India’s appeal tribunal for competition matters - the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) - has dismissed an appeal filed by a natural person - Pankaj Raj (Informant) - against an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). (Maj. Pankaj Rai v Secretary, Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 01 of 2020), decided on 29 May 2020.).
On 5 June 2020, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in disposing of Suo Motu Case No 05 of 2017 concluded that National Engineering Industries Limited (NEI), Schaeffler India Limited (Schaeffler), SKF India Limited (SKF) and Tata Steel Limited, Bearing Division (Tata) had contravened provisions of Section 3(3)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act).
On 4 June 2020, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a notification (Notification) relaxing the timelines for certain compliances to be undertaken by banks, authorised payment system operators, and system participants. The RBI noted that the relaxations are being introduced in view of the present situation in the country.
As part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to combat the economic fallout of the COVID-19 crisis, the Union Finance Minister in a press conference dated 24 March 2020 announced an increase in the threshold for invoking the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) vide three office orders dated 11 May 2020, 12 May 2020 and 26 May 2020 has set out the framework for future hearings and filings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The said orders bring about the much needed clarity regarding the functioning of the IPAB in the present times, especially considering that many urgent matters could not be filed or listed due to the non-functioning of the IPAB.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari, vide judgement dated 26 May 2020 in the case of Guru Nanak Industries and Another v. Amar Singh dealing with the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 inter alia reiterated well-established principles of partnership law regarding ‘retirement of partner’ and ‘dissolution of partnership firm’.
The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) recently rejected applications made by three Mauritian entities on the taxability of capital gains on indirect transfer of an Indian company’s shares, under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Tax Treaty). The AAR held that that the transaction was prima facie designed for tax avoidance and that even otherwise, the benefit of the Tax Treaty cannot be allowed in this case.
On 14 May 2020, the Learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Horlicks Limited & Anr. v Zydus Wellness Products Limited (CS(COMM) 464 of 2019). The Learned Single Judge, after a thorough examination of precedents relating to trade mark disparagement, restrained Zydus Wellness Products Limited (Zydus) from telecasting a television commercial (TVC) for its product COMPLAN which was disparaging Horlicks.
The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, Parsvnath Developers Limited & Anr. v Rail Land Development Authority, dated 19 May 2020, has reiterated the powers of a Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). Consequently, it has been held that preliminary issues fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and are not to be delved into by a court under Section 11 of the Act.
It is not an everyday instance for the apex court in the country to adopt a pro employer approach, specifically in a matter pertaining to a disciplinary inquiry initiated against an employee. In the case of Chairman-cum-MD, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v Rabindranath Choubey [Civil Appeal Number 9693 of 2013] (Mahanadi), however, the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) did so.
