Ashuthosh V., Law student, Institute of Law, Nirma University
A Shareholder meeting is a meeting between the management of the company and the owners and shareholders of the company. During the meeting, decisions are made concerning the day-to-day operations of the company. The purpose is to ensure that the shareholders are provided with an opportunity to discuss and deliberate upon affairs concerning the company. In a pre-Covid-19 situation, shareholder meetings were conducted in a physical venue and in accordance with the procedures under Section 96 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter “the Act”). It must be held at least once in a financial year, but not more than 15 months from the date of the previous one.
Continue reading “Virtual Shareholder Meetings: The Future of Shareholder Meetings Post Covid-19”
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”
Urja Dhapre, Institute of Law, Nirma University
The Indian Supreme Court has ironed out the position of limitation period governing foreign decrees from reciprocating territories. The recent case of Bank of Baroda (“Appellant”) v/s Kotak Bank Ltd (“Respondent”)[i] has broken new ground by categorising limitation as a substantive requirement rather than being merely procedural. The upshot is the period of limitation for enforcing a foreign judgement in a reciprocating territory is now no longer determined by Indian law but instead depends on the law of limitation of the foreign country.
Continue reading “Supreme Court’s Ruling on Limitation Period of Foreign Decrees: Untangling the Knots”
Siddharth Chechani, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
International arbitration with its global and distinctly adaptive nature has continued to grow amongst major business transactions. Multinational companies are opting for International Commercial Arbitration considering its speedy disposal mechanism and its expertise to resolve the complex business matters in a time bound manner. It started in the early years of twenty first century from Australia, and subsequently this practice has been adopted in United Kingdom, and in United States of America (‘USA’) respectively.
Continue reading “STATUS QUO OF THIRD-PARTY FUNDING IN INDIA”