More than a decade after the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act” or “the Act”) introduced class action lawsuit provisions, two major applications for initiating such suits have ingressed the halls of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).Continue Reading Class Action Lawsuits: A New Horizon for Corporate Litigation?
As sanctions regimes become highly objective oriented, the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) is focused on ensuring enforcement and targeting entities involved in violating the sanctions, irrespective of their nationality. The inherent complexity, supplemented by an objective-focused approach, makes sanctions compliance even more important in today’s geopolitical climate. On June 12, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) unveiled a comprehensive set of anti-money laundering measures aimed at enhancing transparency and preventing illicit financial activities. These measures, along with the OFAC advisory, bring significant implications for financial institutions worldwide by expanding grounds for imposing sanctions against Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) and limiting the provision of certain software technologies to Russia.[1]Continue Reading Navigating OFAC Sanctions: Insights for Indian Businesses and Banks
An important question on whether advocates are liable for alleged deficiency in services under the Indian Consumer Protection Act has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.[1],has held that advocates would not be covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CPA 1986”), as re-enacted by the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“CPA 2019”) (‘collectively referred as Acts/ consumer law framework’). Until the said decision, there was no definite pronouncement on the concerned issue.Continue Reading Advocates no longer liable under Consumer Protection Laws for alleged deficiency in services
In recent years, Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) factors have garnered significant attention from investors, regulators, and stakeholders worldwide due to several reasons. Investors, customers, employees, and other stakeholders are increasingly demanding greater transparency and accountability from companies regarding their ESG performance. ESG factors are being recognised as material risks that can impact a company’s long-term financial performance and sustainability. Companies with strong ESG performance and transparent disclosures differentiate themselves in the market with enhanced reputation, resultantly building stakeholder trust. Comprehensive ESG disclosures are allowing companies to identify and manage risks related to environmental and governance issues and social factors and address them proactively.Continue Reading SEBI’s ESG Disclosure Mandates: Unveiling the Value Chain
While entering into a transaction, companies often invoke multiple standard terms from other agreements, instead of reproducing all applicable terms in a single contract. Such clauses are not set out in the main contract signed by the parties, but are instead found in separate, pre-existing documents that have been referred to in the main contract, by which the parties agree that the standard terms that have been mentioned, should be considered a part of the main contract. This practice enables faster and smoother implementation of contracts and allows some standard clauses to remain unchanged, thus providing greater certainty to business. However, if the arbitration clause itself is located in a secondary document, it might lead to a dispute (between the parties) regarding the appropriate dispute resolution procedure.Continue Reading Unravelling the Distinction between ‘Reference to’ and ‘Incorporation of’ Arbitration Clauses
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Act”), and the amended Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“New Act”), are the go-to sources of reference for consumer disputes and conflicts. The Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and Section 2(7) of the New Act both define who “is” and “is not” a “consumer”. Both Acts state that a customer is any person who purchases goods or avails services for any consideration; however, any person purchasing goods or availing services for resale or any commercial purpose[1] to make profit/gain is not a consumer. An explanation to the provisions clarifies that despite buying goods or availing services a person would still be classified as a consumer (under both the Acts) if these goods or services constitute a source of livelihood by means of self-employment.Continue Reading Commercial Purchases: Conundrum under Consumer Protection Laws
In the Indian jurisprudence, the levy of court fee is inter alia sanctioned by the Court Fees Act, 1870 (“Court Fee Act”) for the purpose of instituting a suit or claim by a party to the matter or litigation. The payment of court fee is a condition precedent for seeking the aid of the court. The amount to be paid as court fee is prescribed by law and until the pre-determined amount is paid, the litigant cannot be heard, save with the leave of the court. However, if the parties to a suit come to a mutual understanding to resolve the dispute amicably, the law also prescribes for a procedure for providing a refund of the previously paid court fee by the litigant. The only remaining question that begs determination is when and how much of the court fee will be refunded to the litigant.Continue Reading Deciphering Court Fee Refunds: A Comparative Analysis of Settlement via ADR v. Private Settlement
Superior courts in India have ratified the stringent deadlines for the various stages in arbitration proceedings, aiming to position India as an arbitration hub. However, it is crucial to establish safeguards to prevent delays in the adjudication process from discouraging the parties’ decision to engage in arbitration. The absence of a prescribed limitation period in certain key provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), could be a contributing factor to some of these delays.Continue Reading Demystifying Deadline Dilemmas: Analysing the limitation period of Section 11(6) Petitions in Arbitral proceedings in India
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1] judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). In this case, an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), was pending against a Section 34 award and the Appellant submitted a claim for the same subsequent to the committee of creditors (“COC”) approving the resolution plan. Continue Reading Pending Section 37 Appeal under Arbitration Act: Not a Legitimate Ground for Entertaining Belated Claim under IBC
If an investigating authority intends to investigate a public servant[1], the authority has to mandatorily secure appropriate sanction from a competent authority[2] to even begin the investigation. Particularly, when the allegations pertain to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), the investigating authority must secure the sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), from the competent authority and when the allegations pertain to offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), sanction must be secured under Section 19 of the PC Act. Often, the alleged act under investigation attracts punishment or penalty under both IPC and PC Act.Continue Reading Tests “Public Servants” must pass to claim protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and is there a silver lining?