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”
By Alay Ninad Raje and Jaysinh Kela, Students at Institute of Law, Nirma University
From time to time, the issue of arbitrability of fraud arises in order to ascertain whether the disputes involving allegations of fraud are capable of being resolved through arbitration instead of courts. The Supreme Court of India (SC) recently through the judgment of Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corp., (“Vidya Drolia”) explicitly overruled N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers (“Radhakrishnan”) judgment, and providing a pro-arbitration approach towards arbitrability of fraud, thereby bringing clarity on the subject matter.
Continue reading “Explicating Arbitrability of Fraud in India”
By Nikshetaa Jain and Tushar Chitlangia, students at National Law University Odisha
The setbacks created by COVID-19 had major ramifications across the world, and businesses were no exceptions. Due to the lockdowns, the supply chains were disrupted and as a consequence, some parties were not able to perform the contract.
Continue reading “A Continuing Tussle on Taxation Of Liquidated Damages”
By Subramanya .V. Mysore, LL.M. Candidate at Jindal Global Law School
The term “control” is defined under explanation to Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) as “control includes controlling the affairs or management by one or more enterprises, either jointly or singly, over another group or enterprise….” In order to assess control, firstly, a proposed merger shall meet the thresholds of asset and turnover set forth under Section 5. Thereafter, the concerned party shall notify the Competition Commission of India (the CCI) under Section 6 to assess whether or not such mergers result in an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. However, the notification requirement can be waived if the concerned deal falls within list of exemptions provided under items 1 to 10 of Schedule I to the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in Regard to the Transaction of Business Relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011 (Combination Regulations).
Continue reading “In Search Of “Control”- A Competition Law Perspective”
By Chirag Jain, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
On 9th November 2020, the Government of India issued a gazette notification bringing the ‘films and audio-visual programmes made by online content providers’ and ‘news and current affairs content on online platforms’ both of which hitherto were free of supervision, under the ambit of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
Continue reading “Regulation of Online Content Creators in India- The Way Forward”
Gaurav Pingle, Practising Company Secretary
Remuneration or compensation to the directors of the company is one of the crucial aspects of corporate governance. The amount of remuneration or increase in the remuneration to directors is usually based on the profitability of the company and its performance for the corresponding financial year. By the amendments introduced by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020, the provisions relating to remuneration to non-executive directors / independent directors have been amended. Remuneration to promoter directors (executive directors or managing directors) has always been a matter of discussion.
Continue reading “SEBI Clears Air Over Remuneration to Promoter-Executive Director”
Avijit Singh and Chetan Saxena
With the advent of Covid-19 nothing has been left untouched, from a daily household routine to critical market avenues, it has brought new challenges for everyone. However, with these new challenges, various new opportunities have popped up, especially for India. In terms of legal landscape, various novel legal concepts can be introduced in India (already existing in the west) on a much wider scale that can reap benefits. An important domain is the scheme of Representation and Warranties Insurance (“RWI”) in M&A transactions. While Representations and Warranties (together “R&W”) has been an important component of M&A dealings, the introduction of insurance has brought concerns along with multiple benefits. RWI is in its initial phase in India; contrary to the position in the west which has a much wider application and understanding of the concept.
Continue reading “Representation and Warranties Insurance & Need for Establishing a Legal Framework in India”