Nayan Mittal, Law Graduate, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Recently, in the case of In Re: Cartelization in Industrial and Automotive Bearings (“Automotive Bearings Case”) the Competition Commission of India (“the Commission” or “CCI”) held that the discussion with respect to a commercially sensitive price related information amongst the competitors points out to cartelization under the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”). This decision marks a noted departure from the exiting approach established in Re: Cartelization in Flashlights Market in India(“Flashlights Case”) wherein it was held that discussion on commercially sensitive information is not anti-competitive even if it is meant to increase prices and the parties must actually act upon the information in order to constitute a violation. The present article analyses the changing standard of proof requirement with respect to commercially sensitive information in the Commission’s decisional practice.
Continue reading “Analyzing the Changing Standard of Proof with respect to Commercially Sensitive Information in Cartel Cases”
Aastha Agarwalla, Law Student, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
The Ministry of Finance, through a notification dated 19th March 2020, (hereinafter, “Amendment”) introduced a significant development in the legal framework of Differential Voting Rights (DVR), especially in shares having Superior Voting Rights (SR), by amending the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter, “SCRA Rules”).The Amendment provides that in case a company seeks to list its ordinary equity shares for offering to the public, then it shall be mandatorily required to list its shares having SR on the same recognized stock exchange.
Continue reading “MANDATORY LISTING OF SHARES HAVING SUPERIOR VOTING RIGHTS: A STEP FORWARD?”
Aditya Singh Chauhan, Law Student, National Law University, Jodhpur
With heavy tax defaults pilling-up in the recent years, tax authorities have resorted to issuing freezing orders under certain special provisions to freeze bank accounts and directly recover the money. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) or Tax Recovery Officer (“RO”) can make use of section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for this purpose. The aforesaid provision pertains to “Garnishee proceedings”, and allows the tax authorities to attach or collect money directly from the account of the tax payer’s debtor. The Supreme Court of India, while defining the scope of this section, observed “[it] would be applicable only when a money is due to the assesse from any person. Was the amount due to the assesse when the notice dated […] was issued is the question.” However, indiscriminate use of this section can severely impact the reputation and business of the assesse.It has been said that “[t]his is a provision which has to be used sparingly but is now used at the first instance by the assessing officer even in cases where a stay application is pending with various appellate authorities.” This article will explain the process of Garnishee Proceedings under the Act, discuss case laws in relation to freezing orders issued after serving notice under section 226(3) of the Act, and conclude with the instances where freezing orders are illegal or invalid.
Continue reading “Defining Contours Of Freezing Orders Under Section 226(3) Of The Income Tax Act”
Ojasvi Sharma, final year law student, Nirma University
Arbitrability of disputes has always been a big fuss amongst the scholars. No law or act in India prescribes the subject matter of disputes which could be resolved through arbitration. Albeit, § 2(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [“A & C Act”] clarifies that Part-I shall not affect the operation of any other laws in the country and certain disputes may not be submitted for resolution through arbitration. The issue of arbitrability of disputes relating to Competition law is contestable. The dubitable proposition is ‘whether a competition law dispute arising out of a contractual agreement between two parties could be submitted to an arbitral tribunal’. In other words, whether a dispute resolution mechanism primarily focused to address private parties’ concerns and is very much confidential could resolve an issue arising out of Competition law, which is of ‘Public Nature’ or includes ‘Public Interest’.
Continue reading “Arbitrability of Antitrust Disputes: A case against the orthodox approach of the Indian Courts”
Rahul Jajoo, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Forward markets pertaining to commodities in India have been recognized as a way to deal in derivative markets  since independence. It was however only in 1952 that the government of India decided to regulate the regime of forward markets and hence, the Forward Contracts Regulation Act, 1952 (“FCRA”) was enacted. The object and purpose of the FCRA was “An Act to provide for the regulation of certain matters relating to forward contracts, the prohibition of options in goods and for matters connected therewith.”
Continue reading “Forward Markets in India and the Saga of Electricity”
Divyansh Nayar, 4th year, National Law University, Odisha
The industrial undertakings are in dire need of funds for various purposes during the period of this economic collapse at the heels of COVID- 19 Pandemic. In order to attenuate the capital adequacy requirement, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) allowed relaxations in the rights issue process that seem to ease out the stringent requirements that debilitate the facility of raising funds by companies. Through a series of circulars, SEBI streamlined the process in order to cater to the need of the market and promote the influx of capital in the market. This article lays down the scheme of relaxations proffered and emphasizes on the capital requirement of the market
Continue reading “Streamlining The “Rights Issue” Process: Temporary Relaxations Amid The Pandemic”