2020

SEBI report on RPTs – Deeper Reflections

SEBI had implemented the Kotak Committee recommendations on Related Party Transactions (RPTs) by making amendments to the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”) on May 9, 2018. In less than two years, in November 2019, SEBI constituted a Working Group (WG) to re-examine the RPT provisions of the LODR, against the backdrop of new corporate scandals, which surfaced, where certain abusive RPTs were undertaken by the listed entity at a subsidiary level, which were not captured by the LODR provisions. The WG Report addressed this loophole and made several recommendations, which were examined by the author in his blog article titled “SEBI Working Group on Related Party Transactions: Will the net be cast too wide?” published on February 5, 2020.

In this Blog, the author wants to share his deeper reflections on some of the recommendation made in the WG report. The author argues that this WG report requires a more detailed scrutiny by the SEBI, before it is enacted into a law, by amendments to the LODR. Both these blogs should be read together to get a complete picture of the changes proposed in the WG report.
Continue Reading SEBI report on RPTs – Deeper Reflections

Infrastructure Investment Trusts – Simplifying the Structure

The infrastructure sector is a key driver for any economy. Among the many avenues of financing large-scale investments in infrastructure, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments and capital raising, setting-up and establishing infrastructure investment trusts (“InvITs”) has begun to gain traction with developers of infrastructure projects, including by public sector undertakings, to enable them to monetise their assets and undertake further infrastructure development. In the last few months, an increasing interest has also been evinced by large private equity firms, development institutions and multilateral and bilateral financial institutions in not only investing in the units of InvITs, but also in setting-up InvITs either on their own or jointly with Indian developers due to the yields offered by InvITs and the favourable and welcome changes to the tax regime applicable to InvITs, including unlisted InvITs.
Continue Reading Infrastructure Investment Trusts – Simplifying the Structure

 

Real Estate Collaborations & Significance of Corporate Due Diligence 

Introduction

India’s real estate sector has been witnessing critical changes since the last few years, including the promulgation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the “RERA Act”). The implementation of the RERA Act has pushed the sector to organise and standardise operations and management of real estate entities. The checks and balances imposed by the RERA Act and liquidity crunch faced by the real estate market has forced the dislodgment of small and unorganised players. Owing to such changes, the real estate market is now witnessing a phase of consolidation and collaboration.
Continue Reading Real Estate Collaborations & Significance of Corporate Due Diligence

NEP 2020 AND FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES - WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE REGULATORY DOMAIN

Background

The National Education Policy, 2020 (“NEP”), is only a few days old and has been garnering a lot of attention. Indeed, this is only natural, given the impact it can have on the large student community of India. In addition, given that it is the first education policy in 34 years, both in subject matter and approach, it has demonstrated significant shifts. In some ways, it is substantially different from last year’s draft National Education Policy, 2019 (“Draft Policy”).

One of the areas in our country’s education policy that has always garnered attention and curiosity is the role that foreign educational institutions can play in India and their direct entry into the country. Hereinbelow, we will check what the NEP says in this regard, and what could be expected in the regulatory landscape as a result.
Continue Reading NEP 2020 AND FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES: WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE REGULATORY DOMAIN?

Recent amendments to the insider trading regime

Since overhauling the insider trading regime with the introduction of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (“PIT Regulations”), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has continually sought to fine tune and tweak the regulations through amendments in 2018 and 2019. On July 17, 2020, SEBI notified the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (“PIT Amendment”), to introduce further changes to the PIT Regulations.
Continue Reading Recent Amendments to the Insider Trading Regime

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence revisited by the Supreme Court

Background

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court recently held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”), is a condition  precedent to the admissibility of electronic record in evidence.[1] This judgment arose from a reference by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, which found that the Division Bench judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh[2] required reconsideration in view of the three-judge bench judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.[3]
Continue Reading Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence revisited by the Supreme Court

In Search of a Vaccine for Covid-19 - A Race to The Finish

The Covid-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on mankind, infecting well over 13 million, and claiming over half a million lives. It has also severely impacted economies across the world. Our healthcare infrastructure has been pushed to its limits and our frontline healthcare professionals are working to the brink of exhaustion, risking their own lives to save others. We bow to them.

In the midst of all this, scientists across the world are working feverishly to find a vaccine for this disease. The hopes of billions rest on this. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has (as of July 15, 2020) declared that there are about 23 potential vaccine candidates that are currently in various stages of clinical trials[1]. Out of these 23 vaccines, vaccines being developed by: (a) Sinovac (inactivated +alum); and (b) University of Oxford / AstraZeneca has entered into the Phase-III of its clinical trials[2]. In addition, as of July 15, 2020, there are around 140 vaccine candidates in preclinical evaluation (trials not commenced).
Continue Reading In Search of a Vaccine for Covid-19: A Race to The Finish

MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - DELHI HIGH COURT SMM

Introduction

Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) in Gammon India Ltd. and Anr. v. National Highways Authority of India[1], had the occasion to opine on the scourge of multiplicity of arbitral proceedings while dealing with a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) wherein the objections raised were primarily based on the findings of a subsequent award. In dealing with the issues before it, the Court revisited various judicial precedents while setting out the principles to be considered when referring multiple disputes arising out of the same agreement to arbitration.
Continue Reading Multiplicity of proceedings defeats the purpose of alternate dispute resolution: Delhi high court

BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AND LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS IN WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Introduction:                 

The handling, disposal and management of bio-medical waste (“BM Waste”)in India is government by inter-alia, the Biomedical Waste Management & Handling Rules, 1998 (“1998 Rules”) were notified by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6,8 & 25 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. These rules provide for the framework of the management and Handling of disposal and scientific management of BM Waste

In wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centre Pollution Control Board (“CPCB”) recently issued guidelines dated March 27, 2020 for handling, treatment and safe disposal of BM Waste generated during treatment, diagnosis and quarantine of patients confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines have been necessitated due to the super infectious nature of the Novel corona virus and provide for a mechanism for the segregation, packaging, transportation, storage and disposal of BM Waste in order to avoid further spread of the virus through BM Waste.
Continue Reading BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AND LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS IN WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

 

Competition or unlawful contractual interference

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dealt with the tort of unlawful interference in contractual relationships and inter alia held that the said tort has no place in India in view of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”).[1]

Background

The developer of a certain property at Amritsar agreed to lease the said property to the Plaintiff for fifteen years, by way of a term sheet. The Plaintiff paid a security deposit to the developer as per the term sheet and proceeded to draw up the main transaction document.

Upon learning that the Defendant (a competitor of the Plaintiff) had been pursuing the developer for the purpose of entering into an agreement with respect to the same property, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant about the term sheet executed by the developer with the Plaintiff and requested the Defendant to desist from pursuing the developer. However, the Plaintiff learnt that the developer had entered into an agreement with the Defendant with respect to the said property. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff was informed by the developer that the term sheet stood terminated on account of the Plaintiff’s failure to execute the main transaction document within the stipulated time. The developer refunded the security deposit, which was accepted by the Plaintiff without protest. The Plaintiff alleged that (a) the Defendant induced the developer to terminate the term sheet with the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant had similarly attempted to interfere with transactions between the Plaintiff and developers of other properties in different cities.

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant inter alia seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from inducing a breach of any agreement between the Plaintiff and third parties in respect of non-functional properties of the Plaintiff across India.
Continue Reading Competition or unlawful contractual interference: The line continues to remain blurred