S&R Associates is an Indian law firm with offices in New Delhi and Mumbai providing legal services to Indian and international clients.
Our lawyers are admitted to practice in India and many have previously practiced law in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore. As a result, we offer our clients a unique combination of Indian law expertise coupled with international quality legal services.
We distinguish ourselves based on the quality of our services and legal advice and on the range of our experience. Our lawyers have advised on some of the most significant Indian transactions and matters in recent times. The quality of our legal advice and services has helped us become the law firm of choice for our clients and has also been recognised by various industry publications, surveys and rankings. Lawyers in each of our practice areas have routinely been recognised as leading lawyers in India by Chambers Global, Chambers Asia Pacific, IFLR1000, Legal500 and RSG India Report.
The vexed question of whether two Indian parties can validly choose a foreign seat of arbitration under Indian law and the applicability of interim relief, in the event of such a choice, remained a long-standing debate. It is relevant to note that there was never an express statutory bar on Indian parties’ choice to select a foreign seat of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Arbitration Act”). However, the complex interplay of the party-centric definition of “international commercial arbitration” with certain other provisions of the Arbitration Act, in the context of a fundamental principle of Indian law that no Indian party can exclude the application of Indian law to itself, led to conflicting decisions on this issue. The uncertainty forced Indian parties to actively avoid a foreign seat of arbitration to circumvent a potential challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the time of enforcement of the award. Recently, the Supreme Court of India revisited this question in PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited, 2021 SCCOnLine SC 331 and affirmed that two Indian parties can not only validly select a foreign seat of arbitration but can equally apply to Indian courts for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
On June 15, we had written about a proposed preferential issue by PNB Housing Finance, in respect of which a proxy advisor issued a report asking public shareholders to vote against the proposed investment. As an alternative to a preferential issue, the report suggested that the company should have considered a “rights issue”. In our previous article, we considered a “rights issue” and a “preferential issue” from the perspective of certainty in funding, disclosure obligations, approvals and timelines and pricing.
The debate has since focused on whether the proposed preferential issue required a report of a registered valuer and whether such a report was in fact procured. In this article, we consider the legal framework around which the debate turns, comprising the SEBI ICDR Regulations, the Companies Act and PNB Housing Finance’s articles of association.
The Karnataka High Court has, on 11 June 2021, dismissed the writ petitions filed by Amazon and Flipkart challenging the Competition Commission of India’s order issued under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, directing the Director General to investigate certain alleged anti-competitive practices. While the Karnataka High Court’s judgment appears to follow well-established legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India, a closer examination reveals that some of the key arguments raised by Amazon and Flipkart have only been given a cursory consideration by the Karnataka High Court. Amazon and Flipkart have preferred an appeal against this judgment before a division bench of the Karnataka High Court. This note analyzes the judgment passed by the single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court.
In a significant move more than a year ago, the Indian Government directed that all investments from countries that share land borders with India will require prior regulatory approval. This change covered both direct and indirect investments and came in the wake of scrutiny by the Indian securities regulator of Chinese ownership of portfolio investors and the introduction of stricter FDI regimes worldwide. It may be time for the Government to consider whether the rules introduced in 2020 are justified any more in their current form. If not, certain modifications could be considere
This note, first published on the National Law School Business Law Review blog, discusses recent amendments to the [Indian] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which inter-alia temporarily prevent creditors from initiating insolvency proceedings against corporate debtors. While the proposed changes are a step in the right direction, the Government should also consider the impact of the pandemic on pending proceedings as well as alternative mechanisms to restructure debt and resolve defaults in a cost-effective manner to preserve value.
The current situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented and several listed companies have seen a reduction in their value due to the sharp fall in stock prices compared to the beginning of 2020. The recent weeks have also seen delisting announcements by certain widely held companies including those on the NIFTY-50 and subsidiaries of global corporations.
Voluntary delisting is essentially a strategic move where a promoter (controlling shareholder) of a listed company and the listed company seek to delist the shares from the stock exchanges in India and is primarily governed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009, as amended (the “Delisting Regulations”).
This note discusses the legal framework and process for voluntary delisting under the Delisting Regulations and certain key issues involved in delisting.