Navigating the Group of Companies Doctrine in the Indian Arbitration Framework

The group of companies (“GoC”) doctrine allows group entities who did not sign an arbitration agreement to be reached through the GoC doctrine and consequently be amenable to the arbitral process and award. In the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Cox and Kings v. SAP India (P) Ltd, the GoC doctrine has been affirmatively declared as part of Indian arbitration jurisprudence.
In its practical application, the doctrine could present conflicts with the separate legal personality afforded to companies under Indian law. As such, the GoC doctrine has potentially far-reaching consequences for entities within a group of companies, and its applicability should be examined while structuring contractual arrangements involving group entities, to avoid unexpected outcomes later in the arrangement.


Approval of Resolution Plan

Bombay High Court: Enforcement Directorate Should Necessarily Release Attachment over Assets of a Corporate Debtor after Approval of Resolution Plan

In the matter of Shiv Charan and Others v. Adjudicating Authority and Others, a division bench of the esteemed Bombay High Court has pronounced upon the legal status pertaining to attachments made by the Enforcement Directorate over assets belonging to a corporate debtor which has obtained approval for a resolution plan under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.


Identification of Promoters

Regulatory Spotlight on Identification of Promoters

Identification of “promoters” ahead of an initial public offering in India is a critical step given the resultant disclosure requirements, obligations and other implications. In the recent past, the Indian securities regulators have increased their scrutiny over the persons and entities being identified as promoters in offer documents.
This note provides an overview of certain recent developments in connection with the identification of promoters.


Short Selling in India

Short Selling in India

Short selling in India has been in the spotlight as highlighted by the events triggered by the publication of a report by Hindenburg Research in 2023 (the “Hindenburg Report”). The Indian Supreme Court considered short selling pursuant to petitions filed following the publication of the Hindenburg Report. This was followed by SEBI reissuing its framework for short selling.


India-EFTA Agreement

Investments under the India-EFTA Agreement: Re-writing the Rules of the Game?

On March 10, 2024, India entered into a trade and economic partnership agreement (the “TEPA”) with the European Free Trade Association (“EFTA”). The Investment Chapter of the TEPA requires the EFTA States to aim towards (i) increasing foreign direct investment (“FDI”), and (ii) facilitating new jobs in India by specified numbers and timeframes, in exchange for India enhancing market access and simplifying customs procedures. This unique formulation could provide a new template for negotiating international investment agreements in the future – especially between developed and developing countries – given that it deviates from traditional treaty design by providing for non-reciprocal rights and differentiated responsibilities. This anomaly, in turn, could have far-reaching consequences for foreign investors and global FDI flows. However, the TEPA’s novel provisions also raise certain legal and practical concerns. In this note, we analyze such provisions of the Investment Chapter.