For a company or a large corporate group, the outcome of a single litigation can be life changing, and may severely impact the interests of the promoters, the management, investors, and other stakeholders. Given the impact that even a single litigation can have on the life of a company, the lawmakers have been conscious of the fact that time is of the utmost essence in adjudicating company disputes.
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corporation Limited[1] (“the Antrix case”) has many interesting facets. It brings to light some interesting questions of law on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the Bilateral Investment Treaties when the claimant company (Decree holder) is ordered to be wound up (for the first time in India) on the grounds of fraud, which is against the public policy of India and most jurisdictions that are signatories to the New York Convention.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), an umbrella legislation, has successfully envisaged the process of speedy resolution or liquidation of a corporate entity and has proved to be a milestone in the Indian legal framework. By bringing IBC in force, the legislature has sought to maximise the value of the assets of the debtor, and to adopt a fair and transparent procedure for the disposition of the assets while balancing the interests of all stakeholders.
In order to provide for an alternative and efficient dispute resolution mechanism for securities law violations, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) introduced the consent mechanism through a circular in 2007[1] (which was partially modified in 2012)[2]. This was subsequently codified through the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014 (“2014 Regulations”), pursuant to the notification of the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014, which expressly empowered SEBI to settle matters with a view to removing any ambiguity over the validity of the settlement process. This regime specifically excluded certain serious violations (e.g. insider trading, fraud) from the purview of the settlement mechanism. Explicit provisions which enabled initiation of settlement proceedings prior to the issuance of show cause notice were also introduced, to reduce administrative burden and cost on SEBI.
Continue Reading Amendments to SEBI Settlement Regime – A Snapshot
Post the 2015 Amendment, the powers of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), are at par with and akin to the powers of the Court under Section 9 of the Act. Whilst the non-filing of the Statement of Claim did not serve as an impediment to the Courts granting interim reliefs under Section 9, the question on whether an Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to grant interim reliefs under Section 17 in the absence of a Statement of Claim remained unclear.
Continue Reading Statement of Claim not sine qua non to Filing an Application under Section 17
‘Product Liability’ has been defined for the first time under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”). As per the 2019 Act, product liability means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, or product service provider, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by a defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services in relation to the product.[1]
Continue Reading Product Liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An Overview
In recent years, in line with global trends, India’s growth has been fuelled by technology and platform economy, with physical moving towards digital and ‘phygital’.
In this digital age, it may not be out of place to say that data has replaced oil as the most valuable resource. The advancement of technology has led to the emergence of a new species of extortion, where ransom is sought in lieu of data, which is illegally assumed control over. This phenomenon is popularly known as a ransomware attack. A ransomware attack includes a malware that is introduced onto the host’s computer or mobile, thereby encrypting its data, with a subsequent demand for a ‘ransom’ for decryption of the same, to secure its release[i].
The end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022 has come bearing gifts for the financial technology (“Fintech”) sector particularly for the lending space. The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) had amended the Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006 (“Regulations”) on November 10, 2021 vide the Credit Information Companies (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 (“Amendment”)[1] – the first amendment since 2017 – expanding the scope of entities falling within the definition of ‘specified users’ under Regulation 3 to include “an entity engaged in the processing of information, for the support or benefit of credit institutions, and satisfying the criteria laid down by the Reserve Bank from time to time.”
Kompetenz-kompetenz, allowing the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, is one of the fundamental principles of arbitration. In Indian arbitration law, this is captured in Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”). This is further emphasised in Indian Farmer Fertilizer Cooperative Limited v. Bhadara Products (2018) 2 SCC 534 (“IFFCO Judgment”), wherein the Supreme Court has held that ‘jurisdiction’ mentioned in Section 16 has reference to three things: (1) existence of a valid arbitration agreement, (2) whether arbitral tribunal is properly constituted and (3) whether matters submitted to arbitration are in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Clearly, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement falls within the scope of jurisdictional matters to be determined by the arbitral tribunal.