Listen to this post

Background

  • SEBI recently notified the SEBI (Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023, and issued a Master Circular for Online Resolution of Disputes in the Indian Securities Market (‘ODR Master Circular’), extending the conciliation and arbitration mechanism administered by Market Infrastructure Intermediaries (‘MII’) to all specified intermediaries/ regulated entities. Prior to this, MII’s dispute resolution mechanism only covered stock-brokers, depository participants, listed companies and registrars and transfer agents. Investors embroiled in disputes with any other intermediary did not have recourse to this mechanism, but the ODR Master Circular extends it to other intermediaries to streamline the dispute resolution process. Further, the erstwhile system was largely physical, with some online adaptations brought about during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a progressive measure and in line with the recommendations of the committee constituted by the Niti Aayog under Justice Sikri, the dispute resolution process will now be online.
Continue Reading Resolving Securities Disputes in the Digital Age: A Primer on SEBI’s Master Circular for Online Resolution of Disputes in the Indian Securities Market
Listen to this post
Right to Be Informed: Communicate Written Grounds of Arrest , SC Tells ED

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
Listen to this post
No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? -  Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction

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
Listen to this post

Introduction:

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?
Listen to this post
CAN A CHALLENGE TO AN ARBITRAL AWARD BE DISMISSED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS FOR STAY ON ENFORCEMENT?

An arbitral award can be challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”). Ordinarily, along with the application to set aside an arbitral award, another application is filed under Section 36(2) of the Act seeking a stay on the operation of the award. Prior to the amendment to the Act in the year 2015, mere filing of an application under Section 34 of the Act would lead to an automatic stay on the enforcement of the award. However, pursuant to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, Section 36(2) was amended to state that filing of an application to set aside an arbitral award shall not by itself render the award unenforceable and a specific order of stay of operation of the award shall have to be granted on a separate application being made for that purpose. Upon the filing of a separate application, seeking a stay on the operation of the arbitral award, the court may grant the stay, while imposing certain conditions, as it may deem fit. These conditions could entail either furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing cash with the court, to secure the arbitral award. The form and quantum of the security depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and is typically driven by the financial wherewithal and the conduct of the judgment debtor.

Continue Reading Can a Challenge to an Arbitral Award be Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Conditions for Stay on Enforcement?
Listen to this post

The Bombay High Court was recently called upon to decide an application filed by Anupam Mittal (“Applicant”), the founder of shaadi.com, seeking to restrain Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings and other directors of People Interactive (India) Private Limited (“Respondents”) from enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore. The anti-suit injunction restrained the Applicant from proceeding with his oppression and mismanagement petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) on the ground that parties had agreed to resolve their disputes via arbitration seated in Singapore and disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement were arbitrable under Singapore law.

Continue Reading Party Autonomy Restrained? Dissecting Bombay High Court’s Anti-Enforcement Injunction Order in Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Listen to this post

Introduction

Dissolution of a Partnership under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, “Partnership Act” can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the erstwhile partners but also related third parties. The process of dissolution involves activities such as settling of accounts, concluding of on-going business matters, discharging the Partnership firm’s liabilities and finally, distributing any remaining assets among the partners basis their respective shares. The Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years from the date of dissolution within which  the parties can agitate their claims arising from the dissolution and winding up of the firm[1]. The period of limitation rests on the notion that the date of dissolution marks the conclusion of the firm’s winding-up process and settling of the rights and liabilities of the affected parties. However, is dissolution synonymous with winding up of the firm? Can erstwhile partners not have a right to agitate their claims post the period of three years if the process of winding-up could not be completed within the timeframe? Pertinently, through this blog, we aim to analyse whether any claims surviving the period of three years, which have been left unadjudicated are deadwood or can be brought under the period of limitation and give rise to a continuing cause of action.

Continue Reading Stopping the clock on claims arising from dissolution of partnership firms
Listen to this post
ASSAILING COMPOSITE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD UNDER AIR ACT AND WATER ACT

NGT’s jurisdictional powers

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“NGT Act”), established the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) to inter alia adjudicate cases related to environment protection and enforcement of legal rights relating to the environment.

Section 14 of the NGT Act provides the NGT with original and subject matter jurisdiction to deal with all civil cases involving substantial question relating to protection of environment and enforcement of associated legal rights under the statutes enlisted in Schedule 1 of the NGT Act.

Continue Reading Assailing composite directions issued by pollution control board under Air Act and Water Act
Listen to this post
PMLA SECOND AMENDMENT RULES, 2023: PLUGGING THE LOOPHOLE

The Ministry of Finance issued a notification on September 04, 2023, to amend the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 (“Rules”), to enhance clarity and stringency of money laundering prevention efforts. The amendment seeks to ensure stricter compliance by reporting authorities to keep a check on money laundering and terror financing.

Continue Reading PMLA Second Amendment Rules, 2023: Plugging The Loophole
Listen to this post
SUPREMACY OF THE IBC VIS-A-VIS THE ELECTRICITY ACT[1]

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

Continue Reading Supremacy of the IBC vis-a-vis The Electricity Act [1]