for North America stood at 17.5 percent, for Continental Europe it was 15.1 percent while for UK, the full year growth stood at 14.3 percent. The emerging markets except Asia Pacific witnessed a double-digit growth in mid-high teens. Margins The gross margins for the company during Q4FY22 and FY22 stood at 40 percent which was a decline of 100 bps, both on a quarterly and on full year basis. The gross margins in Q4FY21 and FY21 were registered at 41 percent. The impact of supply side pressures was evident in the operating margins for the quarter which declined by 200 bps to 25 percent compared to the same period a year ago. On a full year basis, the decline was even more pronounced as the operating margins tanked 800 basis points to 22 percent compared to 30 percent for FY21. “While continuing to make all the investments needed to support our growth aspirations, we managed the headwinds this year to deliver an industry-leading operating margin yet again”, said Samir Seksaria, Chief Financial Officer. The net margins for the quarter and full year were stable at 20 percent. Client Matrix During the year, the company added 10 clients to the $100 million+ bucket; 19 clients were added to the $50 million+ bucket; 40 clients added to the $20 million + bucket and 52 clients were added to the $10 million+ bucket. Human Resource During the quarter as well as the year, the company witnessed its highest ever net addition to its workforce. The company added 35,209 employees on a net basis during the quarter. Total employee headcount at the end of the year stood at 592,195 which is a net addition of 103,546 employees during the year. Women employees now constitute 35.6 percent of the workforce. The company continued to face employee related challenges as its IT services attrition climbed to 17.4 percent at the end of the year. “With the highest ever net addition this year, consistently highest talent retention, benchmark talent development metrics, continued focus on health and well being and numerous industry awards, we have reaffirmed TCS’ position as the #1 employer of choice”, said Milind Lakkad, Chief HR Officer. Dividend TCS has recommended a final dividend of ~Rs 22 per equity share of Re l each. The proposed final dividend shall be paid on the fourth day from the conclusion of the 27th Annual General Meeting, subject to approval of the shareholders of the Company. The TCS stock closed with a gain of Rs 10.75 at Rs 3,696.4 on April 11 at the National Stock Exchange. The stock has appreciated 2.7 percent in the past one month and has generated returns of 11.3 percent during the past one year. .

Gainers & Losers: 10 stocks that moved the most on April 11

Posted on April 11, 2022April 11, 2022 by

Among sectors, power index rose 5 percent, oil & gas index was up over 2 percent and realty index added 1 percent, while IT and capital goods indices fell 1 percent each. BSE Midcap and smallcap indices were up 0.4 percent each.

Benchmark indices ended lower on April 11 with the Nifty finishing below 17,700 dragged by IT and capital goods stocks. At close, the Sensex was down 482.61 points or 0.81% at 58,964.57, while the Nifty ended 109.30 points or 0.61% lower at 17,675.

Tata Motors | CMP: Rs 453 | The stock ended in the green on April 11. Tata Motors is looking to ramp up the production of electric vehicles as demand continues to outpace the manufacturing activity by a huge margin, according to a top company official. The Mumbai-based automaker, which led the passenger electric vehicle space in the domestic market in the last fiscal year, has been receiving an average of 5,500-6,000 bookings in the past two months for its EV range.

TCS closes FY22 with all-time-high order book | Here are 10 key takeaways from results

Posted on April 11, 2022April 11, 2022 by

TCS has added 10 clients in the $100 million+ bucket, and 19 clients in the $50 million+ category, while there was addition of 40 clients in the $20 million+ bucket and 52 clients in the $10 million+ category..

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the country’s largest IT company, has closed 2021-22 on a strong note with an all-time-high order book with revenue as well as profit growth in double digits. Here are 10 key takeaways from financial results:

There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don’t look even slightly believable.If you are going to use a passage of Lorem Ipsum, you need to be sure there isn’t anything embarrassing hidden in the middle of text. All the Lorem Ipsum generators on the Internet tend to repeat predefined chunks as necessary.

RBI restores opening time for regulated financial markets to pre-pandemic timing

Posted on April 11, 2022April 11, 2022 by

The trading hours for various markets regulated by the RBI were amended with effect from April 7, 2020 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on April 11 increased the trading hours for various markets regulated by it. The trading hours were tweaked with effect from April 7, 2020 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, with the substantial easing of restrictions on movement of people and functioning of offices, the central bank has decided to restore the opening time for regulated financial markets to their pre-pandemic timing of 9:00 am, it said in its press release..