Corporate
S.35L Central Excise Act | Only Supreme Court Can Decide Appeals On Question Of Excisability; Not High Courts: SC
The Supreme Court has held that disputes relating to the excisability of goods fall within its exclusive appellate jurisdiction and cannot be decided by High Courts under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.“An appeal from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of excise duty or to the value of goods for...
Green Competition: Why India's Competition Act Must Account For Environment
India has transformed how it thinks about corporate wrongdoing. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act,2023 decriminalized over 183 provisions across 42 Central Acts, converting criminal penalties into civil ones with enhanced monetary fines. The aim is straightforward, ease of doing buisness, not jail terms should be the default response to corporate non-compliance. The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 reflects the same instinct with heavier penalties, faster process but no prison bars...
Companies Act | Supreme Court Rejects 'Vote-Cast-First' Rule For Societies In AGMs; Only Person Lawfully Authorised Can Vote: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that when there exists a dispute between the rival societies over the exercise of the voting rights at the Company's Annual General Meeting, where they hold shares, then the voting rights must be exercised by persons lawfully authorised under the society's governing documents and in accordance with the statutory framework governing corporate voting....
Disgorgement As A Regulatory Remedy Under SEBI Act
Disgorgement is a legal remedy that helps restore fairness and prevent future wrongdoing. It requires a court or regulatory authority to force a wrongdoer to give up profits or benefits gained through misconduct. Unlike compensatory damages, which are meant to repay victims for their losses, disgorgement aims to strip offenders of their unjust profits. The main idea is that no one should benefit from illegal, fraudulent, or unethical actions.In securities regulation, especially under the system...
Supreme Court Grants Relief To Reliance Industries In 2007 RPL Futures Trading Case, Sets Aside SEBI's ₹447 Crore Disgorgement Order
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 29) set aside the ₹447.27 crore disgorgement order imposed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, being approved by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, on Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) in connection with alleged manipulative trading in the futures segment of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (RPL) during November 2007. Partly allowing the appeal filed by...
Arbitration | Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitrator's Decision Under Section 16 : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that while exercising its Writ Jurisdiction, it is impermissible for the High Courts to interfere with the arbitral tribunal's order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. “It was not open for the learned Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the dispute while adjudicating the challenge to an...
S.33(1)(a) Arbitration Act Only To Correct Clerical Errors In Award; Can't Be Invoked To Change Nature Of Interest : Supreme Court
Holding that substance of an arbitral award cannot be altered under the guise of correcting errors, the Supreme Court has ruled that changing the nature of interest awarded from simple interest to compound interest amounts to a substantive modification that falls outside the limited scope of Section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and...
Party Estopped From Challenging Award On The Ground Of Mandate Expiry After Accepting Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 26) has held that a party who continues to participate in arbitration proceedings without objecting to the extension of the arbitrator's mandate cannot later challenge the award on the ground that the mandate had expired. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the dispute that arose out of arbitration proceedings between...










