TatvaBlog

 Globalization has brought about significant changes in the world, leading to the dissipation of borders between nations and creating opportunities for economic development. While globalization has facilitated increased revenue and trade on a global scale, it has also resulted in inequality, particularly for developing countries that lack the necessary infrastructure to harness the benefits of an integrated economic market. These countries often need to seek technical knowledge, infrastructure, and financial advice from companies established in developed nations, which may lead to excessive borrowing and investments that could result in an unsustainable infrastructure. This unequal playing field in the global economy has resulted in anti-competitive practices and legal disputes arising from said practices. One such legal dispute is the  Future Retail Limited 1 case, which was filed by Amazon before the Supreme Court to enforce the emergency arbitrator’s interim order dated O...

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016  (“Code” ) was enacted  inter-alia  with an aim to resolve and reorganise the corporate debtor’s insolvency in a timely manner for maximisation of value of its assets. To accomplish the objectives laid down under the Code, a comprehensive step-by-step process is provided right from the moment of default till its realisation. One of the most crucial stages in the entire corporate insolvency resolution process (“ CIRP ”) is the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (" CoC ”) as the same is a deciding factor of how the insolvency of the corporate debtor would be resolved. While considering a resolution plan, the CoC considers several factors and after exercising its commercial wisdom, approves or rejects a resolution plan. Only after the assent of the CoC by voting of not less than sixty-six percent of voting shares, the resolution plan is approved in terms of Section 30(4) of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ...

  Following the overhaul of the foreign investment regime through introduction of the non-debt instrument rules, Ministry of Finance also attempted to overhaul the overseas investment regime. On August 22, 2022, Ministry of Finance notified: (a) Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules, 2022 (“OI Rules”) in supersession of the earlier regime, i.e. (i) the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004; and (ii) the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property Outside India) Regulations, 2015 (together “Old ODI Regime”). Immediately thereafter, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) also notified Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Regulations, 2022 and Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Directions, 2022. (collectively, and along with OI Rules, “New ODI Regime”). While the New ODI Regime brought about significant changes, the most critical revision for the new age Ind...

 The word ‘Decree’ (1) often appears along with the word ‘Judgment’ in Civil Courts, exercising the original jurisdiction. A Decree is passed after the final adjudication of disputes between the parties and, the law governing the aspect of Execution of Decree is prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘ Code’ ) from Sections 36 to 74, 82, 135 and Order XXI (Rules 1 to 106) of the Code. Similarly, the Award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal is also deemed to be a Decree of a Court and can be executed as a Decree under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘ Act’ ) (2). Thus, the Award can be filed for execution before the Court where the assets of the judgment debtor are located as per the procedures established under the Code. General Principles While referring to Execution, the reservoir of power of Courts in executing the Decrees or Orders is contemplated under Section 51 of the Code. The magnitude of powers conferred to the Court under Section 51 of the Code are...

Singapore Court of Appeal  (“SGCA”)  in the case of  Mittal v. Westbridge  (1) upheld the anti-suit injunction against the National Company Law Tribunal  (“NCLT”)  proceeding initiated by Mr. Anupam Mittal  (“Mr. Mittal") . The case revolves around the oppression and mismanagement  (“O&M”)  grievance raised in a company petition filed by Mr. Mittal before the NCLT against Westbridge. Westbridge secured an  ex-parte  anti-suit injunction against the said proceedings on the grounds that the cause of action arose from the shareholder’s agreement between the parties, which contained an arbitration clause and hence the present matter was under the purview of an arbitration agreement. Mr. Mittal challenged the said injunction in SGCA on the grounds that O&M matters are not arbitrable under the Indian Law and hence such matter does not fall under the purview of an arbitration agreement. SGCA upheld the anti-suit injunction...