Group means two or more enterprises, which directly or indirectly are in a position to exercise 26% or more voting rights in other enterprise or appoint more than 50% members of the Board of Directors in the other enterprise or control the management or affairs of the other enterprise.[1]Continue Reading High Time for Group Insolvency Framework?!
India’s arbitration law is thorough and organic because of its ever-evolving nature, through several amendments and decisions of the courts from time to time. However, the strict wordings of certain provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”),have caused a stir, for which courts have had to step in and use the tools of interpretation to resolve such practical dilemmas. Continue Reading Conundrum Surrounding Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Lombardi Engineering Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether, when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] (“1996 Act”), for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the validity of a pre-deposit condition can be looked into on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?Continue Reading Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application
A division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J. B. Pardiwala in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors[1] on September 21, 2023, held that a borrower only has right of mortgage redemption till the publication of auction notice under Section 13(8) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (“SARFAESI Act”). The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed orders passed by various Hon’ble High Courts in interpreting the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFEASI Act, post the amendment in 2016 (“Amendment”) and the intent of the Amendment.Continue Reading Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act: SC settles conundrum on right of redemption of borrower
It is trite law that while criminal proceedings operate in rem, the consequence of such proceedings (viz. imprisonment) impacts the liberties of individual person(s). It is equally well settled that legal heirs of an accused/ convict cannot be made to serve imprisonment on the death of the accused/ convict. This begs the question whether the demise of the individual also sounds the death knell on the connected criminal proceedings against him. In the present article, we explore whether the criminal appellate/ revisional proceedings would abate ipso facto on the death of the accused/ convict.Continue Reading Till Death Do Us Part? Abatement of Criminal Revision, Appeals on Death of Accused
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd v Berger Paints India Limited 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2645 recently deliberated on the issue of whether Courts can extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), after the mandate of the arbitral tribunal has been terminated.Continue Reading Extension under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not a possibility if application for extension is not made while mandate subsisted
The Supreme Court of India has recently taken important strides towards protecting personal liberty and curbing indiscriminate exercise of power by the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”). In a fresh judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India[1], the Supreme Court has criticised disparate procedures being used by various officers of the ED across the country while arresting a person accused of committing an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), mandating that the provision of written grounds of arrest be provided to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.Continue Reading Right to Be Informed: Communicate Written Grounds of Arrest, SC Tells ED
In the matter of Ashish Bhalla vs. State and Another[1](“Judgment”), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) has recently ruled that once an investigation by the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) has been initiated, a parallel investigation by a separate investigating agency into the affairs of the company is not permissible, considering the bar under Section 212 of the 2013 Act (“Section 212”). While the Madras High Court in the matter of Ravi Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Another[2] had made similar observations to sub-clause (2) of Section 212, its application had not been sufficiently visible.Continue Reading No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? – Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has proposed a transparent mechanism to identify and declare borrowers as Wilful Defaulters. The Central Bank issued the ‘Draft Master Direction on Treatment of Wilful Defaulters and Large Defaulters’ (“Master Direction” or “Direction”) on September 21, 2023, on which stakeholder comments have been invited till October 31, 2023.Continue Reading Draft Master Directions on Wilful Defaulters 2023: A Balanced Approach?