- RBI notification on appointment of Internal Ombudsman.
- RBI notification on Unhedged Foreign Currency Exposure Directions, 2022.
- RBI notification on Draft Master Direction on Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices
- SEBI notification on Cancellation, Suspension or Surrender of Certificate of Registration of a Credit Rating Agency.
- SEBI circular on reduction in denomination for debt securities and non-convertible redeemable preference shares
- Public Notice issued by Kerala RERA on 07.10.2022 for submission of annual report in Form No. 5 by 31.10.2022 for the year 2021-22.
- Circular issued by Kerala RERA on 07.10.2022 for K-RERA-Submission of application for registration of plot development/ villa Projects.
- Order issued by Rajasthan RERA on 07.10.2022 stating submission of hardcopy of application for registration of project.
- Order issued by Bihar RERA on 10.10.2022 regarding the General Amnesty Scheme to safeguard the interest of allottees of such projects where the promoter failed to submit an application for extension of their project during the prescribed period.
- Order issued by Bihar RERA on 10.10.2022 regarding the SOP for the operation of a separate account to be opened under Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
- Circular issued by Karnataka RERA on 13.10.2022 for submission on annual audit report as per Section 4(2)(I)(D) of the RERA Act, 2016.
- CASE ANALYSIS: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS KEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2176 OF 2020]
- Director of a company not to be prosecuted in cheque bounce cases in absence of specific averments and company not being arrayed as a party
- If the issue of the arbitrability of dispute requires deeper/further consideration, the issue should be referred to the arbitrator by the court.
Notification Number CEPD.PRD.No.S806/13-01-008/2022-23 dated 06.10.2022 of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”):
Appointment of Internal Ombudsman by the Credit Information Companies
By virtue of the said notification, the RBI directed all Credit Information Companies holding a Certificate of Registration to appoint an Internal Ombudsman for a fixed term of atleast 3 years and atmost 5 years meeting the prescribed prerequisites. The notification stated that the internal audit of the CIC shall cover the implementation of, and compliance with, this Direction, inter-alia, including: (i) The adequacy of the infrastructure provided to the Internal Ombudsman and whether it is in line with the volume of complaints and the stated position of the IO at the apex of the grievance redressal mechanism, (ii) Adherence with various timelines indicated in these directions, (iii) Support provided by the CIC to the Internal Ombudsman for redressal of the complaints. The said notification further delineates the scope, role and responsibility of the Internal Ombudsman, along with reporting requirements.
Notification Number DOR.MRG.REC.76/00-00-007/2022-23 dated 11.10.2022 of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”):
Reserve Bank of India (Unhedged Foreign Currency Exposure) Directions, 2022
The captioned Directions aim to revise and update the previously issued several guidelines/ instructions/ directives to the banks on Unhedged Foreign Currency Exposure (UFCE) of the entities which have borrowed from banks. The provisions of these Directions shall be applicable to all commercial banks excluding Payments Banks and Regional Rural Banks. The Directions, inter-alia, provide that banks shall ascertain the Foreign Currency Exposure (FCE) of all entities (i.e., counterparty to which bank has exposure in any currency) at least on an annual basis.
Notification Number DoS.CO.CSITEG/SEC.xx /31.01.015/2022-23 dated 20.10.2022 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):
Draft Master Direction on Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices
The RBI released the Draft Directions on Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices in order to provide the draft guidelines and instructions relating to information technology (IT) governance and controls, business continuity management and information systems. By virtue of the Draft Directions, the “Regulated Entities” are mandated to put in place a robust IT governance framework comprising of the governance structure and processes necessary to meet the business/ strategic objectives of the Regulated Entities which must, inter-alia, include adequate oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability and mitigation of business risks. The said Draft Directions further provide for IT infrastructure and services management, IT risk and information security, business continuity and disaster recovery management, and information systems’ audit.
Notification Number SEBI/HO/DDHS/DDHS-RACPOD2/P/CIR/2022/140 dated 13.10.2022 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”)
Cancellation, Suspension or Surrender of Certificate of Registration of a Credit Rating Agency (“CRA”)
The said notification lays down the procedural requirements the concerned CRAs are required to follow, on and from the date of the cancellation, suspension or surrender of certificate order passed by SEBI. It further stipulates the following:
- In case of cancellation of Certificate of Registration, the credit ratings assigned by the CRA shall be valid till such time the client withdraws the assignment and/or migrates the assignment to other CRA as specified or the CRA is wound-up, whichever is earlier.
- In case of surrender of Certificate of Registration, the credit ratings assigned by the CRA whose certificate of registration is being surrendered, shall be valid till such time the client withdraws the assignment and/or migrates to another CRA, or the date of acceptance of surrender by SEBI, whichever is earlier.
- In case of suspension of Certificate of Registration, the credit ratings assigned by the CRA, whose certificate of registration is suspended, shall not be valid during the period of suspension.
Circular No. SEBI/HO/DDHS/P/CIR/2022/00144 dated 28.10.2022 issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”)
Amendments to Operational Circular for issue and listing of Non-Convertible Securities, Securitised Debt Instruments and Security Receipts, Municipal Debt Securities and Commercial Paper dated 10.08.2021 (“Principal Circular”)
The Principal Circular, inter alia, mandates that the face value of each debt security or non-convertible redeemable preference share issued on private placement basis shall be Rs. 10 lakh and the trading lot shall be equal to the face value.
In order to increase access of non-institutional investors and to enhance liquidity in the market for corporate bonds, the captioned Circular reduced the face value and trading lot. By virtue of said Circular, the face value of each debt security or non-convertible redeemable preference share issued on private placement basis shall be Rupees One Lakh. Further, the face value of the listed debt security and non-convertible redeemable preference share issued on private placement basis traded on a stock exchange or OTC basis shall be Rupees One Lakh. The provisions of the said Circular shall be applicable to all issues of debt securities and non-convertible redeemable preference shares on private placement basis, through new ISINs (International Securities Identification Numbers), on or after January 01, 2023.
Public Notice issued by Kerala RERA on 07.10.2022 for submission of annual report in Form No. 5 by 31st October 2022 for the year 2021-22.
Kerala RERA, vide its Public notice dated 07.10.2022, stated the following:
- As per Regulation 4(4) of Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations 2020, the annual report on the statement of accounts for each registered projects in Form No.5 shall be uploaded by the promoter in the allotted web page on the website of-the Authority on or before 31.10.2022 of every year until the project is completed.
- It was further directed that the Promoters shall upload Annual report in Form No.5 on K-RERA web portal for the financial year 2021-22 for their registered projects on or before 31.10.2022.
Circular issued by Kerala RERA on 07.10.2022 for K-RERA-submission of application for registration of plot development /villa Projects.
Kerala RERA, vide its Public notice dated 07.10.2022, stated the following directions, regarding the submission of the application for registration of plot development /villa projects under Section 3 of the Act:
- For registration of plot development projects, the applicant shall upload the development permit/ layout approval along with the application. lf any constructions are proposed as part of the common amenities provided, a building permit for the same shall also be uploaded.
- Conversion of a registered plot development project to a villa project is not permissible under the law. Hence fresh application for registration as a villa project shall be submitted.
- A real estate project to be developed as a villa project, shall be registered as such with development permit/ layout approval obtained from the competent Authority. The promoter while applying for registration for a villa project, shall upload the development permit/ layout approval and building permit pertaining to all villas proposed in the project.
- ln case the promoter is not able to obtain permits for all the villas proposed in the project during the time of submission of the application for registration due to time constraints or for any other reason, at least one building permit pertaining to each type of villa proposed in the project shall be obtained and shall be uploaded. The fee shall be paid for the entire land area and for entire villa units. Fee for constructions if any included in common amenities shall also be paid in accordance with the Act & Rules. Agreement for Sale – Annexure “A”, shall be executed for villa and plots together.
Order issued by Rajasthan RERA on 07.10.2022 stating submission of hardcopy of application for registration of project.
Rajasthan RERA, vide its order dated 07.10.2022, stated the following:
- In case the promoter fails to submit the hardcopy of the application for registration of project along with the complete set of documents, in accordance with the directions issued by Authority’s order no. 1478 dated 27.08.2021, within 30 days from the date of issue of registration certificate (RC), delay processing charges of Rs. 1,000/- per day (with a maximum capping of an amount twice the Registration Fee) shall be payable before or at the time of depositing of hardcopy.
- This order shall be deemed to be effective from 27.08.2021, with a condition that the cases in which the delay processing charges have already been deposited shall not be re-opened and no refund shall be made therein.
Order issued by Bihar RERA on 10.10.2022 regarding the General Amnesty Scheme to safeguard the interest of allottees of such projects where the promoter failed to submit an application for extension of their project during the prescribed period.
Bihar RERA, vide its order dated 10.10.2022, stated the following:
- For the projects whose date of completion has expired and the project against whom no complaint has been filed, would be given an opportunity to submit their application for extension of their project in Form ‘E’ online with the prescribed fees of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with an additional fee @25% of the registration fees for delay of every quarter (three months) up to a period of delay of one year maximum of 100% of the registration fees. For delay beyond one year, the promoter needs to submit double of the registration fees till the end of 2nd
- For the projects where date of completion has expired, and application for extension has not been submitted and where the complaint case has been filed against the project, extension would not be granted till the final order is passed in the case.
Order issued by Bihar RERA on 10.10.2022 regarding the SOP for the operation of a separate account to be opened under Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
RERA Bihar vide order dated 10.10.2022, approved the following Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the operation of the dedicated separate account of the project, with immediate effect:
- The physical progress report in the prescribed formats of the Engineer and Architect would be uploaded for every quarter. The financial progress report of the Chartered Accountant, which would indicate the amount spent on the project and the amount received from the allottees, both during the quarter and cumulatively till the reporting period would also be uploaded.
- The difference between the amount spent by the promoter on the project as per the report of the above-mentioned quarterly report and the amount received from the allottees of the project till the end of the quarter will define the tranche limit.
- The promoter would be entitled to withdraw funds from the dedicated separate account within the tranche limit as mentioned above without a certificate from the CA, Engineer, and Architect provided that such withdrawal does not exceed the amount withdrawn from the account in the preceding quarter.
- The promoter may withdraw either in instalments or in full and part within the tranche limit without the report of the CA, Engineer, and Architect.
- If the amount spent on the project is less than the deposit received from the allottees, then the promoter would be required to deposit 100% of future installments in this separate account up to the tranche limit or complete the work up to that extent out of their funds.
- A certificate from CA, Engineer, or Architect would be necessary for any withdrawal beyond this limit.
Circular issued by Karnataka RERA on 13.10.2022 for submission on annual audit report as per Section 4(2)(I)(D) of RERA Act, 2016.
Karnataka RERA, vide its circular dated 13.10.2022, stated the following:
- In exercise of the power conferred under section 25 and 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and as the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has recently notified the new format for Form 7, Annual Audit Report on Statement of Accounts. The promoters are mandated to obtain the New Form 7 for the financial year 2021-22 and for subsequent years for each project from a Chartered Accountant in practice
- Further, the new form 7 shall be submitted in a separate online module. The promoters shall visit the K RERA Web portal and select Annual Audit login under Registration and submit the required information, details, documents, and New Form 7.
- In addition, the promoters shall submit the information of Annual Audited books of accounts (Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet along with schedules, cash flow statement, Income Tax Returns and Auditor report) along with New Form-7 for the financial year ending 31st March 2022 on or before 15th November 2022, which is in compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
CASE ANALYSIS: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED VS KEW PRECISION PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2176 OF 2020]
- ISSUES BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
- Whether an application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) against a corporate debtor is maintainable in respect of a time barred debt if the debtor has after the expiry of the limitation period agreed to repay the same?
- BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In 2013, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (“Financial Creditor”) provided certain financial facilities to Kew Precision Parts Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”). However, the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making repayments and its bank account was categorized as a non-performing asset (“NPA”) in the year 2015.
The Financial Creditor sent a demand notice to the Corporate Debtor on 19.11.2017, in accordance with section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”). The Corporate Debtor recognized its liability towards the Financial Creditor on 12.12.2018 and proposed a one-time settlement, which was updated on 19.12.2018 and subsequently, on 20.12.2018. The Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor eventually agreed to an one-time settlement to pay the outstanding debts for a lump sum of Rs. 24,55,00,000 (“One-time Settlement Amount”), which was to be paid by 31.12.2018. On 20.12.2018, the terms of the one-time settlement were signed and executed by and between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor.
Thereafter, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the One-time Settlement Amount as agreed, and the Financial Creditor filed an application to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Vide judgment dated 06.10.2019,
the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT“) admitted the said application.
The Corporate Debtor filed an appeal before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“), arguing that the Financial Creditor’s petition filed under section 7 of the IBC was time-barred. The Corporate Debtor contended that there was no acknowledgment of debt within a period of three years from the date when the Corporate Debtor’s account was classified as NPA, which was 30.09.2015.
The Financial Creditor argued that the conditions of the one-time settlement were executed on 20.12.2018 wherein, the Corporate Debtor duly acknowledged its liability towards the Financial Creditor and accepted its obligation to pay the One-time Settlement Amount. Thus, it was contended that the application under section 7 of the IBC was within limitation.
The NCLAT rejected the submissions made by the Financial Creditor and held that the application under section 7 of the IBC was time-barred in the absence of an acknowledgement of debt as per the Limitation Act, 1963 (“the Limitation Act“). Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the CIRP brought against the Corporate Debtor.
- FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgement set aside the order of the NCLAT and allowed the appeal. Furthermore, the Apex Court held that a debt due in terms of a Recovery Certificate is a “Financial Debt” as defined by section 5 (8) of the IBC.
THE LAW OF CONTRACT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying on section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“the Contract Act“) held that a time-barred debt payment arrangement would be legally enforceable if there exists a promise to pay. Further, under section 25(3) of the Contract Act, a debtor may enter into a written arrangement to settle all or part of a debt that the creditor may have been able to collect, if the debt wasn’t time barred. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the present one-time settlement agreement is a legally binding contract and a written commitment to pay the forbidden debt. Such a promise amounts to novation and may serve as the foundation for a lawsuit unrelated to the initial debt.
THE LAW OF LIMITATION
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court drew a demarcation between a promise as defined under section 25 of the Contract Act and an acknowledgement given in accordance with section 18 of the Limitation Act and held that a written acknowledgement that is signed by a party or an authorized representative of that party has the same effect as a ‘fresh period of limitation’. An acknowledgement in pursuance to section 18 of the Limitation Act need not be accompanied by a commitment to pay and must be made within the limitation period. Even if there may be a refusal to make payment, if an acknowledgement demonstrates the existence of a jural relationship, the limitation may be extended. However, section 25(3) of the Contract Act only applies in a situation where a debt that is time-barred in whole or in part has an unambiguous guarantee to be paid.
THE INSOLVENCY REGIME VIS-À-VIS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY
The Hon’ble Supreme Court additionally relied on section 7(5)(b) of the IBC to note that the NCLT must inform the applicant and provide them 7 days’ time to correct any errors in the said section 7 application before it is rejected. The NCLAT dismissed the CIRP brought against the Corporate Debtor in this instance, without allowing the Financial Creditor a chance to correct the errors as specified in section 7(5)(b) of the IBC. As a result, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the observation that that the NCLAT was unable to determine whether or not section 25(3) of the Contract Act would apply. NCLAT proceeded on the theory that the CIRP proceedings were barred by limitation and in the absence of any acknowledgement of debt as per the statute of limitations, appeal preferred by the Corporate Debtor ought to be allowed. The same was done without taking into account the issue of whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, which permits forbearance of delay would be applicable to proceedings under section 7 of the IBC.
Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the NCLAT erred by allowing the appeal and dismissing the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor, before providing the Financial Creditor an adequate opportunity to substantiate whether there was a sufficient and bona fide cause for delay in approaching the NCLT. The requirement of section 7(5)(b) of the IBC, of informing the Financial Creditor before rejecting a claim would, hence, be attracted as an appeal constitutes the continuation of original proceedings.
In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal with appropriate directions to the NCLT to re-evaluate the application to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
Director of a company not to be prosecuted in cheque bounce cases in absence of specific averments and company not being arrayed as a party
IN THE MATTER OF: Pawan Kumar Goel vs. State of U.P. and Ors., MANU/SC/1509/2022
Decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.11.2022
- The Appellant was having business relation with a private limited company in which Respondent No.2 was appointed as director. Respondent No.2 issued an account payee cheque for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in favor of Appellant towards discharge of its liability for supply of material made by the Appellant.
- The said cheque got dishonored upon presentation before the banker on ground that cheque amount exceeds arrangement. Thereafter, the Appellant sent a legal notice to Respondent No.2 through registered post, which was served, however, met with radio silence.
- Aggrieved by no response and non-payment of amount by Respondent No.2, Appellant filed four criminal complaints against Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). The Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint of Appellant and passed an order summoning Respondent No.2 for trial.
- Against the summoning order, Respondent No.2 filed criminal revision petition before Sessions Court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 approached Hon’ble High Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petitions seeking quashing of summing order of Ld. Magistrate. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the entire proceedings including summoning order holding that the complaint of Appellant is itself bad in law since the main accused i.e. Company of which Respondent No.2 is a director, has not been made party in the instant complaint.
- Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Order of Hon’ble High Court by way of filing Criminal Appeals.
The issue which arose in the instant case is whether a director of a company would be liable for prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act without the company being arrayed as an accused and without their being any averments that the named director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct and business of the company.
Court’s Observations and Findings:
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while observing that the penal statutes are to be construed strictly held that criminal liability for offence by company under Section 138 of NI Act, is fastened vicariously on the persons referred under Section 141 (1) by virtue of a legal fiction and therefore a specific averment complying with requirement of Section 141 is imperative.
- The Hon’ble Court further considered scope of Section 141 of the NI Act as expounded in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr., MANU/SC/0622/2005, wherein it was observed that the liability under Section 141 arises from the person being in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time when the offence was committed and not by merely holding a designation. Hence, a liability under Section 141 should be fastened vicariously on a person, the principal accused being the company itself.
- Reliance was also placed on Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P.) Ltd., MANU/SC/0335/2012, where the three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that it is imperative to array a company as an accused for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of NI Act and non-impleadment would be fatal for the complaint.
- The Hon’ble Court also echoed observations made in N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, MANU/SC/1062/2017, to held that an additional accused cannot be impleaded subsequent to filing of the complaint once the limitation period prescribed under Section 142 of NI Act has expired.
- In conclusion, placing reliance on various judgements and the fact that Appellant has not made any averments in its complaint that Respondent No.2 was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business at the time when offence was committed, the Hon’ble Apex court dismissed the appeals.
If the issue of the arbitrability of dispute requires deeper/further consideration, the issue should be referred to the arbitrator by the court.
IN THE MATTER OF: VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt Ltd & Anr. versus Kay Ellen Arnold. (pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6679 OF 2022)
- A Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement (“the Agreement”) was entered into between the VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt Ltd & Anr. (“Appellants”) and Kay Ellen Arnold (“Respondent”) at Chennai on 27.04.2016.
- The Appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras (“The High Court”) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) by way of O.P. No. 304/2019 to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 17.1.2 of the Agreement entered into between the Parties.
- The High Court in O.P. No. 304/2019, vide Judgement and Order, dated 05.08.2021 (“Impugned Order”), dismissed the Application under Section 11(6) of the Act and refused to appoint an arbitrator and refer the dispute to the arbitrator on the grounds that (i) at the time of filing of the said Application, the matter was already referred to another arbitral tribunal with respect to one Agreement, dated 27.04.2016, subsequent Amendment Agreement, dated 06.12.2017, and Addendum Agreement, dated 28.05.2018; and (ii) oppression and mismanagement proceedings initiated by the Respondent were pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).
- Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the Appellants herein being aggrieved by the Impugned Order.
- Whether the present dispute between the Parties with respect to the Agreement arbitrable?
- Whether an application under Section 11(6) of the Act is liable to be dismissed during the pendency of oppression and mismanagement proceedings before the NCLT?
Courts Observations and Findings:
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India opined that the High Court erred in dismissing the Application and for refusing to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the Parties arising out of the Agreement.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing the the first ground of dismissal taken by the Hon’ble High Court, stated that the Appellants were not a party to the said arbitral proceedings and the present Agreement is an independent agreement from the other Agreements entered into between the Parties. The contention of the Respondent, that all the three Agreements were interlinked, was found to be not maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying on the case of Vidya Drolia and Ors. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, reiterated that “unless on the facet it is found that the dispute is not arbitrable and if it requires further/deeper consideration, the dispute with respect to the arbitrability should be left to the arbitrator.”
- With respect to the second ground of dismissal taken by the Hon’ble High Court, the Supreme Court of India stated that an application under Section 11(6) of the Act cannot be dismissed due to the pendency of oppression and mismanagement proceedings before the NCLT since the dispute being referred to the arbitration is entirely different from the allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
- Therefore, the Impugned Order, dated 05.08.2021, was set aside and the Application under Section 11(6) of the Act was allowed. Shri Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu Former Judge, Madras High Court, was appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the Parties arising out of the Agreement.
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.
 (2021) 2 SCC 1