By Rishav Ray and Subhadeepa Sen, Students at School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
Disputes relating to property are a common occurrence in India since with the passage of time there has been a substantial and continuous hike in property prices and tenancy has increased in the urban areas leading to landlord-tenant disputes. Eviction cases are the most common kind of disputes between the landlord and the tenant. Landlords often try evicting tenants using unlawful force which causes a ground for legal dispute among the parties. This article however shall keep its scope restricted to only those cases wherein the landlord has the right to lawfully evict the tenant for his property.
Continue reading “Arbitration of Landlord-Tenant Disputes: The Way Forward”
By Sourav Paul, Student at National University of Juridical Sciences
Over the past few years, there has been a revival of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies [“SPAC”] in the international capital markets paradigm. As per SPAC Insider data, since 2009, out of 755 such Initial Public Offerings [“IPO”] by SPACs, 248 happened in 2020 and 281 in 2021 to date. The gross proceeds raised by SPACs in 2020 amounted to over $83 billion, whereas in 2021, it amounted to $91.65 billion as of now. In 2020, around $80 billion was raised in the US by 247 SPACs representing almost 50% of the raised capital of about $174 billion. This resurgence of SPACs can be attributed to the pandemic-induced slowdown and extensive celebrity involvement. Some critics argue that the SPAC bubble is about to burst soon.
Continue reading “Regulatory Roadblocks in SPAC Listings in India”
By Utkarsh, Student at National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL)
On 10.08.2006 Cyrus Mistry was appointed as a Non-Executive Director on the Board of Tata Sons. By a Resolution of the Board of Directors of Tata Sons dated 16.03.2012, Cyrus Mistry was appointed as Executive Deputy Chairman for a period of five years from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017, subject however to the approval of the shareholders at a General Meeting. By a Resolution dated 18.12.2012, the Board of Directors of Tata Sons re-designated Cyrus Mistry as its Executive Chairman with effect from 29.12.2012, even while designating Ratan Tata as Chairman Emeritus. By a Resolution passed on 24.10.2016, the Board of Directors of Tata Sons replaced Cyrus Mistry (CPM) with Ratan Tata (RNT) as the interim Non-Executive Chairman. It is relevant to note that Cyrus Mistry was replaced only from the post of Executive Chairman and it was left to his choice to continue or not, as Non-executive Director of Tata Sons. As a follow up, certain things happened and by separate resolutions passed at the meetings of the shareholders of Tata Industries Limited, Tata Consultancy Services Limited and Tata Limited, CPM was removed from directorship of those companies. CPM then resigned from the Directorship of a few other operating companies such as the Indian Hotels Company Limited, Tata Steel Limited, Tata Motors Limited, Tata Chemicals Limited and Tata Power Company Limited, after coming to know of the impending resolutions to remove him from Directorship. Thereafter, 2 companies by name, Cyrus Investments Private Limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited, belonging to the SP Group, in which CPM holds a controlling interest, filed a company petition in C.P No.82 of 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) under Sections 241 and 242 read with 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, on the grounds of unfair prejudice, oppression and mismanagement. Along with the application for waiver of the requirement of Section 244(1)(a), the complainant companies also moved an application for stay of an Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM” for short) of Tata Sons, in which a proposal for removing CPM as a Director of Tata Sons had been moved.
Continue reading “Tata Consultancy Service Limited V. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd and Others: Supreme Court Judgement Summary”
By Yamini Jain and Gaurav Karwa
Deriving its essence from Article 3(2) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Section 2(A) of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 [PDPB] makes a provision of its extraterritorial application over data fiduciaries and data principals present beyond the territory of India. Section 2(A)(b) of PDPB makes an extraordinary provision pertaining to its applicability on all such data fiduciaries incorporated under the laws of India and brings all their foreign branches within its purview. In this light, understanding the impact of the extra-territorial application of the PDPB on multinational banks based in India that process sensitive personal data becomes particularly important. In this article, the authors aim to highlight various issues and problems arising out of extraterritorial application on multinational organizations and particularly those related to the banking sector. The authors explain the distinct meaning of the extra-territorial application of the PDPB, whether such application is in conflict with other laws, and other major issues in data localization, cloud servers, etc.
Continue reading “Impact of Extraterritorial Applicability of PDP Bill, 2019 on Banking Sector”
By Rukmini Mukherjee, lawyer based out of New Delhi and currently pursuing her LLM from Jindal Global Law School
The legal conundrum governing the position of at what stage winding up petitions pending before the High Courts (“ Company Court”) are to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunals (“NCLTs”) have undergone various judicial pronouncements, debates and legislative amendments. The question of at what stage can a winding up petition be transferred has been recently dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Action Ispat And Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shyam Metalics And Energy Ltd. This post will analyze this judgment in light of the provisions relating to winding up under the Companies Act 2013 to highlight how the same does not quite fit in within that framework.
Continue reading “To Transfer or Not to Transfer: An analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Action Ispat and Power Pvt Ltd v. Shyam Metallics and Energy Ltd”
By Shivanjali Shukla, Student at Jindal Global Law School
“Mutual fund investments are subject to market risks. Please read the offer document carefully before investing.”
Franklin Templeton is one of the leading mutual fund houses in the country and a premier organization for global investment management. On 24th April, the company announced that it would be winding up six debt schemes. The schemes which were announced to be wrapped up are: Franklin India low duration fund, dynamic accrual fund, credit risk fund, short term income plan, ultra-short bond fund and income opportunities fund. These schemes consisted of investor’s assets worth around INR 30000 crore. The schemes which were wound up by the company were credit risk funds. Credit risk funds are basically those kinds of funds which lend 65% or more to the low-credit quality debt securities. People who have low credit rating, try to compensate by agreeing to pay a higher rate of interest in comparison to those people who have a decent credit rating. However, since they have low credit ratings, the chances of defaulting are very high, thus this creates huge risk for the lenders.
Continue reading “Franklin Templeton Case study”
By Mili Budhiraja, student at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
Under the Indian Partnership Act (“Act”), 1932, registration of partnership is not mandatory. But there are important repercussions of the non-registration of firms, as prescribed in Section 69 of the Act, which practically necessitates the registration at one time or the other. Section 69(3) of the Act has attracted much discourse because of the ambiguity in relation to the interpretation of the phrase “other proceedings”. The Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., held that the arbitration proceedings do not fall within the ambit of “other proceedings” and therefore, arbitration proceedings are not hit by the bar of Section 69. Through this piece, the application of the ingredients of the section will be analysed in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Goel.
Continue reading “A Critique of the Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Housing Society Case”
By Tarun Agarwal, Student at Institute of Law, Nirma University
The Additional Tier 1 (AT 1) Bondholders of Yes Bank have filed a case in the Madras High Court challenging the legal validity of the Master Circular issued by the RBI. The circular allowed to write down the AT 1 bonds worth Rs 8,415 crore completely after a scheme of reconstruction of Yes bank was approved by the government and the RBI.
Continue reading “Unpacking YES BANK AT-1 Bond Saga”
By Devashish Srivastava, Student at National Law University Odisha
The locus to approach or file an information before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been unclear in recent times. It was complicated further by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) judgment in the matter of Samir Agrawal vs. CCI (Samir Agarwal case). Following the NCLAT’s judgment, the CCI got involved and changed the judicial stance to reflect the fundamental objective of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) in Harshita Chawla vs WhatsApp and Facebook (WhatsApp Case). Soon after CCI’s judgment in the WhatsApp Case, the Supreme Court settled the issue vide its order in the Samir Agrawal case in an appeal against the NCLAT’s order. The current article is a chronological study which seeks to analyse the aforesaid judgments passed by the judicial authorities.
Continue reading “The Locus Standi Conundrum: NCLAT, Competition Commission, and the Supreme Court”
By Khushi Mishra and Rajeev Dadhich, Students at Institute of Law, Nirma University
Since the enactment of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (The “MSME Act”) a major dispute is between the institutional arbitration under Section 18 of the MSME Act and a sole arbitration as per Arbitration agreement (“AA”) constituted between the parties. As per Section 18 of the MSME Act which is the non- obstante clause, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution to conduct arbitration. However, in the event of AA constituted between the parties, the parties are at the liberty to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate their disputes. Therefore, the debated dispute ongoing is that what will prevail between institutional arbitration under section 18 and sole arbitration as per AA.
Continue reading “Jurisdiction Tussle between MSME Act and Arbitration Agreement: Opportunity Lies With the Supreme Court to Clear the Mist”