ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- Surender Kumar Singhal & Ors v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia & Ors
Arbitral Tribunal ought to decide Section 16 objections-25 March 2021
The Delhi High Court (HC) held that an arbitral tribunal ought to decide the objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 as soon as possible, as a preliminary ground. The Court observed, “The statute contemplates that the party raising the objection has to raise it with alacrity and hence by an overall reading of Section 16 and especially Section 16(5) of the Act, there is no doubt that the Tribunal also ought to decide the objection with a sense of urgency. Such dispensation would be favoured especially in order to ensure that parties to whom the arbitral proceedings may not even be applicable are not entangled to long drawn Arbitral proceedings with substantial costs being incurred”. In the matter at hand, the Petitioner preferred a writ Petition challenging an order of the arbitrator which refused to rule on its jurisdiction to entertain any further claims. The arbitrator believed that the ultimate order cannot be reached without further evidence and hence, would be decided at the final stage. The Court supplied emphasis, “For interference under Article 226/227, there have to be `exceptional circumstances’.. Though interference is permissible, unless and until the order is so perverse that it is patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction, the writ court would not interfere”. Dealing with the order of the arbitrator, the instant matter does not appear as an ‘exceptional rarity’ which would necessitate the exercise of it’s jurisdiction. It’s pertinent to note that the question of jurisdiction must be settled first, and only after it has been adjudicated can a final award be passed. The Petition was subsequently disposed of, “The ld. Arbitrator would proceed to adjudicate the disputes expeditiously and pass an award, preferably within a period of six months.”
The Judgement can be accessed at:
arbitral-tribunals-should-decide-objections-on-its-jurisdiction-as-preliminary-issue-391742.pdf (livelaw.in) - Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja and Ors
Question of novation of contract cannot be considered in a Petition filed Under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2019-6 April 2021
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) while hearing the instant Petition observed that the “question of novation of contract containing an Arbitration clause cannot be taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Court in a Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2019”. Additionally, the Hon’ble apex court also commented on the comprehensive arguments on whether an Agreement that contains an Arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in the exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an Arbitration Agreement exists between the parties.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/sanjiv-prakash-vs-seema-kukreja-ll-2021-sc-198-391592.pdf - PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited
Indian Parties Can Choose A Foreign Seat For Arbitration: Supreme Court (SC)
The Supreme Court (SC) held that parties to a contract who are Indian nationals or Companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India.
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pasl-wind-solutions-private-limited-vs-ge-power-conversion-india-private-limited-392179.pdf
COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
- Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves proposed combination relating to acquisition of Principal Asset Management Private Limited, Principal Trustee Company Private Limited and Principal Retirement Advisors Private Limited by Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited-6 April 2021
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves the proposed combination relating to acquisition of Principal Asset Management Private Limited, Principal Trustee Company Private Limited and Principal Retirement Advisors Private Limited by Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited. The proposed combination relates to the acquisition of 100% of the issued and paid- up equity share capital of: (i) Principal Asset Management Private Limited (PAMPL); (ii) Principal Trustee Company Private Limited (PTCPL) and (iii) Principal Retirement Advisors Private Limited (PRAPL) by Sundaram Asset Management Company Limited (SAMC). As part of the proposed combination, the schemes of the Principal Mutual Fund (PMF) shall be transferred to Sundaram Mutual Fund (SMF) and the trusteeship and management of the PMF schemes shall be transferred to Sundaram Trustee Company Limited (STCL) and SAMC, respectively (“Proposed Combination”).
The Release can be accessed at:
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1709892 - The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of shareholding in Magma Fincorp Limited by Rising Sun Holdings Private Limited and Mr Sanjay Chamria and Mr Mayank Poddar -12 April 2021
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of shareholding in Magma Fincorp Limited by Rising Sun Holdings Private Limited and Mr Sanjay Chamria and Mr Mayank Poddar. The proposed combination envisages acquisition of stake in Magma Fincorp Limited (Magma Fincorp) by Rising Sun Holdings Private Limited (Rising Sun) and Mr Sanjay Chamria and Mr Mayank Poddar.
The Release can be accessed at:
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1711188 - The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of 89.6% of equity shareholding of Gangavaram Port Limited by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Limited-13 April 2021
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of 89.6% of equity shareholding of Gangavaram Port Limited (“GPL”) by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Limited (“APSEZ”) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, on 13th April 2021. The proposed combination relates to the acquisition of 89.6% of the shareholding in GPL (i.e., the entity operating Gangavaram port) by APSEZ.
The Release can be accessed at:
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1711469 - Inox Renewables Ltd v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd
When parties change ‘Venue of Arbitration’ by Mutual Agreement, changed venue becomes ‘Seat of Arbitration’-13 April 2021
The Supreme Court (SC) has held that when parties change the ‘venue/place of Arbitration’ by mutual Agreement, the new venue/place will become the ‘seat of Arbitration’. Therefore, the Courts at the changed venue/place of Arbitration will be having jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/ms-inox-renewables-ltd-v-jayesh-electricals-ltd-392044.pdf
CORPORATE
- Jayamma Xavier v. Registrar of Firms
Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) can Form a Partnership Firm with an Individual or Other Persons-8 April 2021
The Kerala High Court (HC) held that Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) can form a partnership firm with an individual or other persons.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194720959/
- Bay Capital Advisors Pvt Ltd v. IL & FS Financial Services Ltd & Ors
‘ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has no jurisdiction over HC in Arbitration plea’-9 April 2021
The Bombay high court held that that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) “has absolutely no jurisdiction over it”, in a Petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It however added, “even assuming for a moment that the NCLAT has the power to stay Arbitrations, it certainly does not have the authority to stay the hands of this Court in hearing a Petition under Section 9 (for interim relief pending Arbitration) or any other Petition that properly comes before this Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.’’ Observing that the NCLAT has no control over arbitral tribunals, the court said, “the NCLAT can make no order under Section 9, Section 11, Section 34, Section 37 or any of the other provisions of the Arbitration Act.’’ The provisions of the Arbitration Act are not subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, which is “itself a telling circumstance’’.
The Judgement can be accessed at: ReadMore - Union of India v. Vijaykumar V Iyer
Spectrum Government property, can’t be held as ‘security’-13 April 2021
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has said the wireless spectrum held by a telecom company undergoing insolvency cannot be treated as a ‘security interest’ by the lenders to the company, as the said spectrum is the property of the Government and not the corporate debtor.
The Order can be accessed at:
https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/10448793460757964dc0aa.pdf - Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited
Claims not part of resolution plan extinguished after its approval-13 April 2021
The Supreme Court (SC) has said when the resolution plan is approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the claims, which are not part of the plan, would stand extinguished and the proceedings related to them stand terminated.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/22323/22323_2019_33_1501_27518_Judgement_13-Apr-2021.pdf - Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr
Balance sheets can amount to Acknowledgment of Debts under Section 18 of Limitation Act: Supreme Court (SC) sets aside National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)Ruling-15 April 2021
The Supreme Court (SC) recently set aside National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Ruling in the case of V Padmakumar v. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund and held that balance sheets can amount to an acknowledgment of debts under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/2660/2660_2021_33_1502_27520_Judgement_15-Apr-2021.pdf
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
- Ashif Husain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) directs civic body to decide on mobile tower, disposes of PIL-7 April 2021
The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) has directed Urban Local Bodies to decide the representation against the installation of mobile tower in the crowded locality within 15 days. The Petitioner sought direction to take action on their complaint against the installation of the mobile tower by mobile companies in dense and crowded localities as the people in those area experience sleep disorders, fatigue, headache, memory loss, depression, hearing problems, joint pains, skin diseases etc. Relying on the M.P. Nagar Palika (Installation of Temporary Tower/Structure for Cellular Mobile Phone Service) Rules, 2012, the counsel for the state pointed out that these rules provide a mechanism for redressal of such grievance. The division bench while considering the PIL ordered, “We deem it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the competent authority/Urban Local Body concerned raising their grievance regarding the installation of the tower. The said representation of the Petitioners shall be considered and decided by the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the objection/representation in accordance with law.”
The Order can be accessed at:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18002380/
