The time taken and procedures involved in enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards in India have drawn substantial criticism over the years, paving the way for the amendments in 2015 and 2019 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This note briefly examines the effect of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Hindustan Construction Company on the question of whether the operation of a domestic arbitral award is automatically stayed upon the filing of a challenge to the award and traces the development of the automatic stay rule through the amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in 2015 and 2019 prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment.
By a judgment dated November 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of India has put an end to the long drawn out battle for the acquisition of steel giant – Essar Steel India Limited (“Essar Steel”) under India’s newly introduced insolvency legislation.
Listening to the speakers at a seminar on recent developments in arbitration law in India, it struck me that drafting arbitration agreements with an Indian counter party has become less about reflecting the intention of the parties and more about reflecting the state of the Indian judicial precedents and statutory amendments.
On October 10, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) issued a circular setting out an amended framework for the issuance of Depository Receipts (“DRs”) by Indian companies (the “DR Circular”).
Investors or other stakeholders routinely participate in the governance of an investee entity through nominees, often appointing a nominee as a director to safeguard its interests through the exercise of a veto or an affirmative vote (that is the right to approve or reject an act or resolution concerning the business and governance of the investee company).
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (Insider Trading Regulations) require listed companies to use a trading window for monitoring trades by designated persons and their immediate relatives. The compliance officer is responsible for closing the trading window under certain circumstances when designated persons are reasonably expected to be in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.
We are pleased to present the India chapter of the Chambers & Partners global practice guide on International Arbitration 2019 (Second Edition). The India chapter covers issues relating to, among others, enforcement of awards, court intervention in the arbitration process, jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals and recent amendments to the law governing arbitration in India.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) faces numerous challenges in investigating and determining insider trading violations. Lack of direct or conclusive evidence of violations is a key challenge in most cases. On 10 June 2019, SEBI issued a discussion paper on a proposed informant mechanism under which whistleblowers will be rewarded for reporting instances of insider trading.
On July 5, 2019, the Indian finance minister, in her debut budget speech, announced a few big-bang proposals. One such proposal was for capital market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), to consider increasing minimum public shareholding requirement in listed companies from the current threshold of 25% to 35%.
On August 13, 2019, pursuant to Gazette Notification F.No. CCI/CD/Amend/Comb. Regl./2019, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) notified certain amendments to the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in Regard to the Transaction of Business Relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011 (the “Combination Regulations”). The amended Combination Regulations came into effect on 15 August 2019.