The Union Budget 2021-22 announced the proposal to liberalise Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) in Indian insurance companies from the existing 49% to 74% with effect from August 2021. The aforesaid proposal was subsequently formalised by way of introduction of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2021 (“Amendment Act”), to amend the Insurance Act, 1938. Please click here to refer to our earlier blog for more details in this regard.
With a vision to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy, the Indian government[1] launched the Digital India initiative and mindful of its impact, it has been taking several steps to ensure greater accessibility as well as greater safety around internet based services. This, coupled with heightened internet based services and digital connectivity,[2] led the government to launch several digital services[3] and some are remarkably successful – these range from unified payments interface (UPIs) to DigiLocker[4]. According to India Brand Equity Foundation, the rising use of UPIs strongly indicate that more and more people in India are adopting a digital lifestyle[5] – UPI saw its highest ever number of transactions in April 2022 at 5.58 billon, amounting to INR 9.83 trillion. DigiLocker hit the mark of 101 million users on March 19, 2022, evidencing the adoption and success of this initiative[6].
Continue Reading Policyholder – Data Sharing in India – Time for Consent – Based Regime?
The Supreme Court of India has in its recent landmark judgment in Satender Kumar Antil[1] laid down guidelines on the grant of bail to an accused and while doing so, it has reiterated aspects of personal liberty and constitutional guarantees available to an accused under criminal jurisprudence. The Court observed that while its discussion and findings are meant to operate as guidelines, each case pertaining to a bail application is to be decided on its own merits.[2] This article seeks to analyse these guidelines and evaluate their consequences and operation in practice.
Continue Reading Bail or Jail – The Supreme Court clarifies the law and lays down the guidelines
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.