[Guest post by Niranjan Sankar Rao, who is a Fourth Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons) Student at Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat. An earlier post on the topic can be found here.] The Supreme Court of India in May 2017 in Excel Crop Care v. Competition Commission of India, (2017) 8 SCC 47, upheld the Competition Appellate Tribunal’s (COMPAT) decision of awarding penalty based on ‘relevant turnover’. For a...
Conference on Insolvency Resolution and Cross-border Insolvency
[Announcement from the Centre for Transnational Commercial Law, National Law University, Delhi] The Centre for Transnational Commercial Law, National Law University Delhi, in collaboration with UNCITRAL, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and International Law Institute is organising a two-day conference to commemorate the 2017 UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Day. The theme of the event is Insolvency...
Supreme Court Opens New Avenue for Enforcement in Foreign International Commercial Arbitration
[Guest post by Ashutosh Kumar, who is an Advocate practising in India. Views are personal.] The decision of the Supreme Court in Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan (6 July 2017) has opened a new avenue for the enforcement of interim orders and emergency awards in foreign arbitrations involving at least one non-Indian party – or foreign international commercial arbitrations in the...
Consumers Cannot be Compelled to Arbitrate Disputes
[Guest post by Ajar Rab, Partner, Rab & Rab Associates LLP, Dehradun] Background Earlier this year, in an article titled Redressal Mechanism under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016: Ouster of the Arbitration Tribunal?, I had argued that even after the amendment to section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), the parties can continue to...
Strict Interpretation or Purposive Interpretation? Analysing the Sanjeev Shriya Case
[Guest post by Deeksha Malik, who is a is a fifth-year student of National Law Institute University, Bhopal. An earlier post on the topic is available here.] Ever since the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) came into force, the Indian judiciary has been dealing with a number of cases that have required it to interpret various provisions of the Code. A review of the relevant...
Supreme Court Rules that the Timelines for Adjudication under the Bankruptcy Code are Directory
[Guest post by Aayush Mitruka, a lawyer based in Delhi.] Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) in M/s Surendra Trading Co. v. JK Jute Mills Co. Ltd & others and settled some vexed issues which were of considerable importance. The facts of the case do not merit a mention for the purposes of the present...
The NCLAT on the Ability of a Power of Attorney Holder to Initiate Insolvency Proceedings
[Guest post by Richa Saraf, Assistant Legal Advisor at Vinod Kothari & Co.] In Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. (decided on 20 September 2017), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) held that a power of attorney holder is not authorised to present an insolvency application under sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). It is...
Employee’s Right to Sue after Obtaining Full and Final Settlement from Employer
[Guest post by Ravi Pandey, IX Semester, National Law University, Lucknow] Full and final settlement is usually used by the employers to absolve themselves from all the previous dues and claims of their employees. It is usually actuated in the form of a settlement contract and effectively concludes the employer-employee relationship. Ideally such a settlement ought to serve its purpose and lead...
Efficacy or Exclusivity: Can Parties Seek Interim Relief Outside a Seat under the Indian Arbitration Act?
[Guest post by Nishanth Vasanth, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad] Introduction & Context In international arbitration, the exclusive jurisdiction of the seat seeks to prevent courts of two nations from simultaneously exercising territorial jurisdiction over a matter, so as to uphold the sanctity of the final award. Courts, under UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration...
Ascertaining Legal Ramifications of Compensation Agreements- Part III (In Search of Common Law Defences to Statutory Violations)
[The following post, the third in a series, has been contributed by Rahul Sibal, 4th year student of NALSAR Hyderabad. The first two posts in the series are available here and here.] In the previous post it was argued that section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the ‘Act’), which partially codified the common law doctrines of no-conflict and no-profit, did not provide for consent-based...
Restrictions on Layering of Subsidiaries Now Effective
In two earlier posts published in July (here and here), our guest contributors had voiced their trenchant criticism of the Government’s move to introduce restrictions of the ability of companies to create layers of subsidiaries. After a round of consultation, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has decided to implement the restrictions, which have now been brought into force. The MCA has...
NCLAT Ruling on Maintainability in the Tata Sons Case
Earlier this week, the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLAT”) issued its ruling in Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd v. Tata Sons Ltd on whether the Mistry group’s action for oppression and mismanagement in respect of Tata Sons is maintainable. Although the NCLAT ruled that the Mistry group’s petition did not meet the requirements of maintainability under section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the...
Supreme Court Decodes “Dispute” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
[Guest post by R. Jawahar Lal and Sanjeev Jain, who are Partners, and Apoorva Agrawal, who is an Associate, all at PRA Law Offices, New Delhi. Disclosure: PRA Law Offices represented Kirusa Software Private Limited (Operational Creditor) before the Supreme Court, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi and the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.] Introduction The...
NCLAT Excludes Proceedings under the Constitution from Moratorium
[Guest post by Aayush Mitruka, a lawyer based in Delhi.] In an earlier post, I had discussed the moratorium provision (i.e., section 14) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”), the legislative intent behind the provision and its impact on proceedings for dishonor of cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. More recently, in Canara Bank v Deccan Chronicle Holdings...
Conversion of Tata Sons into a Private Limited Company: In Whose Interest?
The proposed conversion of Tata Sons Limited from a public limited company to a private limited company has reignited the corporate governance issues that the Tata Group has faced over the last year or so. Menaka Doshi has an interesting piece (and an accompanying interview with two corporate lawyers) in BloombergQuint that sets out some of the background to why Tata Sons proposes (and that too...
Private Equity Investors as Promoters in an Initial Public Offer
[Guest post by Rashmi Ramanath, who is a 5th year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at Jindal Global Law School in Sonipat] The Initial Public Offering (IPO) of SKS Microfinance was a first of its kind. It was for the first time that a group of four venture capitalists led by Sequoia Capital India were named as promoters to an issue. Vikram Akula, one of the company’s founders, owned a 6% stake in the...
Moratorium under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code: Impact on Proceedings for Cheque Dishonour
[Guest post by Aayush Mitruka, a lawyer based in Delhi. An earlier version of this post was published in the newsletter of ICSI – Pune chapter.] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) is an all-encompassing legislation which is, inter alia, aimed at a structured and time-bound process for insolvency resolution and liquidation. Chapter II (Part II) of the Code contains...
Director as “Any Person Aggrieved” under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
[Guest post by Vaidehi Shankar, Associate at Mundkur Law Partners, Bangalore. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author in her personal capacity and do not, in any way or manner, reflect the position or opinion of Mundkur Law Partners] On August 31, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered one of the first landmark judgments on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) in...
Court’s Power to Terminate Arbitrator’s Mandate: SC Settles Long Outstanding Debate
[Guest post by Sumit Rai, who is an independent counsel in Mumbai, practicing with special focus on international and domestic arbitration as well as arbitration related litigation] In HRD Corporation v Gail (India) Ltd. (decided on August 31, 2017), the Supreme Court held that for any infraction of section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
Eligibility Criteria for Insolvency Resolution Professionals: A Critique
[Guest post by Lavanya Chawla, Batch of 2017, National Law School of India University, Bangalore] With more than 270 days gone by since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code), the time is ripe to analyse whether the Code has proved to be the magical wand it proclaimed to be. One of the new functionaries introduced by the Code is the Resolution Professional (RP)...
Liability of Personal Guarantors of a Corporate Debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
[Guest post by Param Pandya, Research Fellow, Corporate Law and Financial Law, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi. The views expressed by the author are personal.] On September 6, 2017, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjeev Shriya vs. State Bank of India (“Sanjeev Case”) decided the question of the liability of personal guarantors of a company where moratorium under section 14 of...
Restrictive Remedy under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
[Guest post by Richa Saraf, Assistant Legal Advisor, Vinod Kothari & Co.] In a recent ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Union Bank of India & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (September 1, 2017), the object and intention behind section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the “Act”) was discussed. The...
International Business Law Essay Competition
[Announcement posted on behalf of Verus, a law firm] Verus presents the Inaugural Edition of the REEMA RAY PRIZE IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW 2017. The prize is instituted in memory of Reema Ray (1982-2013), who was a brilliant young corporate lawyer in one of the leading law firms in India. Her friends, family and colleagues remember her as a rare person with exceptional qualities of heart and...
SEBI Refrains from Resolving Ambiguity on Permissible Investor Protection Rights
[The following post is contributed by Supreme Waskar, who is a corporate lawyer in Mumbai. An earlier post on this topic is available here.] The existing definition of control under regulation 2(1)(e) of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (the “Takeover Regulations”), defines “control” in inclusive manner as a right to (a) appoint a majority of...
“Control” Untouched in the Takeover Regulations: A Case of Regulatory Inertia
Let’s just say, it is not at all surprising. After carrying out an extensive consultation that lasted more than a year with a view to defining the concept of “control” under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (the “Takeover Regulations”), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has come around a whole circle. It has, by retaining the current definition...
Recent Comments