Multi Modal Logistics Parks

BACKGROUND

A systematic logistics network is crucial to economic growth. To develop this sector, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, in October 2017, under the ‘Bharatmala Pariyojana’, mandated the Ministry of Roads Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to develop Multi Model Logistics Parks (MMLP) across the country[1].

Continue Reading Multi Modal Logistics Parks – Logistics Future of India

Listen to this post

claim for refund of advance amount

Introduction

Since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“IBC”), the Indian judiciary has been facing numerous interpretational challenges on various provisions of the IBC. While certain challenges have been put to rest by introducing amendments to the legislation, a larger bunch of the issues have been settled by interpretations adopted by the judiciary. The Courts and Tribunals, in interpreting the provisions of the IBC, have aspired to achieve the objective of the IBC, i.e. maximising the value of assets of the corporate debtor.

Continue Reading Is Claim for Refund of Advance an ‘Operational Debt’? SC Comes to Rescue

Whatsapp Group Admin

The modern genesis of vicariously attributing culpability to a creator or administrator of a WhatsApp group for offensive, defamatory or objectionable content posted by a group member can be found in the recent decision of the High Court of Kerala on February 23, 2022, in the matter of Manual versus State of Kerala and another[1]. The High Court of Kerala has largely followed the bright line laid down by the High Court of Bombay[2], the High Court of Delhi[3] and the High Court of Madras[4] in their previous decisions on this subject. As a rule, most common law jurisdictions have traditionally applied vicarious liability by employing the common law doctrine of respondent superior. It is noteworthy that superior courts have also authoritatively held in successive judgments that vicarious criminal liability can be attributed only if a penal provision of such nature is specifically provided in the underlying statute.

Continue Reading Can the admin of a WhatsApp group be held vicariously liable for an objectionable post by a group member?

Listen to this post

Russia Ukraine Sanctions

Part 2[1] of the two-part blog discusses the Sanctions measures adopted globally against the Russian Government and its affiliates in response to its actions in Ukraine, with special emphasis on sanctions imposed by the US, UK and the EU, their impact on Indian businesses and key takeaways for businesses operating in sanctions regions.

Continue Reading Analysing the Russia/Ukraine Sanctions & their Impact on Indian Businesses – Part 2

JV Company’s Board

Background

The fiduciary relationship between a director and the company is among the foremost principles of company law, which was first enshrined by common law courts of equity. The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) first recognised this common law principle in its celebrated judgment in the Nanalal Zaver case[1], which noted that directors can be considered as “trustees” of the company, and “must exercise their powers for the benefit of the company and for that alone”.[2]

Continue Reading Dilemma of a Nominee Director on the JV Company’s Board – Is there a conflict in his fiduciary duties?

Listen to this post

Russia Ukraine Sanctions

Introduction

Sanctions are political, diplomatic, or economic measures under International law, deployed by an International organisation or States against a State or States either to protect national security interests, or to protect international law, and defend against threats to international peace and security. Sanctions can be economic, targeting specific commodities, trades, etc., military, diplomatic, and also include travel bans, asset freezes, or arms embargoes.

Continue Reading Analysing the Russia/Ukraine Sanctions & their Impact on Indian Businesses – Part 1

Arbitration

INTRODUCTION

Recently, in the case of Gyan Prakash Arya vs. Titan Industries Limited[1], the Supreme Court enunciated the limited scope of an arbitral tribunal’s power under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The Court has authoritatively clarified that such power can only be exercised to correct clerical and/or arithmetic errors (and errors of similar nature).

Continue Reading The Supreme Court Clarifies: The Power Under Section 33 is Limited to Rectifying Clerical/ Arithmetical Errors

Listen to this post

GIFT City

Introduction

 In the 2022-23 Union Budget announcements on February 1, 2022 (“Budget”), the Finance Minister introduced a proposal to allow the entry of world-class foreign universities and institutions in Gujarat International Financial Tec-City IFSC (“GIFT IFSC”), to offer courses in subjects pertaining to financial management, fintech, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, to facilitate the availability of skilled human capital for financial services and technology[1]. The announcement is seen as a progressive step, giving further impetus to promoting GIFT IFSC as the preferred International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) globally.

Continue Reading GIFT City Opens Doors for Entry of Foreign Universities in India

Listen to this post

Dispute

The Supreme Court of India in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar,[1] recently ruled that an award enhancing the rent payable under a separate agreement was liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), on the basis that the award was based on a dispute beyond the scope of submission to arbitration. The theme of what would be within the province of a tribunal or otherwise has often been the subject matter of challenges. For example, in Satyanarayana Construction Company v. Union of India & Others[2], the Supreme Court ruled that if the underlying contract fixed a rate of interest, an arbitrator could not rewrite its terms and award a higher rate.

Continue Reading Indian Oil Corporation v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum: An arbitral tribunal’s powers to do justice are circumscribed by contract

Telecom Reforms

Introduction

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), in second half of 2021, released a series of notifications for reforming the telecom sector and bringing much-needed reforms. These notifications were compiled in a booklet titled “Telecom Reforms 2021” and released by the DoT (“Reforms”). The Reforms span over different areas of telecom regulations including: Know Your Customer (“KYC”) Norms, amending the definition Adjusted Gross Revenue (“AGR”), a percentage of which is the license fee, Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”), Bank Guarantees, Customer Application Forms (“CAF”), sharing and assignment of spectrum, Standing Advisory Committee on Frequency Allocation (“SACFA”) clearance, Import of Wireless Equipment and liquidity requirements of Telecom Service Providers (“TSP”). In this blog, we provide an overview of the Reforms and present a brief overall analysis of the same.

Continue Reading Telecom Reforms & the way forward