ArchiveSeptember 2010

“Subject to contract” agreements and Good Faith

On the issue of when a contract is formed in the case of “subject to contract” agreements, the leading Indian contract law textbook notes that what needs to be determined is, “… whether the formal document is of such a nature that it was the very condition of the contract or whether it was commemorative of the evidence on the point…” (Pollock & Mulla, 12th edn., page...

Independent Directors under the Companies Bill, 2009

The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) pays significant attention to the role of independent directors on Indian companies (particularly the listed ones). While it is not doubted that the existing system of independent directors requires further review and strengthening, the SCF’s recommendations seem to go the other extreme in advocating a process which amounts to...

Depreciation on Intangible Assets

A year ago (almost to the date), we had discussed the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Techno Shares, observing that it appeared at odds with section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Last week, the Supreme Court overruled the Bombay High Court. However, while the conclusion arrived at by the Court seems appropriate on the facts of the case, it is slightly disappointing that the basis on which...

Movement Towards Mandatory CSR

A few weeks ago, we discussed the Government’s proposal to introduce mandatory provisions regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR). A press release issued yesterday by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs suggests mandatory provisions for CSR will be included in the new company legislation. The release states: In response to the overwhelming concerns shown by the Standing Committee of...

Possible Relaxation for Foreign Investors with “Existing Ventures”

Since 1998, the Indian Government’s policy has required foreign investors to obtain approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) while investing in a field where they have or had a previous joint venture in India. In other words, such investors are ineligible from investing under the automatic route. In considering a foreign investor’s application, FIPB usually seeks no-objection...

Supreme Court on Powers of the Competition Appellate Tribunal: SAIL v. Jindal Steel

The Supreme Court of India has decided on the scope of the powers of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, in SAIL v. Jindal Steel. Reports of the decision are available on Legally India and Bar and Bench. We will carry a detailed analysis of the decision shortly. UPDATE: The judgment is now available on the JUDIS website – it can be downloaded through a date-wise search. The judgment...

Some Thoughts on the Vodafone Judgment: A Case for Reconsideration?

The blog has discussed the Vodafone controversy in some detail, and commented on important extracts from the Bombay High Court’s judgment yesterday. This post discusses parts of the judgment in more detail, and suggests, with respect, that the judgment is incorrect. For the convenience of our readers, the paragraph number in question is indicated in brackets where appropriate. Chandrachud J...

Confidentiality = Non-compete?

In India, there is a fair amount of debate regarding the enforceability of non-compete agreements given Section 27 of the Contract Act that invalidates contracts in restraint of trade. Recent developments in California may throw some further light on the issue. Oracle’s appointment of former HP-CEO Mark Hurd has given rise to litigation by HP. This report in the Wall Street Journal notes that...

Vodafone’s Petition Dismissed by the Bombay High Court

It appears that the Bombay High Court has dismissed Vodafone’s writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Indian income tax authorities. Reports – the Wall Street Journal, ET, Reuters and Indian Express – are sketchy on the precise basis of the decision. We will discuss the implications in detail once a copy of the judgment is available.

The Rangaraj-Madhusoodhanan Conflict and the “Reformulation” of Rangaraj in Para 55 of Messer Holdings

Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, is perhaps the most significant unresolved controversy in contemporary Indian corporate law. The blog noted today that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Messer Holdings) has held that a private arrangement between shareholders conferring a right of first refusal is not contrary to s. 111A of the Companies Act. In this post, I offer some thoughts...

Top Posts & Pages

Topics

Recent Comments

Archives

web analytics

Social Media