The lack of a fixed time limit for adjudication of applications for proper stamp duty under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Act”) often results in inordinate delays in stamping of instruments. In a judgment that will exponentially expedite the process of adjudication, the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) has now opined that the Collector of Stamps shall communicate to the parties the proper stamp duty within 30 days of the date of the application.Continue Reading Application for Payment of Stamp Duty must be Adjudicated within 30 Days: Delhi High Court
Partner in Litigation & Arbitration practice at the Delhi NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. She is part of the dispute resolution practice with a special emphasis on corporate litigation, such as matters pertaining to Mergers and Amalgamations, Reduction of Capital and IBC litigation. Her other areas of work include, international commercial arbitrations, writs, civil and criminal litigation. She can be reached at email@example.com.
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment passed in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited1, adjudicated upon whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) is a mandatory or discretionary provision i.e. on an application for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP“) by a financial creditor.Continue Reading Admission of application Section 7(5)(a) not mandatory even when default established: Supreme Court clarifies
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, reiterated that the limitation period for filing of an appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) as laid down under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has to be interpreted strictly.Continue Reading Interpreting Limitation Provisions – Supreme Court Rejects the ‘Date of Knowledge’ Argument
One of the quintessential features of an arbitration friendly jurisdiction is a robust award enforcement mechanism. Often such enforcement mechanisms are determined by the interpretation of ‘public policy’ of each jurisdiction. In India, the trajectory of public policy has witnessed dramatic advancements, resulting in a much narrower scope and ambit of interpretation. Consequently, Indian courts have adopted a pro-enforcement stance and this pattern can be observed even in the arbitral awards that have been passed in disputes relating to exchange control laws and securities regulations.Continue Reading Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court Contextualises Fundamental Policy of Indian Law
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court has recently passed a landmark judgment, expanding the scope of judicial inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (“Act”), in DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr and DLF Home Developers Limited v. Begur OMR Homes Private Limited & Anr.Continue Reading SC expands the scope of judicial inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
There are only a few sections in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 (“Act”), in which Court’s reference or assistance is invited post commencement of arbitration and constitution of the arbitral tribunal.Continue Reading Scope of judicial interference – Order passed by an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act), and the rules framed thereunder, mandate companies to file requisite documents, including annual returns and financial statements, with the concerned Registrar of Companies (RoC) of their jurisdiction. Non-adherence to such provisions and non-filing of the requisite documents is an offence, exposing non-complaint companies and its directors to severe penal consequences, including fines and prosecution.
However, the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) would clearly reveal that a lot of companies have been non-compliant with their filings. This non-compliance has been a menace to all the stakeholders involved, including, inter alia, (i) the companies and directors who have to face penal consequences for such non-compliances; (ii) the MCA and its administration who are engaged in the process of updating the records; (iii) the public/ shareholders who do not get access to the records of the companies; and (iv) the NCLT and the office of Regional Directors, which are burdened with compounding cases.Continue Reading A Fresh Start for Companies