Appropriate forum for Insolvency of Personal Guarantors

Introduction

The provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the “Code”) in relation to personal guarantors (“PG”) to corporate debtor (“Corporate Debtor”) have been effective since December 1, 2019. However, whether a corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) (or even a pending application to initiate such a process) against the Corporate Debtor is a pre-requisite for initiation of insolvency resolution process or bankruptcy process against the PG under the Code (“PG Proceedings”) before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) has been a question that continued to vex the judicial for some time, until recently the Honourable Supreme Court, in Mahendra Kumar Jajodia v. SBI Stressed Assets Management Branch (“Mahendra Kumar Case”),[1] upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) order holding that the NCLT has jurisdiction over PG Proceedings, regardless of any CIRP or liquidation proceedings pending against the Corporate Debtor before it.

This blog analyses the background, the developments so far and the position after the Apex Court’s order.

Continue Reading Appropriate forum for Insolvency of Personal Guarantors – Is the last word out?

FIG Papers

The recent Master Directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Credit cards and Debit cards – Issuance and Conduct Directions, 2022, dated April 21, 2022, is a consolidation of existing guidelines on the subject, except that it has brought about greater clarity by providing definitions on what is a credit card, credit limit and other related terminologies. In addition, it has spelt out more explicitly the scope of co-branding arrangements and the roles of card issuers and co-branding partners.

Continue Reading FIG Papers (No. 12: Series-1) RBI Master Directions on Credit and Debit Cards

Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India case

On May 02, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed its judgement in a matter titled Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors[1], wherein it closely examined the details of the vaccination policy, the dissemination of clinical trials data, veracity of emergency approvals of vaccines and the reporting of adverse impacts of vaccination.

Continue Reading Coercive Vaccination! Explaining the Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India case

International Regime

A three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment dated April 27, 2022, in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. M/s Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.[1], while deciding on a challenge to an interim award on the ground that the arbitral tribunal failed to apply the group of companies doctrine, has held that a non-signatory company within a group of companies can be held bound to an arbitration agreement.

Continue Reading Hon’ble Supreme Court Follows the International Regime: Upholds Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration

GIFT City

Introduction

The onset of Global In-house Centres (“GICs”) in India was driven by global financial services companies seeking to drive costs down and access India’s large talent pool across various locations. These factors together made it a compelling case for GICs to invest in India to setup large centres which performed a variety of functions across technology, risk, AML, operations, research, credit analysis, etc., for a wide variety of businesses, from retail banking, wholesale banking to investment banking, located in various foreign countries. This model has been visibly successful in driving the upskilling of a large talent pool in India and enabling significant cost advantages to the financial services companies that have implemented this model.

Continue Reading GICs in IFSC, GIFT City: A Combination to Unlock Value

Role of IFSC in the Indian SPAC Dream

In part 2 of this series of blogs (Key Features IFSC Lisiting Regulations in Relation to Listing of SPACs), we touched upon the newly-introduced framework for the issuance and listing of special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) at the International Financial Services Centres (“IFSC”) under the International Financial Services Centres Authority (Issuance and Listing of Securities) Regulations, 2021 (“IFSC Listing Regulations”). In this part of the blog we are going to look at the IFSC Listing Regulations with a critical eye to detect the gaps that continue to exist despite the framework being put in place and identify areas that can be improved upon to leverage the unique status of entities in IFSC.

Continue Reading Role of IFSC in the Indian SPAC Dream: An Overview – Part 3

Validity of a Power of Attorney – A Registration Act Perspective

In the matter of Amar Nath v. Gian Chand & Ors.[1], an appeal was filed in the Apex Court against a High Court order holding that production of a true copy of Power of Attorney (“POA”) was essential for the execution of a sale deed under Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”).

Continue Reading Validity of a Power of Attorney – A Registration Act Perspective

SEBI Operational Guidelines

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has recently issued the operational guidelines (“Operational Guidelines”)[1] for its circular dated August 13, 2021, on ‘Security and Covenant Monitoring using Distributed Ledger Technology’ (the “DLT Circular”)[2]. This article will examine the key highlights of the Operational Guidelines and analyse their impact.

Continue Reading A Technology Driven Approach to Achieving Compliance: SEBI’s Operational Guidelines for Monitoring of Security and Covenants

Specific Relief Act

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision in the case of Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P. PLC & Ors.[1], asserted that damages in lieu of specific performance under Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Act”) cannot be granted, unless specifically claimed in the plaint.

Continue Reading Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance Must be Specifically Claimed

Contracts Act

Introduction

In its recent judgement of Loop Telecom and Trading Limited v Union of India and Another[1], the Supreme Court denied the Appellant restitution of certain sums paid by it under a void agreement. The Court, while rejecting the claim for restitution u/s 65[2] of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Act”), placed reliance on the doctrine of ‘in pari delicto’, and reiterated that courts shall not assist a party who has paid the money or handed over the property in pursuance of an illegal or immoral contract[3].

Continue Reading Restitution Under the Contracts Act: The In Pari Delicto Exception