Listen to this post
Cosmetics Regulation in India

Customised cosmetics have recently grown in popularity, with customers increasingly appreciating the value of personalised rather than off-the-shelf products. Customers often prefer to pick ingredients which suit their skin/ hair characteristics, and associate such unique products with greater effectiveness and functionality. Several cosmetics manufacturers and retailers are already in the race to capture this growing demand in India. However, little attention has been paid to the legal implications and regulatory risks which arise from the import, production, storage, mixing and/ or retail of such customised cosmetics. It is therefore essential for players in this emerging market to be mindful of certain important legal questions and considerations to ensure proper compliance. This is especially in light of the new regulatory landscape, which has been laid down through the Cosmetics Rules, 2020 (“Cosmetics Rules” / “Rules”) and has been rapidly evolving over the past few years.

Continue Reading Concept to Compliance: Unveiling the Untapped Realm of Customised Cosmetics Regulation in India
Listen to this post
FIG Paper

BACKGROUND

While the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) had in its August 10, 2022 press release stated that it is examining the First Loss Default Guarantee (“FLDG”) structures, the Digital Lending Guidelines issued by the RBI on September 2, 2022 neither permitted nor expressly prohibited loss sharing arrangements such as FLDGs, but recommended that provisions of paragraph 6(c) of the Reserve Bank of India (Securitisation of Standard Assets) Directions, 2021 dated September 24, 2021 (“Securitisation MD”) be adhered to for financial products involving contractual agreements such as FLDG. Paragraph 6(c) of Securitisation MD prohibits Regulated Entities (“RE”) from undertaking or assuming exposure under “synthetic securitisation” structures. This led to industry-wide confusion regarding the permissibility of loss sharing arrangements such as FLDG.

Continue Reading FIG Paper (No.18 – Series 2) RBI’s New Default Loss Guarantee Guidelines: Late but Not lost
Listen to this post
ECO-SENSITIVE ZONES

Introduction

‘Eco-Sensitive Zones’ (“ESZ”) or ‘Ecologically Fragile Areas’ are notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (“MoEF”) under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 around the boundary of a ‘protected area’ (i.e. national park, sanctuary, conservation reserve or community reserve)[1] (“Protected Area(s)”) to create a “shock absorber/ transition zone” in the Protected Areas and to preserve the areas outside such areas, which are often considered as vital ecological corridor links, by regulating and managing the activities around such Protected Areas[2].  

Continue Reading Supreme Court Relaxes Directions Concerning Eco-Sensitive Zones
Listen to this post
Arbitration Law

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
Listen to this post
Disputes

Introduction

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
Listen to this post
POSH Act

Introduction

In its recent judgment in Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and Others(Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014), the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) observed that even after a decade of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) being formulated, its implementation and enforcement is still inadequate. To remedy the situation, the Supreme Court issued various directions for effective implementation of the POSH Act. For reference, the POSH Act imposes an obligation on all employers, having 10 (ten) or more workers to set up an internal committee to look into sexual harassment complaints. It also lays down the procedure for conducting an inquiry into the complaints, amongst other things.

Continue Reading Supreme Court’s landmark ruling : Directions for effective implementation of the POSH Act
Listen to this post

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
Listen to this post
Employee Provident Fund EPF

In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The primary reason for various interpretations of how PF dues are treated under the Code ensues from the overlapping nature of certain provisions within the Code itself, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and the Companies Act, 2013. The article traces the judicial trend in treatment of EPF dues under the code and analyses the reasoning put forth by various adjudicating authorities in deciding on the rights of the employees of the corporate debtor.

Continue Reading Treatment of Employees Provident Fund Dues under the IBC
Listen to this post
FVCI Regulations

Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has released a consultation paper[1] on May 18, 2023 suggesting changes to the regulatory framework for registration and eligibility of Foreign Venture Capital Investors (“FVCIs”). Public comments have been invited on the consultation paper.


SEBI’s proposals are broadly to align the conditions under the SEBI (Foreign Venture Capital Investor) Regulations, 2000 (“FVCI Regulations”) with certain conditions under the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019 (“FPI Regulations”), and with a view to ensure adequate due-diligence and regulate the inflow of foreign capital in India through the FVCI route.

Continue Reading FVCI Regulations 2.0: SEBI Proposes to revise FVCI Registration and Eligibility Conditions
Listen to this post

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