Nitya Jain, Institute of Law Nirma University
The unprecedented surge in the global digital market has made data a valuable asset for individuals, corporations and Governments. Cross-border data flows have shrunk the world, allowing people across the globe to have the same user experience on the Internet. However, the explosion in the volume of data has generated as much a threat to its misuse as it created opportunities for companies. Today few global big shot organizations dominate the digital economy and their model is centered around data. Greater access to data provides a greater digital capital to a corporation, granting it an advantage over its competitors. Owing to this disadvantage faced by the domestic and small scale organizations, most jurisdictions impose conditions on when and how data can be transferred, and consequently some resort to physical data localization requirements. A study by Mckinsey Global Institute found that in 2014 the direct impact of cross-border data flows had raised world GDP by 3 percent (worth about $2.2 trillion in 2014), which exceeded the contribution of trade in traditional goods in that year.
Continue reading “Restrictions on Cross Border Data Exchange in India: A Good Move?”
Anurag Mohan Bhatnagar and Amiya Upadhyay, National Law University Odisha
Recently, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) passed a decision wherein it ruled that the locus standi to approach the Competition Commission of India (CCI) shall only be restricted to the person who has suffered harm because of anti-competitive practices in the market. This has created a major turmoil in the competition law regime since the decision is in disregard of the intent of the legislature and settled principles of interpretation. Axiomatically, the term “any person” as under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) acts as a gate through which multiple entities can reach the commission with complaints of anti-competitive practices. The provision also ensures healthy competition in the market of India. However, it does not have a mechanism to filter-out ill-motivated and frivolous complaints reaching CCI.
Continue reading “Samir Agarwal vs CCI – NCLAT’s Erroneous Approach Towards Locus Standi”
Gaurav Pingle, Practising Company Secretary and Renucka Vaiddya, Research Associate, Gaurav Pingle & Associates
The ‘Principles Governing Disclosures and Obligations of Listed Entity’ have been prescribed in Chapter II, Regulation 4 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. According to the provisions, a listed entity shall provide adequate and timely information to recognized stock exchange(s) and investors. However, what is adequate information is not very easy to determine and prescribe. It is very subjective – depending upon the nature of the transaction, the volume of transaction, and the company. Further, the Regulations provide that a listed entity shall refrain from misrepresentation and ensure that the information provided to recognized stock exchange(s) and investors is not misleading. A listed entity shall make the specified disclosures and follow its obligations in letter and spirit taking into consideration the interest of all stakeholders. The listed entity is also under an obligation to abide by all the provisions of the applicable laws including the securities laws and also such other guidelines as may be issued from time to time by SEBI and the recognised stock exchange(s) in this regard and as may be applicable.
Continue reading “Disclosure Regime: SAT lays down parameters for timely disclosures”
Dr. Akshaya Kamalnath, Lecturer Auckland University of Technology
India’s regulatory intervention with regard to corporate diversity has focused exclusively on board gender diversity. It has required companies to have atleast one woman on its board. The relevant section of the Companies Act, 2013 is extracted below:
Continue reading “CORPORATE GENDER DIVERSITY IN INDIA – LOOKING BEYOND THE BOARD”
Vyapak Desai, Ajar Rab and Rohan Batra
This white paper has been developed pursuant to the first quarterly debate of Project Discourse organized under the helm of Commercial and Financial Law Reporter on the motion of “Can Remote Hearings replace Physical Hearings in Arbitration?”
Continue reading “CAN REMOTE HEARINGS REPLACE PHYSICAL HEARINGS IN ARBITRATION?”