Photo of CAM Corporate Team

CAM Corporate Team

The CAM Corporate Team can be reached at cam.mumbai@cyrilshroff.com

Court-ordered sales: Original deal value to decide stamp duty

Summary: This blog explains a key judgement from the Karnataka High Court that clarifies stamp duty on court-directed sale deeds should be calculated on the original agreement price, not the current market value. This protects buyers from unfairly higher stamp duty due to litigation delays and provides much needed certainty and fairness for all parties involved in property transactions under specific performance decrees. 

Continue Reading Court-ordered sales: Original deal value to decide stamp duty
Unregistered Leases: Rights, Risks, and Remedies

Summary: Registering lease deeds removes ambiguity, provides legal certainty, and prevents disputes over implied renewal.  This protects both landlords and tenants, reduces litigation and promotes smoother tenancy transitions.  This blog explains the legal significance of registration of leases and guides readers on the risks of leaving leases unregistered, empowering them to make informed decisions and avoid unnecessary disputes. 

Continue Reading Unregistered Leases: Rights, Risks, and Remedies

In a key decision, the Karnataka High Court dealt with two connected writ petitions involving leading real estate developers[1], challenging the decision of the stamp and registration authorities in Karnataka. The key issue was whether stamp duty applies to super built-up areas and car parks when the sale deed refers only to an undivided land share. The decision clearly explains the legal position on dual ownership and how stamp duty must be calculated on such documents.

Continue Reading Building Vs. Land: A Tale of Two Owners in Indian Property Law
Key Highlights of Gujarat GCC Policy (2025-30)

Introduction

India, with its dynamic and skilled youth, has progressively emerged as a global hub for Global Capability Centres (GCCs) established by multinational corporations. GCCs offer numerous strategic advantages, including driving digital transformation, fostering innovation, advancing analytics and technological solutions, promoting research and development, creating employment opportunities, enhancing operational efficiency, and strengthening business resilience. Recognising these benefits, Indian companies are also increasingly adopting the GCC model to fuel their growth. Consequently, several Indian states are crafting policies to attract both domestic and multinational corporations to set up GCCs.

Continue Reading Key Highlights of Gujarat GCC Policy (2025-30)

Background and Introduction

An “independent director” (“ID”) is defined as “an independent director referred to in sub-section (6) of section 149”,[1] where Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), clarifies that an ID is “a director other than a managing director or a whole-time director or a nominee director” of the company. To be appointed as an ID, a person must fulfil an elaborate set of objective and subjective criteria separated across equity unlisted and listed companies.

Continue Reading Sufficiency of extant law to address governance concerns in relation to “independence” of an independent director in relation to subsequent directorships with the company
Evaluating the Contours of Permissible Remuneration for directors of a company in India

Background and Introduction

All companies incorporated in India are mandated to constitute a board of directors,[1] to which companies appoint different kinds and classes of directors – managing director (“MD”), independent director (“ID”), non-executive and non-independent director (“NED”), whole time director (“WTD”) or executive director (“ED”). Given the pivotal role that a company’s directors play in the governance and operations of companies, the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), regulates different facets of a directorship from the appointment, duties, and responsibilities to the remuneration. This blog discusses the contours of remuneration limits to evaluate the length and breadth of permissible director remuneration. “Remuneration” has been defined as “any money or its equivalent given or passed to any person for services rendered by him and includes perquisites as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961[2]”.[3]

Continue Reading Evaluating the Contours of Permissible Remuneration for directors of a company in India
Competing to be the global ‘destination of choice’ for GCCs: Karnataka attempts to set the global standard with a first-of-its-kind GCC-centric policy

Background

Global capability Centres (“GCCs”) have taken centre stage today because of their contribution towards the growth and expansion of multi-national corporations (“MNCs”) and towards boosting the economic growth of many developing countries in which they are located.[1] These centres are set up to primarily take on a service role for the global group of the MNCs. Evolving from back offices and cost-arbitrage centres, GCCS have transformed into potential alternative technological and strategic development headquarters. Today, many regions in developing economies, including in India, have started competing to establish themselves as a GCC hub and emerge as a “destination of choice”. Given the transformative role GCCs play in job creation, technology advancement, and skill enhancement, and positioning India at the forefront of innovation and service delivery, many GCCs in India are vying for that spot. With an estimated 1,700 GCCs engaging 1.66 million employees to generate an annual revenue of USD 64.6 billion, India qualifies as a “tried-and-tested” GCC-friendly ecosystem. In the backdrop of India’s “techade”, the market size of the country’s GCC ecosystem is projected to surpass USD 100 billion, which could propel India to achieve its ambition of becoming a USD 1-trillion economy.

Continue Reading Competing to be the global ‘destination of choice’ for GCCs: Karnataka attempts to set the global standard with a first-of-its-kind GCC-centric policy
Reimagining Workforce Retention Strategies through Employee Co-Ownership

Companies in the twenty-first century use unique workforce retention strategies, especially long-term incentives that involve direct/indirect co-employee ownership. This post aims to discuss the regulatory framework governing share-linked and share-based employee benefits that companies offer.[1]

Continue Reading Reimagining Workforce Retention Strategies through Employee Co-Ownership
Proposal to make Companies with Outstanding Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) eligible to undertake an IPO

Background

Historically, companies have provided employees with share-based incentives by way of employee stock options (“ESOPs”). However, with evolving corporate incentive structures, various new models have emerged, especially driven by start-ups. These incentives models include Stock Appreciation Rights (“SARs”), Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), Performance Stock Units (PSUs), Employee Share Purchase Schemes (“ESPS”), Phantom Stock Units (PSU), Save As You Earn Share Schemes (ShareSave), Non-qualified stock options (NSOs), Management Stock Options (MSOP), etc. Generally, employees look forward to an “exit event” to realise gains from these incentive structures, with an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) being one of the most common “exit events”.

Continue Reading Proposal to make Companies with Outstanding Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) eligible to undertake an IPO