Three years ago, India’s Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, had expressed his desire to see India amongst the top 50 nations in terms of ease of doing business.

On October 31st, 2017 with the release of the World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2018 (Report), this dream is now racing towards to becoming a reality. After continuous and vigorous legislative overhauling, coupled with regulatory and infrastructural reforms, India surged up 30 places to the 100th rank among 190 countries. The Report lists India as one of the 10 improvers this year. We briefly explore the key reforms which have led to this historic jump in the rankings.

Leaps Across Sectors

The Report is based on how easy it is for companies to do business, and it also takes into account certain regulations based on 10 parameters, which are listed below. India has improved its standing in 6 out of these 10 indicators. These are as follows:

Continue Reading India Makes it into Top 100 in ‘Ease of Doing Business’ Rankings

Technological innovation is the new normal in the financial services sector. The evolution of every aspect of this industry in the past few years has been truly transformational, whether it is access to funds, demand creation/aggregation or even payment systems. The inception and growth of peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms in India is one such example. P2P platforms effectively function as an online marketplace for lenders and borrowers, for a commission. A need for regulatory oversight was considered by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), given the recent rise in the number of such operators and their integration into the financial services sector.

The RBI outlined its proposal to regulate such platforms in its consultation paper issued last year. Following notification on August 24, 2017 categorising P2P lending platforms as Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), the RBI has finally issued its widely anticipated master directions on October 04, 2017 (Master Directions).

Continue Reading One Size Fits All? Regulating Peer-To-Peer Lending Platforms

Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017

This is the second piece in our series entitled “Those Were the Days”, which is published monthly. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.


This post deals with Securities Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) interpretation of the term “Unpublished Price Sensitive Information” (UPSI) arising from the alleged insider trading by Hindustan Lever Limited (now Hindustan Unilever Limited) (HLL) in its purchase of shares of Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (BBLIL).

While the subject SEBI order employed provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (1992 Regulations), this post also analyses the relevant provisions of the subsequently notified SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (2015 Regulations) in relation the subject case.

Case Analysis: Hindustan Lever Limited v. SEBI[1]

The facts of the case concerned the purchase by HLL of 8 lakh shares of BBLIL from the Unit Trust of India (UTI) on March 25, 1996. This purchase was made barely two weeks prior to a public announcement for a proposed merger of HLL with BBLIL.

Continue Reading Insider Trading: Hindustan Lever Limited v. SEBI

Most frequent fliers would have been familiar with the requirement to power off personal electronic devices (PEDs) for the duration of domestic flights. It was not until 2014, that Indian fliers were permitted to operate mobile phones and other PEDs on “flight mode” (in non-transmitting mode). The rationale for this restriction, as explained by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), is that radio transmitters in most communications devices may, and have in the past, caused harmful interference with crucial on-board flight systems. Therefore, while several Indian carriers such as Jet Airways already provide on-board Wi-Fi services, such services are limited to the provision of locally stored content to airborne PEDs, and do not enable passengers to connect to the internet cloud.

However, recent technological developments have now made it possible for passengers to use transmitting PEDs while airborne, without causing harmful interference to crucial flight operation systems or terrestrial communication networks. Together these technological solutions are labelled In-Flight Connectivity (IFC) services. Typically, IFC solutions are provided by making use of aeronautical mobile satellite services that use a satellite link to provide IFC to onboard PEDs; or by using Mobile Communications on-board Aircraft (MCA) systems, which while typically operating on terrestrial GSM communications bands, use an air-to-ground satellite link to establish connections with terrestrial networks.

Continue Reading In-Flight Connectivity: “VNO” or NO “VNO”?

Diwali is one of the most anticipated and celebrated festivals in India. It is also a festival of giving gifts, which is often a challenge for compliance professionals who struggle with policies and nuances of law around this time, on giving gifts that might seem like bribes.

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), the principal anti-bribery and anti-corruption statute in India, giving and receiving any form of pecuniary gratification may imply criminal penalties for both the bribe-giver and the public official. Furthermore, according to the conduct rules of various government departments, government servants are obliged to report receipt of gifts that go beyond prescribed monetary limits..

Gifting per se is not an illegal activity under Indian law. Under the PCA, the determining factor that separates a gift from a bribe is whether the gift was made with an expectation of quid pro quo. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the various conduct rules do not prescribe a de minimis or a minimum monetary threshold up to which a gift is seen as unquestionable. The conduct rules (as may be applicable to different public officials) merely provision for reporting obligations on behalf of the government servant, in cases where the pecuniary value of the gift received exceeds a certain limit.

Continue Reading Diwali Gifts: Are You Wrapping Up a Bribe?

The RBI has amended the Master Directions on Financial Services provided by Banks. This is a significant move permitting Banks to invest in Category II Alternative Investment Funds.

As of June 30, 2017, Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) had raised the cumulative figure of Rs. 48, 129 crores, against aggregate capital commitments of Rs 96,000 crores. The AIF industry is thus growing at an exponential rate, raising monies from domestic and offshore investors.

Unfortunately, however, the Indian AIF industry, lags behind its western counterparts in terms of participation by domestic pools of capital. In western countries, long term or patient capital, such as pension funds, contributes nearly 40% of the capital raised by AIFs. In the Indian context, restrictions prescribed by sector regulators have inhibited fund managers from raising capital from the domestic financial services sector.

Hence, it was no surprise that one of the key themes in the 2016 reports of the Alternative Investment Policy Advisory Committee (AIPAC), chaired by Mr Narayan Murthy, was “unlocking domestic pools of capital”. The committee’s recommendation was premised on the argument that the domestic capital pools – pensions, insurance, domestic financial institutions, banks, and charitable institutions – need access to appropriate investment opportunities to earn risk-adjusted returns.

Continue Reading It’s a Yes – for Banks!

Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017

Sociologists know that the formation and survival of civilization is conditional upon the universal adherence to a framework of acceptable norms and guidelines of human conduct and interaction. Moses therefore set out as God’s message, the directive to love thy neighbor, (so as not to have him for dinner) and also to not covet his wife (so that he may not make a meal out of you either).

While the Commandments set out God’s message which would be enforced by the fear of being struck down by lightning or if not then ultimately burning in hell, in later times, monarchies, and subsequently the democracies of the modern day needed to impose more earthly discipline. The judicial systems of to-day enforce not the will of the King but draw their legitimacy from the constitution and enforce laws which are framed by the people’s representatives.

Over the centuries, the singular truism which is well recognized is that the guidelines or laws to be enforced, cannot be mired in time and need to evolve so as to be relevant to the prevailing social and moral context. This truism requires constant change, which like all change is disruptive. History therefore inevitably reveals turbulence and conflict as the legal framework slowly adapts in a struggle to keep pace with social evolution.

The controversy and turbulence is more pronounced and correspondingly also more visible and prone to commentary by historians, sociologists and legal scholars alike, in “common law” democracies. This is because under the common law system, the law of the land is made by the courts since it is the manner in which courts interpret statutes that creates the judicial precedents which then is the established law. A study of how judicial decisions framed or established norms and values which we treasure today and perhaps take unthinkingly for granted can be fascinating.

CAM has embarked on an analysis of a series of such landmark decisions in an attempt to present a hindsight perspective into what exactly happened, the socio-political compulsions of the day and their impact in shaping Indian society and governance today.

This is the first piece in our series entitled “Those Were the Days”, which will be published monthly. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.


The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Kesavananda Bharati)[1] is perhaps the most well-known constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court). While ruling that there is no implied limitation on the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution, it held that no amendment can do violence to its basic structure (the “Basic Structure Doctrine”). Further, it established the Supreme Court’s right of review and, therefore, established its supremacy on constitutional matters.

Continue Reading Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and The Basic Structure Doctrine

Financial investors in India are scared of regulatory uncertainties. Not that uncertainties are exclusive to our country but it’s a critical risk factor that is assessed by those making substantial investments. Historically, one of the most important regulatory concerns for such investors is related to being categorised as ‘promoter’ of a listed company, both when the company is going public and also in cases where a private equity (PE) player intends to take a control position in an already listed company, by replacing its present promoters or by becoming co-promoters. Promoter liability theories have kept such investors away from taking control positions in listed companies. On the contrary, in the unlisted space where the promoter position is perceived differently, control deals are a way of life for certain PE funds in India.

Continue Reading New Promoters on the Block: The Financial Investors

India has long recognised the right of foreign creditors to participate in the winding up of Indian companies. As early as 1961, the Supreme Court of India, in Rajah of Vizianagaram (AIR 1962 SC 500), clarified that foreign creditors have the same right as Indian creditors in winding up proceedings under Indian law. Given the backlog of cases and resultant timelines for resolving disputes in the Indian judicial system, winding up has been the remedy of choice, albeit mostly as a pressure point, for unsecured creditors including foreign unsecured creditors of Indian companies. Such creditors have taken winding up actions despite the low return (an abysmal 28% as per one source) and pace of insolvency (almost 4.5 years) in the Indian market. At the same time, there have been instances where consensual restructuring of stressed Indian companies has been halted by such actions of unsecured creditors.

The Indian government from time to time provided a specific legal regime for Indian financial creditors to recover their money – for example, debt recovery tribunals (DRT) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI). But no additional measures were suggested for non-financial creditors.

Continue Reading IBC- Making “Doing Business in India” Easy for Foreign Trade Creditors?

The ability to attract large scale Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into India has been a key driver for policy making by the Government. Prime Minister Modi seems to be going along the right track, with India receiving FDI inflows worth USD 60.1 billion in 2016-17, which was an all-time high. Hence, the FDI policy of India has always been closely watched and carefully amended over the years.

On August 28th, 2017, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) had issued the updated and revised Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2017 – 2018 (FDI Policy 2017). The FDI Policy 2017 incorporated various notifications issued by the Government of India over the past year.

Please find below a brief analysis of the key amendments brought by the FDI Policy 2017 to the erstwhile FDI Policy of 2016 and their potential impact on FDI in India:

Continue Reading India announces new Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2017 – 2018