Photo of Aditya Mehta

Aditya Mehta

Subscribe to Aditya Mehta's Posts

Partner in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Aditya has expertise and extensive experience in commercial litigation and arbitration (both domestic and international), handling disputes both of a general commercial nature as well as public and regulatory disputes across sectors, including financial regulation, administrative, white collar, sports, media and entertainment, food and beverage, local government, planning and environment and public sector projects. He regularly appears and argues matters before Courts (including High Courts and the Supreme Court), Tribunals and Regulatory Authorities. He can be reached at aditya.mehta@cyrilshroff.com.

Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts

Introduction

The question of incorporation of arbitration clauses referred to in another document has been a bone of contention between parties, in view of the absence of statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Although the principle of incorporating an arbitration clause, referred to in another document is a well-established principle in arbitral jurisprudence,[1] Section 7(5) only provides that the reference should be “such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract”. Hence, it has been left to the courts to determine the conditions that need to be satisfied for the same.Continue Reading Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts

The Uphill Battle of Challenging a Compromise Decree

Introduction:

Judicial pendency has been a roadblock in India’s quest to becoming a leading global economy. Although attributable to numerous factors, addressing the floodgate of litigation in the country is undoubtably the need of the hour[1]. Accordingly, various approaches have been adopted to promote the amicable settlement of pending litigation, including through alternate dispute redressal forums such as mediation, national lok adalats, etc., or by the volition of the State through numerous schemes such as Vivad se Vishwas[2].Continue Reading The Uphill Battle of Challenging a Compromise Decree

SAT’s Verdict in FCRPL & others V. SEBI: Setting the dust on interpretation of generally available information in Insider Trading Cases

Introduction:

For any information to be classified as unpublished price sensitive information (“UPSI”), it should primarily satisfy the following three criteria, (1) It should relate to the company or its securities, directly or indirectly, (2) It should not be generally available, and (3) There should be a likelihood of the information materially affecting the price of the securities. Generally available information is information available in the public domain (on a non-discriminatory basis). Basis this, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) analyses and identifies whether information can be termed as UPSI and classifies whether trades conducted by Insiders[1] are in violation of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (“2015 PIT Regulations”).Continue Reading SAT’s Verdict in FCRPL & others V. SEBI: Settling the dust on interpretation of Generally Available Information in Insider Trading Cases