Photo of Bharat Vasani

Bharat Vasani

Senior Advisor - Corporate laws at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Bharat has over 30 years of experience at senior management level. His areas of specialization includes company law, corporate and commercial laws, securities law, capital market, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, media & entertainment law, competition law, employment law and property matters. He heads firm’s media and entertainment law practice.  He is highly regarded in Government circles and in various industry organizations for his proactive approach on public policy issues. Bharat was a member of the Expert Committee appointed by the Government of India to revise the Companies Act, 2013.

Prior to joining the Firm, Bharat was the Group General Counsel of the Tata Group.  He has been at the helm of and steered several large key M&A transactions pursued by the Tata Group in the last 17 years.

Bharat’s contribution to the legal fraternity has been recognized by the Harvard Law School’s Award for Professional Excellence in 2016. Bharat has won several other national and international awards for his various achievements. He had a brilliant academic record in law and first rank holder in all India company secretary examination. He can be reached at bharat.vasani@cyrilshroff.com

Contact:Read more about Bharat Vasani

Devas Antrix Case

Background

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corporation Limited[1] (“the Antrix case”) has many interesting facets. It brings to light some interesting questions of law on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the Bilateral Investment Treaties when the claimant company (Decree holder) is ordered to be wound up (for the first time in India)  on the grounds of fraud, which is against the public policy of India and most jurisdictions that are signatories to the New York Convention.Continue Reading SC’s decision in the Devas Antrix Case: Does it dilute evidentiary value of the Auditor’s Report under the Companies Act?

Delegated Legislation

Background

Over the last few decades, there has been a trend where only a small fraction of law stems directly from ‘legislations’ passed by the Parliament. In the sphere of corporate law, the tendency of the law makers is to enact ‘bare-bone’ statutes such as the SEBI Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”), and a bulk of the law is enacted by the designated regulators, such as the MCA, SEBI and RBI.Continue Reading The Rise & Rise of Delegated Legislation – Do we need more Safeguards?

Company Law

Background

The law on minority squeeze-out has not been a glorious chapter in the history of India’s company law. The Parliament, as a matter of legislative policy, appears to be uncomfortable with enacting a law that forces minority shareholders to compulsory sell their shares. The government perceives it as a kind of ‘expropriation’. Hence, despite Dr. JJ Irani Committee’s specific recommendation, our Parliament has adopted a conservative approach while providing majority shareholders with the mechanism to ‘buyout’ the shares held by the minority shareholders. Even after the ‘right to property’ was abolished as a fundamental right under our Constitution, law makers seem uncomfortable in giving such right to majority shareholders, and half-hearted attempts have been made to provide majority shareholders with the ability to fully own a company.Continue Reading Minority squeeze-out under our Company Law – Is it a legislative policy dilemma?

Decoding SEBI’s latest amendments to the RPT regime

Background

After a prolonged and anxious wait, on November 9, 2021, SEBI finally notified its far-reaching amendments to the regulatory regime for Related Party Transactions (“RPT”). The amendments[1] to the RPT regulatory regime under the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”), have their genesis in the Report of the Working Group on RPTs (“WG Report”), which was issued by SEBI on January 27, 2020.Continue Reading Decoding SEBI’s latest amendments to the RPT regime

MCA’s Notification on Section 67 of the Companies Act, 2013

Introduction

One aspect which English Company Law has always grappled with is the manner in which the capital of a company should be protected for the benefit of its creditors. Way back in 1887, in its celebrated decision in Trevor v Whitworth[1], the House of Lords held that the statutory restrictions on a company’s power to reduce its capital “is to prohibit every transaction between a company and a shareholder, by means of which the money already paid to the company in respect of his shares is returned to him”.Continue Reading MCA’s Notification on Section 67 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Is it an Exemption or an Inclusion under the Henry VIII Clause?

Prakash Gupta Judgment – Has the Supreme Court given more Powers to SEBI in the Matter of Compounding

Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) was essentially introduced to protect the interests of investors and to regulate and promote the development of the securities market in India. As a direct consequence of this legislative intention, the SEBI Act lays down that contravention, attempt to contravene and abetment of contravention of the provisions of the SEBI Act would be punishable with imprisonment and fines of varying quantum.Continue Reading Prakash Gupta Judgment – Has the Supreme Court given more Powers to SEBI in the Matter of Compounding

Benami Act

Introduction

Coinciding with the demonetisation of currencies by the Government of India in 2016, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, was substantially amended and renamed as the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“Benami Act”). The Benami Act was brought into effect from November 01, 2016. It was a well-timed move to ensure that demonetisation doesn’t become a futile exercise.Continue Reading Declarations of beneficial interest under the Companies Act vis-à-vis the Benami Act: No immunity and no “Ganga Snan”!

Madras High Court’s judgment on gaming law – Does it provide absolute immunity from regulatory scrutiny?

Introduction

The online gaming industry is among the few industries that have survived the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, and is projected to witness a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21% over FY21-FY25. Today, online gaming platforms host a diverse variety of games – ranging from rummy and poker to ‘fantasy sports leagues’ relating to cricket.Continue Reading Madras High Court’s judgment on gaming law – Does it provide absolute immunity from regulatory scrutiny?