Listen to this post

In Search of a Vaccine for Covid-19 - A Race to The Finish

The Covid-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on mankind, infecting well over 13 million, and claiming over half a million lives. It has also severely impacted economies across the world. Our healthcare infrastructure has been pushed to its limits and our frontline healthcare professionals are working to the brink of exhaustion, risking their own lives to save others. We bow to them.

In the midst of all this, scientists across the world are working feverishly to find a vaccine for this disease. The hopes of billions rest on this. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has (as of July 15, 2020) declared that there are about 23 potential vaccine candidates that are currently in various stages of clinical trials[1]. Out of these 23 vaccines, vaccines being developed by: (a) Sinovac (inactivated +alum); and (b) University of Oxford / AstraZeneca has entered into the Phase-III of its clinical trials[2]. In addition, as of July 15, 2020, there are around 140 vaccine candidates in preclinical evaluation (trials not commenced). Continue Reading In Search of a Vaccine for Covid-19: A Race to The Finish

MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - DELHI HIGH COURT SMM

Introduction

Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) in Gammon India Ltd. and Anr. v. National Highways Authority of India[1], had the occasion to opine on the scourge of multiplicity of arbitral proceedings while dealing with a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) wherein the objections raised were primarily based on the findings of a subsequent award. In dealing with the issues before it, the Court revisited various judicial precedents while setting out the principles to be considered when referring multiple disputes arising out of the same agreement to arbitration. Continue Reading Multiplicity of proceedings defeats the purpose of alternate dispute resolution: Delhi high court

BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AND LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS IN WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Introduction:                 

The handling, disposal and management of bio-medical waste (“BM Waste”)in India is government by inter-alia, the Biomedical Waste Management & Handling Rules, 1998 (“1998 Rules”) were notified by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6,8 & 25 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. These rules provide for the framework of the management and Handling of disposal and scientific management of BM Waste

In wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centre Pollution Control Board (“CPCB”) recently issued guidelines dated March 27, 2020 for handling, treatment and safe disposal of BM Waste generated during treatment, diagnosis and quarantine of patients confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines have been necessitated due to the super infectious nature of the Novel corona virus and provide for a mechanism for the segregation, packaging, transportation, storage and disposal of BM Waste in order to avoid further spread of the virus through BM Waste. Continue Reading BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AND LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS IN WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

 

Competition or unlawful contractual interference

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dealt with the tort of unlawful interference in contractual relationships and inter alia held that the said tort has no place in India in view of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”).[1]

Background

The developer of a certain property at Amritsar agreed to lease the said property to the Plaintiff for fifteen years, by way of a term sheet. The Plaintiff paid a security deposit to the developer as per the term sheet and proceeded to draw up the main transaction document.

Upon learning that the Defendant (a competitor of the Plaintiff) had been pursuing the developer for the purpose of entering into an agreement with respect to the same property, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant about the term sheet executed by the developer with the Plaintiff and requested the Defendant to desist from pursuing the developer. However, the Plaintiff learnt that the developer had entered into an agreement with the Defendant with respect to the said property. Soon thereafter, the Plaintiff was informed by the developer that the term sheet stood terminated on account of the Plaintiff’s failure to execute the main transaction document within the stipulated time. The developer refunded the security deposit, which was accepted by the Plaintiff without protest. The Plaintiff alleged that (a) the Defendant induced the developer to terminate the term sheet with the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant had similarly attempted to interfere with transactions between the Plaintiff and developers of other properties in different cities.

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant inter alia seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from inducing a breach of any agreement between the Plaintiff and third parties in respect of non-functional properties of the Plaintiff across India. Continue Reading Competition or unlawful contractual interference: The line continues to remain blurred

Housing Finance Companies - Proposed changes by RBI

 

The Central Government had, with effect from August 09, 2019, transferred regulatory powers of the Housing Finance Companies (“HFCs”) from the National Housing Bank (“NHB”) to the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”). It is further stated that the RBI will review the extant of regulatory framework applicable to HFCs and issue the same in due course.  Until such time, HFCs were required to comply with the directions and instructions issued by NHB.[1]

Pursuant to the above and in order to increase the efficiency of HFCs, the RBI has now placed a draft of the changes proposed in the regulations applicable to HFCs for public comments till July 15, 2020, which we have briefly summarised below: Continue Reading Housing Finance Companies – Proposed changes by RBI

Arbitrator’s power to recall its order of termination of arbitral proceeding- A tale of Dubiety - Part II

In Part I of this post, we inter-alia attempted to highlight the law (and perhaps a relevant counter perspective) in relation to the power of the arbitrator to recall its order of termination of arbitral proceedings passed under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). In this post, we attempt to answer whether such a remedy would extend to termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Act, and other issues incidental thereto. Continue Reading Arbitrator’s power to recall its order of termination of arbitral proceeding- A tale of Dubiety? (Part II)

Introduction:

This article analyses the legal basis and the genesis of the power of an arbitrator to recall its order of termination of proceeding on account of default of the Claimant.

India seated arbitral proceedings, whether ad-hoc or institutional, are governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 (UNCITRAL Model Law). Whilst arbitrators are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[1], they is usually guided by the broad principles enshrined in the said enactments, while conducting the arbitral proceedings. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the Court has power to recall its order. Under the said rule, if the Court is satisfied that summons was not duly served on the defendant, or that there was sufficient cause for defendant’s failure to appear when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court is empowered inter-alia to pass an order setting aside an ex- parte decree that may have been passed against the defendant.

Continue Reading Arbitrator’s power to recall its order of termination of arbitral proceeding- A tale of Dubiety? (Part I)

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected the society in an unanticipated and unprecedented way. To contain its spread, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India vide its order dated March 24, 2020 directed closure of commercial and private establishments for a period of twenty one days. Immediately thereafter, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) issued an order dated March 25, 2020 directing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to take action as per the said MHA order (including suspension of tolling operations on the toll plazas) and added that prevailing condition may be treated as ‘force majeure’ under the concession agreements executed by NHAI with the developers.

MoRTH thereafter directed NHAI to resume toll collections from April 20, 2020. However, the suspension of toll operations until April 20, 2020, the lockdown period thereafter and the steep fall of the traffic plying on the national highways, has significantly impacted the entire transportation industry, exposing developers to high risk and financial distress with no visibility of normalcy in the near future.

Continue Reading Covid-19: Bumpy roads ahead for Highway Sector

The SEBI Board in its meeting held on June 25, 2020, has approved  providing listed companies with a time-bound temporary option of undertaking preferential allotments at a possibly more investment-friendly pricing, by choosing to utilise the higher of the two weeks or the 12 weeks formula price (i.e. based on the average of the weekly high and low of the volume weighted average price quoted on the stock exchange – the pricing formula) instead of the existing norm of higher of the two weeks or the 26 weeks formula price. Given the current market conditions, which has seen a significant stock price drop since the second half of March, 2020, this option is bound to result in lower and arguably more favourable pricing for potential investments.

Continue Reading New Pricing for Preferential Allotments: Getting on the Funding Train

Listen to this post

Introduction

The EdTech sector is seeing significant investments and expenditure by governments, schools, universities, students and professionals globally. By 2030, it is expected that global EdTech expenditure will grow to USD 10 trillion[1]. The growing popularity of online learning, further necessitated due to the nationwide lockdown, has provided a major push to the sector in India, which is expected to grow at a CAGR of 52% to become a USD 2 billion industry by 2021[2]. The key growth drivers propelling EdTech in India are the ability to serve a large audience at significantly lower costs compared to traditional in-classroom learning, significant growth in internet and smartphone penetration across India, steady rise in disposable income of the Indian households, and a large consumer base with over 37% of India’s around 1.35 billion population falling in the 5-24 age bracket.

Continue Reading Covid-19 – A booster for the EdTech Industry in India