Our Recent Posts


Increased Threshold under IBC - A Double Edged Sword

[Aditya Shukla and Lakshaya Grover are students at NALSAR University of Law.] The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, by a notification dated 24 March 2020, raised the minimum amount required under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) for initiation of insolvency proceedings from INR 1,00,000 to INR 1,00,00,000. This increase in the minimum threshold is being touted as a welcome change, considering the prevalence of frivolous proceedings under the Code being admitted by the adjudicating authorities, but it seems to lack foresight as to the short term and the long-term implications of the same. This piece aims to analyse and understand the reasons for th

The Defence of Objective Justification in Competition Law: Is the Defence is Really “Objective” in N

[Yash Bhatt is a student at Government Law College, Mumbai.] The defence of objective justification in competition law exempts liability of a dominant enterprise whose conduct has been alleged of abusing the dominant position in the relevant market by demonstrating that such conduct was necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. For instance, a dominant enterprise may seek to justify an exclusionary form of abuse like offering fidelity rebates by demonstrating an economic justification of advantages in terms of efficiency derived to the consumer by such conduct. The European Union (EU) and other foreign jurisdictions recognize the concept of objective justification and have applied the jus

How the Supreme Court has Modified the Test of Universality for EPF Contributions without Coming Out

[Anmol Jain is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur.] In Bridge and Roof v. Union of India (Bridge and Roof), a 6-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) laid down the test of universality for the determination of ‘basic wages’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (EPF Act), this being relevant to determine the amount of employees' provident fund contribution to be made by the employer. In this post, I argue that the universality test has undergone certain significant changes in subsequent cases and that the Supreme Court has done so without setting out the principles in clear words. In order to highlight those, I shall first d

Breaking Down Break Fee Clauses

[Varshini Sunder is a student at Hidayatullah National Law University.] It is essential for M&A agreements to be exhaustive and even account for a situation where the transaction falls apart. With the ever-growing volume of M&A transactions in India, a look into the clauses which contemplate the possibility of the deal going south becomes necessary. Consider a situation wherein, after significant deliberation, Company A makes an offer to acquire Company B and they enter into an agreement stipulating the same. However, acquisitions, especially for listed entities, cannot take effect immediately. There may be some hurdles detected by the regulators which cannot be overcome; or, Company B may s

Suspicion as a Ground of Non-conformity of Goods under CISG

[Sambhav Sharma is a student at Amity Law School, Delhi.] The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is one of the most methodical sets of provisions devised to govern commercial contracts and forms an intrinsic part of the realm of international commercial law. It is essential to fathom the implications of the convention as, while India is not a party to the CISG, its use in international commercial arbitration has a derivative bearing on the evolution of arbitration and contractual laws in India. Article 35 of the CISG provides for conformity of the goods as per the contract entered into between the parties. It is divided into 3 prongs: Article 35

Insertion of Section 194N in the Income Tax Act – A Constitutionally Valid Step Towards a Cashless E

[Nayan Singhal is a student at Jindal Global Law School.] Section 194N in the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) was introduced in the Union Budget of 2019 by the Finance Minister. The section charges tax deduction at source (TDS) of 2% on cash withdrawal from banks. In order to prevent businesses from making heavy payments in cash, such a provision is introduced to discourage large amounts of cash withdrawal from the bank accounts. In order to prevent the misuse of this provision by withdrawing money from multiple accounts, the provision clarifies that TDS is to be paid on the withdrawal by a person in excess of INR 1 crore from one or more accounts. Also, the government has decided to give exemptio


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