In Part I of this post, we discussed the findings of the Court on the issue of separability of arbitration agreements from the underlying contract and the corresponding validity of arbitration agreements in unstamped agreements. In this part, we will analyse the findings of the Court with respect to arbitrability of disputes involving fraud; and issue of maintainability of writ petitions against orders passed under the Arbitration Act and provide our views on the Judgment.
India’s twin achievement of receiving the highest-ever FDI[1] and touching record highs at the bourses[2] occurred in the Financial Year 2020-2021. While the former came about in the first five months of the fiscal year (i.e. during the COVID-19 lockdown), the latter took place near the end of the calendar year 2020.
The year 2020 saw unprecedented business disruption due to the pandemic. Many Indian businesses were forced to reorganise and innovate to tackle the pandemic, which also resulted in revaluation of many firms by their acquirers. Cash rich and savvy investors took advantage of this unrivalled opportunity to make acquisitions and investments which is evident from the overall high deal activity in the calendar year 2020, especially in Q4. Continue Reading Takeover of Publicly Traded Companies: Flashback 2020
Recently, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in M/s N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Others[1] has reiterated and clarified the law on the (i) doctrine of separability of arbitration agreements from the underlying contract; (ii) arbitrability of disputes involving fraud; and (iii) maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Continue Reading The Supreme Court Revisits the Consequences of Non-Payment of Stamp Duty on the Arbitration Agreement – Part I
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), through a press release issued on January 13, 2021, has set up a working group on digital lending (“WG”), to study all aspects of digital lending activities in the regulated financial sector as well as by unregulated players so that an appropriate regulatory approach can be put in place.
The move is well-timed, given the recent turmoil witnessed in the Indian digital lending space, and comes on the back of the RBI’s December 23, 2020, public caution against unauthorised digital lending platforms/ mobile Apps and its June 24, 2020, Circular, prescribing Fair Practices Code for banks and non-banking finance companies (“NBFCs”) while sourcing loans or recovering dues through digital lending platforms. Continue Reading FIG Papers (No. 1) : RBI Working Group on Digital Lending – Policy Suggestions
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) came out with its consultative paper on “promoter reclassification/ promoter group entities and disclosure of the promoter group entities in the shareholding pattern”[1] to seek public comments on November 23, 2020.
The topic of promoter reclassification has been a talking point since 2015, wherein the power to reclassify promoters laid in the hands of the company, rather than the promoter. Therefore, it was observed by SEBI that the process provided too wide a net to alter the tag of a “promoter”. Hence, in 2018, SEBI revamped the procedure and came out with the now inserted Regulation 31A of Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, 2015. Continue Reading RECLASSIFICATION OF PROMOTERS BY SEBI
Remembering the year 2020 could easily turn one pensive. The year posed unprecedented challenges for the funds industry, driving-forth fundamental changes in the manner business would be conducted alongside the pandemic. The year also marked an important milestone in the ever-evolving regulatory landscape, with several amendments critical for funds and fund managers being rolled out.
Films are an integral part of our daily lives whether it be belting out filmy dialogues or watching films to de-stress and relax. While it is commonly understood that the dialogues, script, music and lyrics forming part of the film are subject matter of copyright protection, the nitty-gritty in relation to intellectual property rights protection of film titles is less discussed. Considering that fact that it is the title of the film that at the first instance catches the attention of the general public, the law governing the protection and enforcement of film titles becomes relevant. In this blog, we have analysed the protection available to film titles under the Indian copyright and trademark regime. Continue Reading What’s in a Name?
SEBI has been continuously streamlining the regulatory architecture governing schemes of arrangements under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”) and Regulations 11, 37 and 94 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”) involving listed companies with the introduction of the SEBI Circular dated March 17, 2017 (“SEBI Scheme Circular”). SEBI vide its Circular dated November 3, 2020 (“Amendment Circular”), has introduced further changes to the SEBI Scheme Circular. The Amendment Circular is brought into effect for all schemes of arrangement submitted to the Stock Exchanges on or after November 17, 2020. Changes introduced under the Amendment Circular are as follows: Continue Reading SEBI Changes to Scheme Circular: Is it a case of over-prescription?
Recognising that an arbitration agreement between parties is an agreement independent of the substantive contract, the Delhi High Court in Dholi Spintex Pvt. Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd.[1] has held that two Indian parties can choose a foreign law as the law governing the arbitration between them. The Court has also reiterated the legal position on limited interference by Courts in international arbitrations. Continue Reading Can Two Indian Parties choose foreign law to govern their arbitration agreement? The Delhi High Court answers in the Affirmative
Can allottees approach Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986[1] (the “CP Act”), despite the remedies available under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the “RERA”), if they don’t want to take a recourse under the latter? This question was long debated and the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) finally answered it in the case of Imperial Structures Limited v. Surinder Anil Patni and Another[2]. The Supreme Court held that the RERA does not bar the jurisdiction of the CP Act to deal with the complaints filed by consumers who are homebuyers or allottees of real estate projects registered under RERA. While this finding may create more challenges and complexities, such as parallel litigations and claims initiated under both RERA and CP Act, we will analyse the rationale behind this judgment. Continue Reading RERA or Consumer Fora? – Homebuyers can make the choice!