Recently, the Delhi High Court refused to hold a third-party funder liable for furnishing security in enforcement of a foreign award, ruling that the funder — not being either a party to the arbitration agreement, the arbitration, or the eventual award — could not be “mulcted with liability, which they have neither undertaken nor are aware of”. Continue Reading Third party Funding – A funder remains a ‘Third Party” and not a ‘Party’ to the arbitration or award
The Government of India (“Government”) had announced a one-time voluntary settlement scheme through the Union Budget 2023-24 to settle contractual disputes involving the Government of India or its undertakings. This voluntary settlement process would also be applicable to disputes that have resulted in arbitral awards or court decrees or court orders upholding arbitral awards (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Award”) under challenge. The scheme is called Vivad se Vishwas II (Contractual Disputes). A draft scheme was published for circulation and was open for public comments till March 8, 2023.Continue Reading Execution meeting spirit of the text will determine success of Vivad se Vishwas II
In the judgment of Union of India and Another vs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP & Another[1], the Supreme Court has enunciated and cleared the law pertaining to the removal and resignation of a statutory auditor vis-à-vis the proceedings initiated under Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Act and interpreted it as “neither discriminatory, arbitrary and/or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India”. The Supreme Court clarified that the resignation of an auditor after filing an application under Section 140(5) of the Act does not automatically terminate the proceedings initiated under this Section.Continue Reading Supreme Court Sets the Bar Too High for the Statutory Auditors
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”).Continue Reading Limitation under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Too Strict Interpretation of the Law?
Does the arbitration clause in a commercial contract becomes unenforceable due to non-payment of stamp duty, or it is preserved by the separability doctrine? This question has riddled the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) repeatedly and has resulted in contrary views being adopted by various three-judge benches. The issue has been finally laid to rest by a constitution bench of the SC through its judgment dated April 25, 2023 in M/s N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors.[i] , wherein it held that an unstamped instrument in need of stamping is not a contract and not enforceable in law. Therefore, the arbitration clause contained therein is also unenforceable. Similarly, an arbitration agreement, which attracts stamp duty but is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, cannot be acted upon. Interestingly, the decision has not been unanimous since two Hon’ble Judges have dissented. Continue Reading Does Non-Stamping of a Contract Render an Arbitration Clause Contained in it Unenforceable? The Supreme Court Says Yes
The issue of enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in an unstamped/ insufficiently stamped agreement has been the subject of various judicial pronouncements. Conflicting decisions have been delivered by various High Courts and even the Supreme Court (“SC”) did not lay down a conclusive position. Recently though, a five judge bench of the apex court, through its judgment in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited[1] (“NN Global”), finally settled the law on enforceability of arbitration agreements contained in unstamped/ insufficiently stamped arbitration agreements.Continue Reading Enforceability of an Unstamped Arbitration Agreement
The powers of revision serve to provide an important avenue to an accused or the prosecution seeking to remedy any patent defect in the finding of a trial court through different stages of a criminal trial. However, a key stakeholder in a criminal trial, as has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India, from time to time is also the complainant,[1] who may also be the victim of the alleged criminal act. It would, therefore, not be out of place to assess the role that a complainant/informant plays in revisionary proceedings before a superior court. It is this aspect that forms the subject matter of the present blog. In an effort to situate the role of a complainant in criminal revision proceedings, in the following segments, we discuss: (i) the scope and powers of a revision court; (ii) the locus standi of a complainant/informant; (iii) the circumstances whereunder a complainant/informant is permitted to intervene in revision proceedings and the extent of such intervention and (iv) nuances surrounding a revision application which has already been preferred by the State.Continue Reading Intervention in Criminal Revision Petitions by the Complainant
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Hon’ble SC”) in its recent judgment dated March 27, 2023, in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.[i], has conclusively decided on the question of whether the principles of natural justice should be read into the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) (Fraud Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs) Directions, 2016[ii] (“Master Directions on Frauds”). The question, which has been pending before various High Courts and was raised before the Hon’ble SC in numerous appeals, has now been answered in the affirmative by the Hon’ble SC by holding that the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, has to be necessarily read into the Master Directions on Frauds to save it from vice of arbitrariness as classification of an account as fraud entails serious civil consequences for the borrowers.Continue Reading Principles of Natural Justice Prevail: Supreme Court Reads Rule of Audi Alteram Partem into Master Directions on Frauds
On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature. Section 7(5)(a) of the Code states that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) “may” admit an Application filed under Section 7 of the Code (“Application”), if (a) a default has occurred; (b) the Application is complete; and (c) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against the proposed resolution professional. The Supreme Court held that Section 7(5)(a) of the Code allows the NCLT to reject an Application even if the financial creditor establishes ‘debt’ and ‘default’ on the part of the corporate debtor.Continue Reading The Vidarbha Aftermath
The judgments of the Delhi HC in Cruz City and SRM Exploration, discussed in Part 1, appears to ignore the earlier decision of the SC in Dropti Devi v Union of India[1], where the SC held (in the context of prosecution under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act) that the legislative objectives of FERA and FEMA are identical, namely, preservation of the foreign exchange resources of the country.Continue Reading Legislative gap between the Arbitration Act and FEMA: Should Parliament step in? – Part II