[Dharini Shanker is a 1st Year LL.B student at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi] The Company Law Committee (“Committee”), set up to make recommendations to the Government for reforms directed at promoting greater ease of business in India and the effective implementation of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), the LLP Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder, has submitted its report in March...
Should India Allow Fractional Share Investing?
[Ajith Kidambi is a V year student at the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad] Fractional share investing could finally be a reality in the Indian stock market. The Company Law Committee, which the Ministry of Corporate Affairs constituted in 2019, had released its third report in April 2022, making several recommendations to the government to improve the ease of doing business in India and...
Duomatic Principle: Neither Mere Substantial Compliance nor a Normative Right
[Sahil Aggarwal is a 4th year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Academy of Legal Research and Studies (NALSAR), in Hyderabad and Akshat Baghmar is a 5th year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad] In its recent judgment in Mahima Datla v. Dr. Renuka Datla (2022), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the application of the ‘Duomatic’ principle in Indian...
Can Government Companies be Brought under the Aegis of the IBC?
[Shradha Sharma is a banking and finance lawyer at a law firm in India] Government companies are defined under section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) to mean any company in which not less than 51 percent of the paid-up share capital is held by the central government or state government(s), or partly by the central government and partly by one or more state governments, and includes the...
Lost in a Labyrinth: NCLT’s Journey from Admission to Withdrawal under the IBC
[Siddharth Jasrotia is a IV year student at the Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai] The National Company Law Tribunal’s (“NCLT”) power to allow the withdrawal of insolvency petition has been subject to immense judicial scrutiny over the past few years, often resulting in conflicting outcomes. The inception of section 12-A in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) further...
Zee v. Invesco: Jurisdiction Battle between the High Court and the NCLT
[Neharika Chhabra and Gourav Kathuria are fourth-year B.A. LL.B (Hons.) students at NALSAR University of Law] On 22 March 2022, a division bench of the Bombay High Court in Invesco Developing Markets Fund v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises overturned the judgment of a single judge. It held that section 430 of the Companies Act (the ‘Act’) bars the High Court from adjudicating matters arising under...
The Dichotomy of Special Courts: Contrasting the Companies Act and the IBC
[Rhythm Buaria and Payal Chandra are advocates practicing before courts and tribunals in Delhi] Recently, a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court concluded, in Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, that offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) can only be tried by the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class exercising...
Does ESG’s Success in India Threaten the CSR Regime?
[Divyanshu Sharma is a 3rd Year BALLB (Hons) Student at National Law University, Delhi] Corporate social responsibility (‘CSR’) and environmental, social and governance (‘ESG’) investment criteria are two concepts which predominantly affect the investment decisions of a socially oriented investor. According to the UNIDO, CSR is a management concept wherein companies integrate social and...
Separating Managing Director and Chairperson: An Economically Sound Decision by SEBI?
[Adhip Ray is a 5th year BA.LLB (Hons.) student at Amity Law School, Kolkata and is the founder of the startup consultancy WinSavvy.com and is a consultant for Patent Professional Corporation (Patent PC), an intellectual property law firm based out of California.] The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had, in its March 2018 board meeting, approved an amendment to the Securities and...
A Comment on a Delhi High Court Ruling on Shareholder Derivative Actions
One of the age-old tenets of corporate law is the “proper plaintiff” rule laid down in the seminal case of Foss v Harbottle, (1843) 2 Hare 461. According to this rule, where a wrong has been done to a company, it is only the company and not an individual shareholder who may bring an action to seek redress. This represents a wholesome recognition of the separate legal personality of the company...
Recent Comments