Photo of Abhinav Gupta

Abhinav Gupta

Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi-NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Abhinav primarily deals with commercial disputes and arbitration matters before courts and tribunals. He can be reached at abhinav.gupta@cyrilshroff.com.

 

Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings

Summary: This article examines the necessity of furnishing an electronic evidence certificate for proving the contents of documents in electronic form during arbitration proceedings. While an electronic evidence certificate has been held as a mandatory requirement in court proceedings, some courts have relaxed the said requirement for arbitrations. However, in certain cases, it has been observed that arbitrators have considered the absence of such an electronic evidence certificate as a factor for holding certain documents as inadmissible. Subsequently, given the restricted scope of judicial review concerning arbitral awards, such observations are typically insulated from challenge, thereby raising risks during litigation.Continue Reading Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings

Two States: Stamp Duty On Merger Orders Passed By Two Different Tribunals

The Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”), and the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 (“2016 Rules”), allow companies to jointly or separately file an application for merger or amalgamation before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). However, companies with registered offices in two different States must file two separate applications (unless a specific exemption has been obtained to file a joint petition) as the scheme will have to be approved by the two NCLTs having jurisdiction over the companies.Continue Reading Two States: Stamp Duty On Merger Orders Passed By Two Different Tribunals

After Sunset: Courts on post Rohan Builders

The Supreme Court has resolved the debate on filing for an extension of time period under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”), after the period for rendering an arbitral award has expired. This judgment was rendered in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Private Limited, SLP (C) No. 23320 of 2023 (“Rohan Builders”) on September 12, 2024. Given that several months have passed since the judgment, this blog takes a bird’s eye view on disputes under Section 29A of the Act and how the courts have dealt with them post Rohan Builders. Continue Reading After Sunset: Courts on post Rohan Builders