Highlights:
Corporate Brief
- Circular dated 03.12.2024 issued by Security Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) regarding SMS and E-mail alerts to investors by stock exchanges.
- Circular dated 06.12.2024 issued by Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) on Credit Flow to Agriculture – Collateral Free Agricultural Loans.
- Notification dated 06.12.2024 issued by RBI on Interest Rates on Foreign Currency (Non-resident) Accounts (Banks) (FCNR(B)) Deposits.
- Circular dated 06.12.2024 issued by RBI on Maintenance of Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR).
- Circular dated 13.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Pro-rata and pari-passu rights of investors of Alternative Investment Funds (“AIF”).
- Circular dated 17.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Measures to address regulatory arbitrage with respect to Offshore Derivative Instruments (ODIs) and FPIs with segregated portfolios vis-à-vis FPIs.
- Circular dated 20.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding Industry Standards on Reporting of BRSR Core.
- Notification dated 26.12.2024 (Gazette Notification on 26.12.2024) issued by SEBI regarding Withdrawal of Recognition for Indian Commodity Exchange Limited.
- Circular dated 27.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Prior approval for change in control: Transfer of shareholdings among immediate relatives and transmission of shareholdings and their effect on change in control.
- Circular dated 30.12.2024 issued by RBI on Introduction of Beneficiary Bank Account Name Look-up Facility for Real Time Gross Settlement (“RTGS”) and National Electronic Funds Transfer (“NEFT”) Systems.
- Circular dated 30.12.2024 issued by SEBI allowing subscription to the issue of Non-Convertible Securities during trading window closure period.
- Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by RBI regarding Guidelines for Government Debt Relief Schemes (“DRS”).
- Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding Implementation of recommendations of the Expert Committee for facilitating ease of doing business for listed entities.
- Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding Clarifications on Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework (“CSCRF”).
- Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Introduction of a Mutual Funds Lite (“MF Lite”) framework for passively managed schemes of Mutual Funds.
RERA Brief
- Order dated 20.12.2024 issued by Bihar RERA regarding Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for maintenance & operation of Project Bank Accounts in the light of Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.
- Gazette notification dated 23.12.2024 issued by Haryana Government (Town & Country Planning Department) regarding amendment to the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017.
- Order dated 27.12.2024 issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”) regarding revising the minimum eligibility criteria for forming a Self-Regulatory Organization.
Intellectual Property Rights Brief:
- Federated Hermes Ltd. vs. John Doe and Others.
- Inter Ikea Systems BV vs. Ikey Home Studio LLP and Anr.
- Pfizer Inc. and Others v. Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others .
NCLT Brief
- IBBI’s Expert Committee on Framework for Use of Mediation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
Litigation Brief
- Navigating the Optional vs. Mandatory Nature of Arbitration Clauses in Partnership Agreements.
- Land Acquisition Compensation Award vis-à-vis market value of the acquired land; exceptional circumstances permit deviation in the interest of justice.
Corporate Brief:
Circular dated 03.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding SMS and E-mail alerts to investors by stock exchanges.
- SEBI, vide Circular no. CIR/MIRSD/15/2011 dated 02.08.2011 and Clause 33 of Master Circular for Stock Brokers dated 09.08.2024, issued guidelines regarding SMS and E-mail alerts to investors by stock exchanges.
- Vide the said circular dated 03.12.2024, SEBI further clarified that, under exceptional circumstances, the stock broker may, at the specific written request of a client, upload the same mobile number/Email address for more than one client provided such client belong to one family (in case of individual clients) or such client is the authorised person of an HUF, Corporate, Partnership or Trust (in case of non-individual clients).
- Further details are provided in the circular at the link below:
Circular dated 06.12.2024 issued by RBI on Credit Flow to Agriculture – Collateral Free Agricultural Loans.
- As per the circular dated 06.12.2024, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) raised the limit for collateral-free agricultural loans, including loans for allied activities, from existing level of ₹1.6 lakh to ₹2 lakh per borrower. Accordingly, banks are advised to waive collateral security and margin requirements for agricultural loans including loans for allied activities up to ₹2 lakh per borrower.
Circular dated 06.12.2024 issued by RBI on Interest Rates on Foreign Currency (Non-resident) Accounts (Banks) (FCNR(B)) Deposits.
- The RBI vide its circular dated 06.12.2024 decided to increase the interest rates ceiling on fresh FCNR(B) deposits raised by the banks with effect from 06.12.2024 as under:
- For 1 year to less than 3 years of period of deposit- Overnight Alternative Reference Rate for the respective currency/ Swap plus 400 basis points; and
- For 3 years and above upto and including 5 years of period of deposit- Overnight Alternative Reference Rate for the respective currency/ Swap plus 500 basis points.
- The said relaxation shall be available till 31.03.2025.
Circular dated 06.12.2024 issued by RBI on Maintenance of Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR).
- The RBI vide its circular dated 06.12.2024, decided to reduce the Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) of all banks by 50 basis points in two equal tranches of 25 basis points each to 4.0 per cent of net demand and time liabilities (NDTL). Accordingly, banks are required to maintain the CRR at 4.25 per cent of their NDTL effective from the reporting fortnight beginning 14.12.2024 and 4.00 per cent of their NDTL effective from fortnight beginning 28.12.2024.
Circular dated 13.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Pro-rata and pari-passu rights of investors of AIFs.
- As per the circular dated 13.12.2024, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 have been amended and notified on 18.11.2024, with respect to maintaining pro-rata and pari-passu rights of investors in a scheme of an AIF.
- In this regard, several clarifications were made in the said circular dated 13.12.2024 and the details of the same can be referred to at the following link:
Circular dated 17.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Measures to address regulatory arbitrage with respect to Offshore Derivative Instruments (ODIs) and FPIs with segregated portfolios vis-à-vis FPIs.
- As per the circular dated 17.12.2024, SEBI modified Master Circular for Foreign Portfolio Investors, Designated Depository Participants and Eligible Foreign Investors No. SEBI/HO/AFD/AFD-PoD 2/P/CIR/P/2024/70 dated 30.05.2024 to the extent of certain requirements related to Offshore Derivative Instruments and Foreign Portfolio Investors with segregated portfolios.
- The detailed modifications as under the circular dated 17.12.2024 may be referred to at the following link:
Circular dated 20.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding Industry Standards on Reporting of BRSR Core.
- SEBI vide its circular dated 20.12.2024 introduced Industry Standards on Reporting of Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) Core to bring about standardization in implementation and facilitate ease of compliance under Regulation 34(2)(f) of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, read with Chapter IV-B of the SEBI master circular dated 11.11.2024.
- The said industry standards were formulated by the Industry Standards Forum (ISF) comprising representatives of ASSOCHAM, CII, and FICCI, under the aegis of the Stock Exchanges, in consultation with SEBI. Listed entities are required to follow the said industry standards to ensure compliance with SEBI requirements on disclosure of BRSR Core.
- The circular may be referred to at the following link:
Notification dated 26.12.2024 (Gazette Notification on 26.12.2024) issued by SEBI regarding Withdrawal of Recognition for Indian Commodity Exchange Limited.
- SEBI vide notification dated 26.12.2024 notified that vide Order dated 10.05.2022, it withdrew the recognition granted to the Indian Commodity Exchange Limited (ICEX) as a stock exchange under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.
- The said Order dated 05.2022 was challenged before the Securities Appellate Tribunal which vide Order dated 13.06.2022 set aside the SEBI Order dated 10.05.2022 and the Notification dated 18.05.2022 withdrawing the recognition of the Indian Commodity Exchange Limited, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Order dated 13.06.2022.
- Pursuant to Order dated 13.06.2022, Indian Commodity Exchange Limited vide letter dated 22.02.2023 requested SEBI to relax certain regulatory provisions or the letter may be considered as voluntary surrender of the recognition granted to the Indian Commodity Exchange Limited. Accordingly, vide an Order dated 10.12.2024, SEBI permitted the exit of the Indian Commodity Exchange Limited as a stock exchange and the consequent withdrawal of recognition granted to it, subject to certain directions contained therein.
Circular dated 27.12.2024 issued by SEBI on Prior approval for change in control: Transfer of shareholdings among immediate relatives and transmission of shareholdings and their effect on change in control.
- Vide circular dated 27.12.2024, SEBI made clarifications with respect to transfer of shareholding among immediate relatives and transmission of shareholding in respect of investment advisers (IAs), research analysts (RAs) and KYC (Know Your Client) registration agencies (KRAs) in line with clarification provided by SEBI for certain intermediaries vide circular no. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/DOR/CIR/P/2021/42.
- The said circular dated 27.12.2024 may be referred to at the link below:
Circular dated 30.12.2024 issued by RBI regarding introduction of Beneficiary Bank Account Name Look-up Facility for Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and National Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) Systems.
- Currently, the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and Immediate Payments Service (IMPS) systems enable a remitter to verify the name of the beneficiary before initiating transfer. RBI has decided to put in place a similar facility that would enable a remitter to verify the beneficiary bank account name before initiating a transaction using RTGS or NEFT system.
- Accordingly, vide circular dated 30.12.2024, RBI advised National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) to develop the facility and onboard all banks. Banks which are participants of RTGS and NEFT Systems, shall make this facility available to their customers through Internet banking and Mobile banking. The facility shall also be available to remitters visiting branches for making transactions.
- Detailed requirements for the same may be referred to at the link below:
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12759&Mode=0
Circular dated 30.12.2024 issued by SEBI allowing subscription to the issue of Non- Convertible Securities during the trading window closure period.
- As per the said circular dated 30.12.2024, in addition to the transactions mentioned in Clause 4(3)(b) of Schedule B read with sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 9 of PIT Regulations and SEBI Circular no. SEBI/HO/ISD/ISD/CIR/P/2020/133 dated 23.07.2020, the trading window restrictions shall also not apply to subscription to the issue of non- convertible securities, carried out in accordance with the framework specified by SEBI from time to time.
Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by RBI regarding Guidelines for Government Debt Relief Schemes (DRS).
- The RBI vide its circular dated 31.12.2024 issued detailed guidelines to be complied by the regulated entities (REs) participating as lenders under Debt Relief Schemes (DRS) announced by State Governments that inter alia entail sacrifice/waiver of debt obligations of a targeted segment of borrowers, against fiscal support. The said guidelines shall apply in respect of DRS notified on or after the date of issue of this circular and shall be without prejudice to the extant guidelines on resolution of stressed assets applicable to the respective REs.
- In this context, a model operating procedure (MOP) has also been shared with the State Governments for their consideration while designing and implementing such DRS through a consultative approach, to avoid any non-alignment of expectations of the stakeholders involved, including the Government, lenders, borrowers, etc.
- The said circular dated 31.12.2024 may be referred to below:
https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=12760
Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding implementation of recommendations of the Expert Committee for facilitating ease of doing business for listed entities.
- The recommendations of the Expert Committee that was set up to inter-alia review the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR Regulations” or “LODR”) from the point of view of facilitating ease of doing business for listed entities were approved by SEBI and amendments to the LODR Regulations have been published in the Gazette of India on 13.12.2024.
- SEBI issued the said circular dated 31.12.2024 to give effect to certain recommendations of the Expert Committee and carry out consequential changes to the provisions of SEBI Master Circular dated 11.11.2024, on compliance with the LODR Regulations by listed entities (“Master Circular”).
- The said circular dated 31.12.2024 may be referred to at the link below:
Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by SEBI regarding Clarifications on Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework (CSCRF) for SEBI Regulated Entities (REs).
- Vide the said circular dated 31.12.2024, SEBI issued clarifications regarding the regulatory forbearance, extension of compliance dates for Res and data security standard with regard to data localization in respect of the Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework (CSCRF) for regulated entities (REs), introduced via circular SEBI/HO/ITD-1/ITD_CSC_EXT/P/CIR/2024/113 dated 20.08.2024.
- The detailed clarifications as under the said circular dated 31.12.2024 may be referred to at the link below:
Circular dated 31.12.2024 issued by SEBI on introduction of a Mutual Funds Lite (MF Lite) framework for passively managed schemes of Mutual Funds.
- Vide its circular dated 31.12.2024, SEBI has introduced a relaxed regime with light-touch provisions, “the MF Lite Framework” only for passive Mutual Fund schemes, with an intent to promote ease of entry, encourage new players, reduce compliance requirements, increase penetration, facilitate investment diversification, increase market liquidity and foster innovation.
- The SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 (“MF Regulations”) was amended vide notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2024/221 dated 16.12.2024.
- In view of the above, the said circular dated 31.12.2024 covers various provisions relating to MF Lite Framework and the same may be referred to at the link below:
RERA Brief:
Order dated 20.12.2024 issued by Bihar RERA regarding Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for maintenance & operation of Project Bank Accounts in the light of Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.
- As per Order dated 20.12.2024, Bihar RERA in compliance of the mandate as prescribed in Section 4(2)(1) (D) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and in order to: (a) to safeguard homebuyers’ interest, ensure compliance, promote efficiency and transparency, accountability, and financial discipline as well as (b) to have uniformity in the operation and maintenance of the bank account of real estate projects and (c) to ensure proper and lawful utilization of the funds deposited in the designated bank accounts, issued directions regarding maintenance and operation of Bank Accounts of Registered Real Estate Projects.
- As per the said Order dated 20.12.2024, it has been prescribed that:
- Opening of RERA Project Bank Accounts: The promoter shall open dedicated bank accounts in a single scheduled bank before applying for the project registration as the promoter is obligated to furnish the details of project bank accounts at the time of registration.
- Operation of Bank Account: For opening RERA Designated Account, the Bank will open three bank accounts relating to single registered real estate project, that are as follows:
- RERA Master Account- Entire amounts realized from the allottees for the project (100% receivables from the allottees) would be deposited in the RERA Master Account.
- RERA Project Account- 70% of the amount from the RERA Master Account shall be transferred automatically at the end of business day in this account. This account shall be free from all encumbrances and should not be an escrow account and will be free from lien, loans and third-party control. The promoter shall withdraw the amounts from the RERA Project Account to cover the cost of the project, in proportion to the percentage of completion of the Project.
- RERA Promoter Account- A maximum of 30% of the amounts realized for the real estate project from the allottees, from time to time received in the RERA Master Account shall be deposited in the ‘RERA Promoter Account’.
- The said Order further lays down the requirement and process to be followed for change in RERA Project Account and closure of separate bank accounts of the project. The weblink for the said Order dated 20.12.2024 is as follows : Office Order – SOP for maintenance & operation of Project Bank Accounts in the light of Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the RERA, 2016.
Gazette notification dated 23.12.2024 issued by Haryana Government (Town & Country Planning Department) regarding amendment to the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017.
- As per Gazette Notification dated 23.12.2024, issued by the Haryana Government, two new rules, Rule 26-A and Rule 26-B, have been inserted in the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. Rule 26-A provides for Inquiry of the charges against the Chairperson or Member of the Authority. It provides that if the State Government becomes aware of any circumstances specified in Clause (d) or Clause (e) of sub- section (1) of section 26 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, either through receipt of a complaint or suo-moto, the State Government shall make a preliminary inquiry through an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary, who has served in Haryana State.
- If the State Government considers that there exists a prima facie case for further investigation of the allegation, the Government may after consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court, appoint a sitting Judge for the purpose of conducting such inquiry. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Judge shall submit his report to the State Government which shall indicate whether the allegations or proved or otherwise. On the basis of the report of inquiry either the State Government shall by order decide to remove or otherwise the Chairperson or Member of the Authority, as the case may be.
- Rule 26-B provides for the inquiry of the charges against the Chairperson or Member of the Appellate Tribunal It provides that if the State Government becomes aware of any circumstances specified in sub- section 4 of section 49 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, by receipt of a complaint or suo-moto then the the State Government shall make a preliminary inquiry through a Retired Judge of Supreme Court of India.
- If the State Government considers that there exists a prima facie case for further investigation of the allegation, the Government may after consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, appoint a sitting Judge for the purpose of conducting such inquiry. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Judge shall submit his report to the State Government which shall indicate whether the allegations or proved or otherwise. On the basis of the report of inquiry the State Government shall by order decide either to remove or otherwise the Chairperson or Member of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.
Order dated 27.12.2024 issued by Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”) regarding revising the minimum eligibility criteria for forming a Self-Regulatory Organization.
- As per Order No. 10A/2024 (No. MahaRERA/ Secy/ File no. 27/1306/2024) dated 27.12.2024, in order to facilitate and promote the real estate sector and considering the difference in development activities in Mumbai Metropolitan Region area and in the rest of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has amended MahaRERA Order No. 10 (No. MahaRERA/ Secy/ Order/ 1003/ 2019, dated 11.10.2019) and thereby revised the minimum eligibility criteria for forming a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO).
- As per the said order dated 27. 12.2024, it has been mentioned that:
- Clause 1(b) of the MahaRERA Order No. 10 (No. MahaRERA/ Secy/ Order/ 1003/ 2019, dated 11.10.2019) shall be substituted by the following:
“The proposed SRO should have:
- At least 500 MahaRERA registered projects of their members if the SRO has some or all members from Mumbai Metropolitan Region.
- At least 200 MahaRERA registered projects of their members if the SRO has all its members from outside the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.
- Form A as provided under the MahaRERA Order 10 (No. MahaRERA/ Secy/ Order/ 1003/ 2019, dated 11.10.2019) shall stand substituted by the form attached with the Order No. 10A/2024 (No. MahaRERA/ Secy/ File no. 27/1306/2024) dated 27.12.2024.
Intellectual Property Rights Brief:
Federated Hermes Ltd. vs. John Doe and Others
High Court of Delhi | 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8831
This suit was filed to seek relief of permanent injunction for infringement of trademark and copyright. The Plaintiff has a registered trademark for “FEDERATED HERMES” and the logo .
The Plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1, which are unknown individuals (referred as ‘John Doe’), used the Plaintiff’s trademarks “FEDERATED HERMES” and the logo to operate a fraudulent investment and stock trading business using WhatsApp groups, purporting to offer “live classes” and lures the victims into depositing substantial sums of money into purported “VIP accounts” falsely claimed to be associated with the Plaintiff.
On 28th May, 2024, this Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. However, until the next date of hearing, the Defendant failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad-interim injunction order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was entitled to restrain the Defendant from using the Plaintiff’s name and marks without authorization from the Plaintiff and a decree of permanent injunction was passed against the Defendant.
Inter Ikea Systems BV vs. Ikey Home Studio LLP and Anr.
High Court of Delhi | 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9160
This suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up.
The Plaintiff is in the business of home interior items and has a well-known registered trademark and also IKEA. The Defendant adopted the trademarks
/ IKEY and used them for the business of identical and allied & cognate goods i.e. home interior items such as tiles, sanitary ware, plumbing materials, hardware, paints, glass, plywood and other home interior solutions.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s trademark is deceptively and confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark and that the Defendant has also registered the domain name www.ikeyllp.com.
The Plaintiff alleged that the similarity between the conflicting marks is such that it cannot be a mere co-incidence and that the Defendant has adopted the trademarks in bad faith.
The Plaintiff relied on its global use of the trademarks since at least the year 1943, attaining valuable and enduring trade, goodwill and reputation. The Plaintiff submitted that apart from the Plaintiff’s statutory rights over its IKEA trademarks overseas, the Plaintiff’s trademark has also been declared as well-known in several countries, such as but not limited to China, Chile, Indonesia, Italy, Kazakhstan, EU, Turkey and Vietnam. Additionally, the WIPO Arbitration and Conciliation Centre has passed several orders recognizing the well-known status of the IKEA trademark.
After considering the contentions of the Plaintiff and absence of any response or appearance by the Defendant, the court passed the following order:
- An ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from using the trademarks / ‘IKEY’ and its variant trademarks until the next date of hearing.
- Direction to the Defendant No. 2 GoDaddy Inc. to suspend the domain name ikeyllp.com of Defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit.
Pfizer Inc. and Others v. Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others
High Court of Delhi | 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8956
A suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent No. 241773 titled “Pyrrolo [2, 3-d] Pyrimidine compounds” and Indian Patent No. 218212 titled “crystalline 3-((3R,4R)-4-methyl-3-[methyl-[7H-pyrrolo [2,3-D]pyrimidin-4-yl) amino]-piperidin-1yl)-3-oxo-propinitrile mono citrate salt and its method preparation” (hereinafter referred as ‘suit patents’) along with other ancillary reliefs.
The Plaintiff submitted that Tofacitinib is the active pharmaceutical ingredient of the product marketed under the name Xeljanz. Xeljanz was launched in India in the year 2016 and is marketed by an affiliate company of the Plaintiff. It is further stated that Xeljanz received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2012 for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. The Plaintiff further submitted that Xeljanz has been approved for use in patients across 86 countries, including but not limited to the United States, Japan, Switzerland, Argentina, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia, where it is marketed under the trade name Jaqinus.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants manufactured, sold, and exported “Tofaxen”, a generic version of the patented drug of the Plaintiff, Xeljanz (Tofacitinib). The Plaintiff states the infringement of two of its Indian patents, covering the composition and preparation of Tofacitnib. The Defendants were accused of violating the Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights during the validity of the patents by marketing and selling the infringing product without authorization.
The Plaintiff hired an investigation agency to ascertain the extent of use of the Patent by the Defendant, and found the following:
The product list on Defendant no. 1’s website included the generic version of the Plaintiffs’ patented product under the name ‘Tofaxen’.
The Defendant no. 2 confirmed having a dealership arrangement with the defendant no. 1 and has supplied the impugned ‘Tofaxen’ product, along with other products.
The Defendant no. 3 offered for sale and advertisement, the generic ‘Tofaxen’ product of the Defendant no. 1 on the IndiaMart website.
The Defendant no. 4 was found willing to supply the impugned generic version of the Plaintiffs’ product for Rs. 6,500.
The Defendant no. 5 was found advertising and offering for sale the generic version of the plaintiffs’ patented product on the India Mart website.
After considering the contentions of both the parties, the court found the Defendants guilty of infringement the Plaintiff’s patent along with causing a substantial and immediate threat to public health by manufacturing and selling a substandard drug. However, in view of the fact that the patents registration expired during the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs did not press for relief of permanent injunction. The court gave the following reliefs:
- A decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clause 57 (e) of the plaint.
- For the purposes of calculation of actual costs, the Plaintiff is directed to file its bill of costs in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within four weeks.
- The representatives of the Plaintiff shall appear before the taxation officer on 14th January 2025, who shall determine the actual costs incurred by the plaintiff in the present litigation.
NCLT Brief:
IBBI Expert Committee on Framework for Use of Mediation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016
An Expert Committee, constituted by the IBBI, on the ‘Framework for Use of Mediation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016’ submitted its Report recommending the use of mediation in respect of processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Based on the recommendation of this expert Committee, the IBBI published a discussion paper recommending amendments to the IBC.
Intent of Introduction of the Mediation mechanism:
A mediation mechanism is being proposed a prior to the initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 under the IBC. This is based on an observation that Operational Creditors often prioritize repayment over the resolution of the Corporate Debtor, with significant number of cases being settled at the pre-admission stage under Section 9. This initiative aims to inculcate mediation as a preliminary step, reducing litigation timelines and enhancing efficiency in resolving disputes.
The summary of the recommendations laid by the committee is as follows:
The expert committee proposal encourages a voluntary mediation mechanism, i.e., reference of a dispute to mediation by consensus of parties. It suggests mediation for post-institution matters filed by Operational Creditors (OCs) subject to NCLT’s approval and for specific process disputes during the insolvency resolution process, such as claims collation and inter-creditor issues.
For a phased implementation, it recommends that proceedings under the Code may be explicitly excluded from Mediation Act, 2023, as permitted under Entry 13 of its First Schedule and calls for: (a) mediation as ADR method within existing statutory processes under the Code, (b) establishment of mediation secretariat at the NCLT; and (c) clarifying role of the NCLT as Adjudicating authority. Additionally, IBBI must lay down the Regulatory framework including specific procedures for conduct of mediations, appointment and removal of mediators, enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreements (“MSAs”) and related processes.
Parties are suggested to approach the AA for the enforcement of MSA’s without insisting for separate legal proceedings. For incentivization, costs incurred for the conduct of mediation during the CIRP process are to be excluded from the purview of insolvency resolution process costs.
The mediator pool shall include (a) Retired NCLT/NCLAT members. (b) Advocates with over 10 successful insolvency cases or 10+ years in insolvency disputes. (c) Ex-senior officials from financial regulators or banks. (d) Insolvency professionals with 10+ years of experience. Additionally, mediators with 10+ years in mediation, commercial dispute advocacy, or technical expertise in insolvency, accounting, valuation, or industry operations may also be included.
CONCLUSION
The Expert Committee has taken a cautious approach and endeavored to balance the fundamental objectives of the Code, i.e., “time-bound reorganization” and “maximization of value”, with autonomy to parties to voluntarily opt for the ‘out-of-court’ mediation process to enhance the efficiency of the insolvency resolution process.
Litigation Brief:
CASE ANALYSIS: Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3715
Decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 06.12.2024
Factual matrix:
- A recent case involving the interpretation of an arbitration clause in a Deed of Partnership dated 16.07.2016 has drawn attention to the complexities surrounding dispute resolution in partnership agreements. The arbitration clause in question had two main components:
- Dispute resolution: It specified that any dispute arising during the partnership or after the retirement of a partner, whether involving the partners themselves, their heirs, or anyone claiming through them will be referred to arbitration.
- Arbitrator appointment: The clause further provided that arbitration shall be optional, with the arbitrator to be appointed by mutual consent of the partners.
- The dispute in this case arose when the legal representative of the Deceased partner, Yeshwant Boolani, invoked the arbitration clause to resolve a conflict. However, confusion arose regarding whether the clause was mandatory or optional.
Key Issue
The main issues in the case were whether the Arbitration Clause was mandatory or optional, as outlined in the contract, particularly in light of its latter part.
Observations
- The Apex Court emphasized that the arbitration clause must be read as a whole. While the second part of the clause mentions that arbitration is “optional”, this does not mean that the clause is invalid.
- The Supreme Court observed that the first part of the clause clearly establishes that disputes will be referred to arbitration, making it mandatory for the aggrieved party to invoke the clause. The mutual consent for appointing an arbitrator is procedural and is not a condition of invoking arbitration.
- The Hon’ble Court referred to various judicial precedents including the Vidya Drolia case and affirmed the principle of broadly interpreting arbitration clauses, especially in commercial agreements. This interpretation ensures that the parties’ intent for quick, effective and efficient resolution of disputes is honoured.
- The Court emphasized that the arbitration process should proceed in accordance with the agreed upon framework, with the arbitrator to be appointed by following the proper legal channels.
- The Apex Court ruled in the favour of the legal representative of the deceased partner, allowing the invocation of the arbitration clause.
Land Acquisition Compensation Award vis-à-vis market value of the acquired land; exceptional circumstances permit deviation in the interest of justice.
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz & Ors. v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
reported in 2025 INSC 3.
In 2003, private land of the Appellants, along with other landowners, was acquired by the instrumentalities of the State of Karnataka, of which possession was taken over in 2005. However, no award was passed immediately for such acquisitions. Being aggrieved, the landowners filed Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, inter alia, with a prayer to quash the acquisition notifications in relation to their respective lands.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Writ Petitions on grounds of belated stage but granted liberty to the landowners to approach the concerned authorities. Accordingly, in 2016, various landowners submitted representations to the concerned authorities to frame rehabilitation scheme. However, on non-consideration of their representations, they once again approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by filing another batch of Writ Petitions. In 2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka disposed off the second batch of Writ Petitions directing the State of Karnataka to consider the representations of the various landowners and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
On 22.04.2019, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (“KIADB”) passed an Award taking into consideration guideline rates prevailing at the time of notification of acquisition. Being aggrieved, the Appellants, together with other landowners, filed third batch of Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on the ground that the compensation in terms of said Award should be determined as per the current market value of the lands.
Vide Judgement and Order dated 22.04.2019 (“Impugned Order”), the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the said Award and directed the concerned authorities to pass fresh award(s) in accordance with law.
However, as a result of quashing of said Award, the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants did not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the Appellants preferred a Writ Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka against the Impugned Order, which was dismissed.
Hence, the present Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Key Issue:
Whether the Appellants are entitled to compensation determined at the market value as of the date of the preliminary notification in 2003, or at a later date, considering the inordinate delay in awarding compensation.
Ratio:
The Appellants lawfully acquired residential plots between 1995 and 1997. Subsequently, in 2003, the KIADB issued a preliminary notification for the acquisition of these lands under the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project. Despite taking possession of the land in 2005 and transferring it to the project proponents, the authorities failed to assess and disburse compensation to the Appellants for over two decades.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its ruling, censured the inordinate delay and the lack of diligence on the part of the state authorities, terming their conduct as indicative of a “lethargic attitude”. The Court underscored that such prolonged deprivation of property without compensation contravenes the constitutional safeguard enshrined in Article 300-A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law and with due compensation.
Furthermore, while acknowledging that the Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right, the Court reaffirmed its status as a constitutional right, which requires the state to ensure just compensation in cases of land acquisition. Given the significant delay in determining compensation, the Court ruled that assessing compensation based on the market value as of 2003 would be inequitable and would infringe upon the Appellants’ constitutional rights.
Held:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed that the compensation for the acquired land be assessed based on its market value as of April 22, 2019, rather than the date of the preliminary notification issued in 2003. Recognizing the prolonged delay in awarding compensation, the Court mandated the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine and issue a fresh award within a stipulated period of two months.
Conclusion:
This judgment reinforces the constitutional guarantee against the deprivation of property without just compensation, as enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. By ensuring that compensation reflects the market value at a more recent date, the ruling upholds the principles of fairness and equity in land acquisitions cases. Additionally, the decision serves as a precedent emphasizing the necessity of timely compensation to prevent undue hardship to landowners affected by state acquisition proceedings.
***
Disclaimer:
For private circulation to the addressee only and not for re-circulation. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/ or publication of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited. This Newsletter is not intended to be an advertisement or solicitation. The contents of this Newsletter are solely meant to inform and is not a substitute for legal advice. Legal advice should be obtained based on the specific circumstances of each case, before relying on the contents of this Newsletter or prior to taking any decision based on the information contained in this Newsletter. ZEUS Law disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. If you have received this Newsletter in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.
Copyright © 2014 ZEUS Law. All rights reserved. Replication or redistribution of content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of ZEUS Law.