THE INDIAN REVIEW OF CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL LAWS

Our Recent Posts

Archive

Remittal of Arbitral Award: An Analysis of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act

[Tanya Varshney is a fourth-year student at Jindal Global Law School.] In Kinnari Mullick v. Ghanshyam Das Damani, the Supreme Court of India opined that courts have the power to defer the hearing of an application made under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended (Act), for setting aside an award on a written request made by a party to the arbitration proceedings to facilitate the arbitral tribunal to resume the proceedings or to take such other action as, in the opinion of tribunal, will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. The option to adjourn the proceedings and remand the award back to the tribunal is available to the parties so that

Understanding SEBI v. Rakhi Trading Private Limited

[Akhil Kumar and Ayushi Singh are fourth-year and third-year students respectively at NUALS Kochi.] The Supreme Court has recently upheld an order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 2009 against Rakhi Trading Private Limited and others. The judgement is of significant importance primarily because it has explained the role of SEBI in the market in relation to punishing culprits indulging in manipulative practices such as “synchronized trading,” which is a kind of transaction wherein both the buying and the selling order quantities are identical and happen on the same time on the trading platform. The judgement under analysis reiterated the apex court’s outlook rega

Ved Prakash Mithal v. Union of India: SC Clears the Air on Commencement of Limitation Period for Set

[Rishi Sehgal is a fourth-year student at RMLNLU Lucknow.] On August 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in Ved Prakash Mithal v. Union of India, addressed the issue relating to the commencement of limitation period while filing an application for setting aside an arbitral award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). The ruling is significant as it resolves the conflicting views prevalent in several high courts on the question of commencement of limitation period for setting aside the arbitral award when a request for correction has been made under section 33 of the Act. The Court in this case held that in such a scenario, the limitation period for setting asi

An Analysis of Cross Border Insolvency Draft Norms

[Ajay Sharma and Akhil Kumar are fourth-year students at National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.] In this age of globalization, a corporate entity may have multiple offices, business, creditors and debtors in more than one country. This has given rise to many problems of which cross-border insolvency is one. The rapid growth of international trade, commerce, investment and industries setting the pace of globalization and opening-up of the economies of nations intensified the need for a proper framework for protecting Indian creditors in the larger scheme of things.[1] The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross border Insolvency (Model Law) has emerged as a largely accepted legal framework

Non-Arbitrability of Lease Disputes - Examining Himangi Enterprises

[Priya Gupta is a fourth-year student at GNLU, Gandhinagar.] Over the course of time, India has focused on establishing itself as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. The recent amendments to the Arbitration Act, 1996 (Act) and the conscious judicial approach have paved the way for ease of doing business. However, the development has been such that there exists a long list of disputes that are classified as non-arbitrable. One such recent issue making headlines is the arbitrability of lease disputes in respect of which the Supreme Court of India ruled, in Himangi Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia (Himangi), that lease disputes cannot be arbitrated. The general norm as regards inclusion of

Satisfaction of Quorum Requirement in General Meetings by a Single Person: Not a Distant Possibility

[Debanga Goswami is a fourth-year student at WBNUJS Kolkata.] The term ‘quorum’ can be understood as the minimum number of members required to be present in a meeting for it to be considered valid. A quorum is considered to be very essential because the presence of a very less number of people defeats the purpose of a meeting, i.e., to deliberate and take decisions on important issues in a democratic and transparent manner. Thus, quorum requirements for general meetings found a place in both the erstwhile and the present company law statutes in India. Section 103 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) lays down the quorum requirement for general meetings. For the requirement of quorum to be fulfil

Developments in Private Equity in the APAC Region and the Role of Legal Regulation in the Industry

[Rayan Bhattacharya is a first-year law student at the Universtiy of Durham, United Kingdom.] For the past few years, the evolution of the field of private equity (PE) in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region has been promising and healthy. Pivotal developments in the financial year of 2017 are expected to pave the way for future ventures and trends in 2018. Hence, the future prospects of PE in the region are stable and bright. The noted increase in the maturation of the APAC PE sector can be taken as a positive indication to the beginning of a new era of growth and opportunity in the PE industry and also related industries such as venture capital. Current Status of the APAC PE market 2017 was the

Neutrality of Arbitrators in India

[Nandini Garg is a fifth-year student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal.] The Law Commission of India in its 246th report reviewed the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) and recommended a host of changes to it. Subsequently, the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (2015 Amendment Act) was enacted. To specifically address the issue of neutrality of arbitrators, section 12 was amended. Questions regarding neutrality of arbitrators usually arise in cases of contracts with government authorities who are usually given wide discretion to appoint an arbitrator of their own choice. Ex-employees as Arbitrators Under the 2015 Amendment Act, Sc

The Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Rules, 2018 – Ambiguities and the Way Forward

[Manjari Rammohan is a fifth-year B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) student at School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore.] This post seeks to dissect the essential provisions of the Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Rules, 2018 (SBO Rules) and delve into one of the main ambiguities surrounding it, that being registration of beneficial ownership by foreign companies in an Indian company. Since the rules have come into force in June 2018, law firms across the country have been facing dilemma and indecision regarding the issue of registering foreign companies. This post brings to the fore the possible interpretations which might have been missed out by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). It seeks

Regulating Big Data Competition

[Karan Shelke is a student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.] Several years ago, The Economist noted that data generated through various online portals used by billions of people, particularly consumer data, had become “the new raw material of business: an economic input almost on a par with capital and labour”. The modern computing system has expanded our ability to collect, store and analyse the data into certain algorithms which can identify a general human pattern or behaviour which can be influenced in such a way as the inventor wants him to. As artificial intelligence and machine learning promises to make big data analytics a central feature of virtually every area of bus

Separate Positions of Chairman and Managing Director/CEO: Tussle between Good Governance and Maximu

[Ankit Handa is a fourth year B.A. LL.B. (Business Law Honours) student at National Law University, Jodhpur.] Historically, some of the world’s most successful companies have had the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or Managing Director (MD) as the same individual, like American Express’ Kenneth I. Chenault, FedEx’s Frederick Wallace Smith, Exxon Mobil’s Rex W. Tillerson and Apple’s Steve Jobs. However, in light of the recent scams in India such as the one relating to ICICI Bank, it is important to ask the question whether this concept can be replicated in India so that it may maximize a company’s success or should our approach be more focused towards good corporat

CONTACT

©2018 by The Indian Review of Corporate and Commercial Laws. Proudly created with Wix.com