NCLAT Orders Review of McDonald’s-Vikram Bakshi Settlement

A two-member NCLAT bench also asked Vikram Bakshi not to leave the country without its permission.

Vikram Bakshi.

(Photo Courtesy: National Restaurant Association of India)

The NCLAT on Wednesday, 18 September said it will review the settlement between food major McDonald's and its estranged Indian partner Vikram Bakshi over sale of his shares in Connaught Plaza Restaurants Ltd.

The appellate tribunal said the settlement reached between McDonald's and Vikram Bakshi was “prima facie” violation of Debt Recovery Tribunal order and it “would not given effect to”.

A two-member NCLAT bench headed by Chairperson Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya also asked Bakshi not to leave the country without its permission.

“We find that parties (Bakshi and McDonald’s ) have reached agreement …. Which is prima facie against the Interim order of DRT. We are of the view that parties should not implement such agreement nor leave the country without intimating DRT or this Tribunal,” said the NCLAT.

During last hearing, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had given Bakshi last and final chance to settle the issue with HUDCO, which is claiming Rs 194 crore in dues.

The NCLAT had allowed the intervention application filed by HUDCO earlier opposing the deal.

CPRL, which is now wholly owned by McDonald’s, after its estranged partner Vikram Bakshi transferred his share in the JV to the US-based firm, had temporarily shut down its 160 stores.

CPRL had on 20 May said that it has re-opened 13 restaurants in Delhi NCR.

On 6 May, estranged partners McDonald's and Bakshi had informed the NCLAT that they were working towards an out-of-court settlement to end their dispute.

On 9 May, they announced an out-of-court settlement with the fast food chain agreeing to buy Bakshi from their joint venture that operated outlets of the US firm in north and east India.

The details of the pact, including financial terms, were not disclosed.

Following that both Bakshi and McDonald's had approached the NCLAT to withdraw cases filed against each other and it was opposed by HUDCO.