A Working Group on Digital Lending (“RBI WG”), constituted by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), had published its Report in November 2021. It had made recommendations on (i) the legal and regulatory framework for digital lending; (ii) technology; and (iii) financial consumer protection, implementable over the near-term (up to one year) and medium-term (beyond one year).
The offence of money laundering, as per the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary is “the act of transferring illegally obtained money through legitimate people or accounts so that its original source cannot be traced”. Further to this definition, it is only but natural to assume that the money, if illegally obtained, must be obtained in relation to the commission of an underlying criminal offence. The commission and requirement of this underlying offence, commonly known as a predicate offence, has been a point of debate since the introduction of the Prevention and Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“the Act”), which provides a list of offences in the Schedule appended thereto as ‘scheduled offences’.
Continue Reading The Concept of Predicate Offence: The Supreme Court Clarifies
On July 4, 2022, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) clarified to all banks and non-bank payment system operators (“PSOs”) that its prior approval would be required for any (a) takeover/ acquisition of control, which may or may not result in change of management; and (b) sale/ transfer of payment activity to an entity not authorised for undertaking similar activity (“Circular”).
The challenge in interpreting ‘control’ under the SEBI takeover regime is hardly a new one. The current definition of ‘control’ under the Takeover Regulations, 2011, similar to the one under the Takeover Code, 1997, consists of two parts. Firstly, the right to appoint a majority of the directors on the board of a company, which is fairly straightforward to determine; and secondly, the right to control the management and policy decisions of a company, which is where things tend to become slightly murky specially in the context of a minority shareholder exercising veto or affirmative vote rights.
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.
Interim measures act as significant procedural safeguards in ensuring the efficacy of the arbitration process. They serve to protect the rights of parties from the inception of the dispute till the execution of the final award. In India, interim measures may be granted in three stages i.e. before the commencement of arbitration proceedings, during the pendency of arbitration proceedings and after the passing of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement.[1]
The right to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard are considered as twin ingredients of natural justice, unless specifically excluded by legislation. There are certain laws in India that warrant strict compliance with this requirement. The courts in India have also examined this requirement and its consequences, while keeping in mind the extent to which this requirement is needed to be met with.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a circular in April this year (Circular), reducing timelines for REIT listings from 12 working days to six working days from the date of public issue closure. While this is a welcome move from the perspective of public investors and is yet another step towards ensuring parity between REIT and listco regimes, this could prove challenging for REITs and their advisors, given the intricacies of the REIT regulatory framework.
Continue Reading Reduction in REIT Listing Timelines – A Sprint to the Finish Line?
A robust asset management industry along with a well-developed regulatory ecosystem is pivotal to the growth of capital markets, which are in turn critical to a developing economy such as India. The Government of India is taking considerable efforts for ‘onshoring the offshore’ financial services activities to enable India to compete with some of the more established jurisdictions in the world such as Singapore, Mauritius and Hong Kong.
With increased incidences of trade wars between business rivals through commercial advertising in print and electronic media, there is an apparent need to identify the threshold at which the publication of a certain advertisement becomes defamatory or disparaging to another’s product. The Apex Court has declared that the publication of commercial advertisements forms a part of ‘commercial speech’ protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.[1]