https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113134 Derivative forward contracts entered into for hedging foreign exchange exposure were treated as lawful where they were permitted by the RBI/FEMA framework and entered into with an authorised dealer. On that basis, the contracts were not regarded as wagers, void instruments, or arrangements opposed to public policy, and the illegality defence failed. The court also noted that the company was facing a serious but potentially temporary financial stress, with prospects of recovery and a proposed payment schedule. Immediate winding up was therefore considered unnecessary, and coercive steps were deferred subject to compliance with instalment payments and default consequences. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113134 Derivative forward contracts entered into for hedging foreign exchange exposure were treated as lawful where they were permitted by the RBI/FEMA framework and entered into with an authorised dealer. On that basis, the contracts were not regarded as wagers, void instruments, or arrangements opposed to public policy, and the illegality defence failed. The court also noted that the company was facing a serious but potentially temporary financial stress, with prospects of recovery and a proposed payment schedule. Immediate winding up was therefore considered unnecessary, and coercive steps were deferred subject to compliance with instalment payments and default consequences. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113134