The Companies Act 2013 (the 2013 Act) provides for a statutory cause of action to any person who has subscribed for securities of a company offered through a prospectus and has suffered losses by relying on any statement in the prospectus that was untrue or misleading or owing to omission of any matter in the prospectus. However, rarely has any such litigation been initiated in the recent past.
Guided by established principles of Common Law that view damages as the presumptive remedy and specific performance as an alternate, discretionary remedy, the Specific Relief Act 19631 ('Act') has sought to protect civil and contractual rights in the event of breach of contract. However, the new Amended Act2 (introduced in October 2018), seemingly deviating from these principles in an attempt to create a more business-friendly and secure environment, makes a significant change worthy of speculation: It seeks to enforce specific performance as a rule and damages as an alternative remedy.
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (2019 Amendment Act), as a bill, was passed by the lower house of Parliament (Lok Sabha) on 1 August 2019and passed by the upper house of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) on 18 July 2019. Soon after, on 9 August 2019, the 2019 Amendment Act received the assent of the President and was published as Act No. 33 of 2019. Thereafter, certain sections of the 2019 Amendment Act were notified on 30 August 2019.
The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated 6 September 2019 in Earnest Business Services Pvt Ltd (Petitioner/Applicant) v the Government of the State of Israel (Respondent), has inter alia held that parties to a dispute can agree on appointment of an arbitrator without filing an application under Sections 11(6) or 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act), as the case may be, including in a petition under Section 9 of the Act or even without intervention of court.
Consumer and competition law share the goal of protecting consumers from distortions and misadventures in the marketplace. The means to achieve this common end, however, are markedly different.
As we know, cheque(s) has historically (and continues to be) one of the most popular negotiable instruments in India. In its historical avatar, a cheque was called by various names during different eras.
The external commercial borrowing (“ECB”) regime is one of the central pillars of India’s exchange control regime and it tightly regulates loans between international lenders and Indian borrowers. Historically, a number of these requirements presented difficulties for international lenders. On 16 January 2019, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) announced certain changes to the ECB regime. The impact of these changes on international debt funds and broker-dealers is summarised below.
In a much-anticipated order, the Indian Supreme Court on 25 January 2019 upheld the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC or Code) while ruling on several key aspects of the law. These have imminent implications for both pre-IBC as well as post-IBC restructuring and debt trading transactions
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) issued a statement on 7 February 2019 containing certain proposed regulatory policy measures for the deepening of the financial markets in India. The RBI has indicated that it proposes to amend the current regulations governing external commercial borrowings (“ECB”) by Indian companies (“ECB Regulations”) and investments by foreign portfolio investors (“FPIs”) in corporate debt. The key highlights for international debt funds are set out below.
On 25 January 2019, the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered its judgment (Judgment) in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Swiss Ribbons). This has been eagerly awaited by the market as the matter consolidated multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) before multiple high courts in India between April 2018 and November 2018.
