Cheque Bounce Complaint Based On Second Notice After Re-Presentation Of Cheque Maintainable:

Applying the mandate of MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan and Another 2013 (1) SCC 177, The Supreme Court in (Sicagen India Ltd vs. Mahindra Vadineni) has held that a cheque bounce complaint filed based on the second statutory notice issued after re-presentation of cheques, is maintainable.

Delhi HC sets aside arbitration award directing DMRC to pay over Rs 2700 crore to Reliance-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL):

The Delhi High Court has partly set aside an arbitration award directing Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to pay over ₹2,700 crore as termination payment to a consortium headed by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd for breach of an agreement between them. Reliance Infrastructure subsidiary, the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), had pulled out from running the Airport Express Line for providing high-speed metro connectivity between New Delhi railway station and IGI Terminal 3 with further line till Sector 21 in Dwarka with effect from July 2012 in view of cracks and defects in the girders, bearings, etc. with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

Delhi High Court sets time limits for oral argumentsduring Case Management hearing in commercial suit:

Executing Court Has No Jurisdiction To Decide Whether The Court Which Decreed The Suit Had Territorial Jurisdiction:

Price Escalation And Change In Foreign Law Cannot Be Considered Force Majeure:

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.

Delhi HC directs Kamla Nagar vendors to pay 20 Lakhs for selling Louboutin Knock-offs

On 31^st July, 2018, Delhi HC held that vendors cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion or covert priorities by infringing Louboutin’s trademark. Thus, decreed for a sum of rs 20 lakhs to Louboutin along with 10% of interest on damages.

Delhi HC orders status quo in trademark Dispute over Radio Nasha

On 27 July, 2018, Delhi HC has directed HT Media to stop using the name ‘Radio Nasha’ and ordered the parties to maintain status quo till next date of hearing.

SC: Not mandatory to serve Notice to Opposite Party to set aside Award

SC has clarified that it is not mandatory to serve prior notice to opposite party before filing an application to set aside an Arbitral Award u/s 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

New Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2018 mandates Pre-Institution Mediation in commercial Disputes in India

Section 12A of Chapter IIIA of this Ordinance makes it mandatory for the cases which contemplates urgent interim relief, no suit qua a commercial dispute shall be instituted in the court unless Plaintiff first exhausts this remedy of PIM before Legal services Institutions constituted under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

SC Remands Jaypee Infratech matter to NCLT

Supreme Court on August 9, 2018 remanded the matter back to NCLT and also directed the homebuyers to be included in Committee of Creditors (CoC).

SC held that challenge to arbitral award is a ‘dispute’ under Insolvency Code

SC consisting of bench of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra on August 14, 2018 upheld the principle laid down in Kirusa software Pvt Ltd. Vs Mobilox Inovations and directed that an Insolvency process cannot be put into operation when the corporate debtor has challenged an arbitral award passed against it.

Oral Evidence in Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award shouldn’t be allowed unless Necessary

Recently, SC held in the case of M/s Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. Vs Girdhar Sondhi held that an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator.

However, in case there are matters that are not contained in such record and are relevant to the determination of issues arising u/s 34 (2) (a), then they may be brought to notice of Court by way of Affidavits filed by both parties.

Corporates (Private sector) are brought within the ambit of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018

The recent amendment that received assent of the President brought the private sector entities within the net of Indian Anti-Corruption Law. The instant amendment necessitated domestic laws to be brought in line with international practices.

Section 9 of Act for offences relating to bribing a public servant by commercial organisation grants that ‘if any person associated with such commercial organizations gives or promises to give any undue advantage to a public servant.‘ Commercial organisations include bodies, partnerships or any other association of persons incorporated within and outside India which carry on at least a part of their business in India.

Intent of Parties must guide interpretation Arbitration Clause: SC

SC recently held in M/S Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail Manufacture Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Jade Elevator Components that the intention of parties to settle disputes by arbitration must be prescribed when the relevant contract clause does not provide for arbitration as only option. This principle was endorsed by SC while disposing of a petition brought by a Chinese company against an Indian one.

Stamp duty is not required for Enforcement of Foreign Awards

Recently, SC in M/S Shriram EPC Limited vs Rioglass Solar SA resolved the issue regarding payment of Stamp Duty for enforcement of Foreign Awards in India and finally held that that since a foreign award, is not contained within the expression “award” in Item 12 of Schedule I, it is not taxable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Denial of Passport encroaches on Fundamental Rights: Delhi HC

Recently, Delhi HC comprising of Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Rakhru in Jasvinder Singh Chauhan vs Union of India held that denial or non-renewal of passport infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It noted that a passport can be refused on the grounds mentioned under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

He further stated that, “the fundamental rights of a citizen cannot be held hostage to an inordinately long inquiry being conducted by the respondent or its agencies.”

Power of Director General to investigate Competition Act: DHC

It was recently held by Delhi HC in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. & Anr vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors. That Director general has the power to proceed with his inquiry against parties who are not specifically named in the general complaint made to the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

Absence of a Specific direction against a party in an order passed in terms of Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, would also not deter the DG to proceed against it. It was further clarified by Hon’ble Court that power of DG is not limited by a remand or restricted to the matters that fall within the Complaint.

No CBI Probe: SC accepts CEC Report on Illegal Iron Ore Mining in Chhattisgarh

SC in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs UOI, accepted a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report on Illegal Iron Ore mining in Kanker, Chhatisgarh.

The three- judge bench held that: “We accept the Report of the CEC. From a reading of this Report of the CEC, it is apparent that Mr. Anil Lunia (the licensee) had flagrantly violated the law and had carried out mining in the forest areas. It is clear from the records that the confiscated iron ore has been mined from the adjoining forest land. The authorities concerned are free to auction the aforesaid confiscated iron ore in accordance with law.”

Delhi HC takes suo-motu cognizance of Loopholes in Aadhar Verification System

Recently, DHC took cognizance of existing problems in Aadhar Verification System at the time of linkage with existing mobile connections and its subsequent misuse in suo motu petition i.e. Manish Bansal vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi. The genesis of  petition lies in an FIR registered by the Delhi Police against the owner of a mobile shop for fraudulently issuing fresh sim cards in the name of individuals who had come to the shop for Aadhaar verification and linkage to their mobile numbers. This new Sim was then used for the purpose of committing fraud on individuals with regard to their LIC policies.

 

 

 

 

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

 

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

 

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

 

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

 

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.

 Hyderabad High Court Suspended an Order of the NCLT

On July 16, 2018, in Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. vs Todi Minerals Pvt. Ltd., NCLT (Hyderabad Bench) assented for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as provided by IBC against Corporate Debtor. The only objection raised on this was on the NCLT’s Jurisdiction to entertain the case as an appeal already lay with NCLAT.

The issue here revolves around the clear specification of the parameters under which HC can interfere in Orders of NCLAT under Article 227. Wherefore, an interim suspension of order of NCLT being deposited with Registry was passed suspending the same.

Talcum Powder Case: J&J ordered to pay $ 4.69 Billion

US Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay out $ 4.69 Billion in damages in a lawsuit representing 22 women and their families who alleged a talc sold by the company contained asbestos and caused them to suffer Ovarian Cancer.

 

It was said by the firm that “Johnson & Johnson is deeply disappointed in the verdict, which was the product of a fundamentally unfair process.”

 

Dishonour Of Cheque-Presumption U/S 139 Of NI Act Can’t Be Rebutted By Mere Denial: SC Reiterates.

Recently, in Kishan Rao vs Shankargouda, SC reiterated that mere denial of a debt or liability cannot shift the burden of proof from the accused in a case of dishonour of the cheque.

Apex Court also held that the accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption, but mere denial regarding the existence of debt shall not serve any purpose.

SC: Superior Not Guilty if Staffer Ends Life due to Heavy Workload

SC recently ruled that Superiors cannot be held responsible for abetment if an employee who is depressed because of workload at Office, commits Suicide as it cannot be assumed that the Employee assigning the work be of criminal bent of mind.

Prior to this Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that, an officer culpable even if there was no direct abetment on the grounds that the conditions could lead to unbearable mental tension for the employee.

Delhi HC says no Nasha for Fever FM over Trademark Dispute with Radio Mirchi

 

ENIL filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, contesting HT Media’s adoption of the name “Nasha” as being identical/deceptively similar to ENIL’s trademark.

In ENIL vs HT Media, Justice RS Endlaw on July 13^th, 2018 allowed a prayer for an interim injunction against HT Media, brought by the Entertainment Network [India] Limited (ENIL), which owns Radio Mirchi.

CCI imposes Maximum Penalty on SALPG for Denial of Market Access at Vizag Port

In this case, EIPL filed an information with CCI u/s 19 (1) (a) of Competition Act, 2002 alleging that SALPG has been insisting on mandatory use of caver while allowing it to use blender.

After an investigation by Director General of CCI it was found that SALPG has been indulged in anti competitive conduct. Wherefore, SALPG was imposed a penalty of INR 19.07 Crore for denying market access to East India Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. (EIPL) and found South Asia LPG Company Ltd (SALPG) guilty of abuse of its dominant position by limiting its terminalling services for import of LPG Vishakhapatnam Port.

No Frustration of Contract if Parties agree that Force Majeure Condition would not Operate, Delhi HC

Recently, the Delhi High Court held that there can be no frustration of Contract if the parties to a contract agree to fulfil their obligations despite an intervening circumstance.

The Court held that Section 56 of the Contract Act would not apply in this case as according to Clause 25 the parties had agreed that the force majeure condition would not operate to discharge them of their contractual obligation as far as supply of material and payment thereof is concerned.

Clause Excluding Interest on Security Deposit Not a Bar on Arbitrator to Award Pendente Lite Interest

In M/S Ravechee and Co. vs. Union of India, SC held that a clause in agreement excluding interest on security deposit does not bar the arbitrator to award Pendente Lite interest.

The legal issue in the case was whether the Grant of Pre-award Interest by Arbitrator is legal or not? In which the Court held that Clause 16(3) cannot be treated as a bar on award of interest pendente lite, as it was only dealing with the arrest of interest on the security deposit. It was further held that the bar to award interest on the amounts payable under Contract would not be sufficient to deny the payment of interest pendent lite.

Eye Witnesses’ Evidence Can’t Be Doubted On The Ground That They Made No Attempts To Save The Deceased.

In Motiram Padu Joshi v. State Of Maharashtra, SC while affirming conviction in a murder case, held that evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted.

The bench observed: “Their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the deceased. On witnessing a crime, each person reacts in his own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has not acted in a particular manner. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have not acted in a particular manner.”

Thus, the Bench upheld the HC Judgment and gave confirmation on sentence of life imprisonment imposed.

Failure To Determine Blood Group Of Accused From Sample Collected From The Scene Not Enough To Acquit Him: SC .

Recently, in Prabhu Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan, SC opined that a mere non- determination of blood group from the sample obtained from the scene of crime would not be enough to acquit an accused. The Bench relied upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram where it was held that non- determination of origin of the blood does not necessarily prove fatal to the case of prosecution.

It was further noted by Court that reports of Forensic Science Laboratory also supported the case of prosecution which concludes that Dayal participated in the unlawful assembly which has gathered to murder the victim.

HC allows NRI to depose in Court using Video Chat 

In Sucha Singh vs Ajmer Singh, it was for the first time allowed by Punjab and Haryana HC to an US based NRI (Petitioner in a Property Dispute) to depose in Court using a video chat through applications.

Court opined that it was not necessary for Petitioner to approach the Consulate and further directed him to intimate the Trial Court about his availability for a Video Chat through one of the Apps like Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype and other similar applications.

 

Inter Ikea Systems BV Versus Akea Furniture Solutions

 

In this case, an Injunction was ordered in favour of Plaintiff restraining defendant from manufacturing, selling etc. The mark “AKEA” or any other identical marks with Plaintiff’s mark IKEA. In which Defendant has no objection if present suit decreed in accordance with prayers of Plaint.

 

 

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

 

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

 

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

 

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

 

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 Promulgated

On June 6, 2018, President assented for promulgation of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018. Highlights of this Ordinance are:

• Homebuyers are recognised as Financial Creditors.
• Permission for withdrawal of Insolvency applications to be granted if it’s approved by 90% vote share of Committee of Creditors.
• MSMEs are allowed to bid for their companies till they are not wilful defaulters.
• The voting threshold of CoC is reduced from 75% to 66%.
• RP will manage company till resolution plan is approved by adjudicating authority.

CAs, lawyers and valuers now in the line of FIR for Bank Frauds

Recently, shaken by high-profile banking frauds, it has been directed by PNB to its office that FIRs will be filed not just against the borrowers and guarantors but also against lawyers, Chartered Accountants and valuers who act as third parties as they also have a hand in executing frauds.

Banks are taking zero stands against wilful defaulters and third parties carrying out frauds. Banks generally blacklist legal and tax professionals once they realise that they were involved in the frauds.

NCLT allows admission of (rejected) claims at liquidation stage

In M/s Globe Express Services (Overseas Group) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s M.M. Cargo Container Line Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., it is ordered by NCLT, Delhi on May 21, 2018 that claims made by creditors that were not admitted by Resolution Professional during moratorium, can be admitted at liquidation stage by liquidator.

Vijay Mallya First Person to Be Booked Under New Anti-Financial Fraud Law

The Union cabinet recently approved the Finance Ministry’s offer of promulgating Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018. This will empower the authorities to attach and confiscate properties and assets of economic offenders who flee from country.

Under Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, the Enforcement Directorate filed a prosecution complaint or charge sheet against Vijay Mallya. According to the Enforcement Directorate, all attached assets of Vijay Mallya can be auctioned under this law and it can attach his properties in India and abroad.

Ordinance to Widen Pecuniary Jurisdiction Of ‘Commercial Courts’ Notified

On May 3^rd, 2018, Government by way of an Ordinance notified the amendments in Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The key amendments are:

• New name: The confusing old name is now done away and renamed as “Commercial Courts Act, 2015” to clarify that there are separate Courts for resolution of Commercial Disputes.
• Specified Value: IT is now reduced to INR 3 Lakhs from INR 1 Crore.
• Insertion of Section 3A: It introduces Commercial Appellate Courts.
• Insertion of Section 12A: It mandates Pre-Institution Mediation and settlement where a suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief.

 

Commencement of Various Provisions of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017

The Government of India enacted Companies Act, 2017 which received assent on January 1, 2018 and was notified in Official gazette on May 7, 2018. The latest amendments are:

• Introduction of Section 3A: Members severally liable for payment of whole debts of company when are below 7 in public company and below 2 in private company.
• Sub-section (1) inserted in Section 26: Prospectus shall state such information and reports on financial information as may be specified by SEBI.
• Section 54: Sweat Equity shares can be issued at any time after registration of company.
• Section 92: Company can file Annual Return with ROC at any time on payment of prescribed additional fee.

No provision of Summer Break for NCLT, NCLAT: Government

On June 4, 2018, Ministry of Corporate Affairs sent separate letters to NCAL and NCLTs seeking to cancel their vacations to resolve pending corporate insolvency cases as there’s no provision for vacation under Rules framed in 2016.  NCLAT and NCLTs responded that this matter will be further examined in July’s first week. Thus, these Courts are taking a break against the desire of Government.

Clarification of Condonation of Delay Scheme, 2018

 

Recently, in Shikha Pahuja vs, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr., Delhi HC ordered that wide publicity must be given to Condonation of Delay Scheme as a lot of Companies were defaulting in filing Annual Returns or financial statement for continuous period of 3 years. It is stated that on adoption of this scheme, the concerned Registrar will withdraw all pending prosecution against them and disqualified director will be temporarily be enables to file overdue documents.

Of late on May 17, 2018, it has been declared via general circular that Director’s DIN of defaulting companies who have been removed from register of companies shall be re-activated only by NCLT order of revival when company has filed all overdue documents.

IBC’s Section 29A: Experts say Mumbai, NCLT’s order threatens Code’s intent

A ruling by the Mumbai NCLT, in M/s Wig Associates, Pvt. Ltd.’s case, has opened a debate as the bench as held inter alia that provisions of a November 2017 ordinance on the ineligibility of defaulting promoters to bid for their stressed firms can’t be applicable to cases where insolvency proceedings had started before its promulgation as this ruling is per contra the very objective of the explicit bar provided U/S 29A.

 

Delhi HC settles the Scope of Section 8 of Partition Act, 1893

 

On May 11, 2018, Full Bench of Delhi HC settled two issues related to Partition Suit in Indu Singh & Ors. Vs. Prem Chaudhary & Ors. This judgment clarified the most awaited question of whether an order of sale of property passed in partition suit will be a final or preliminary decree and whether it will be an “Instrument of Partition” under Indian Stamp Act. It held that:

 

1. An order of Sale passed U/S 8 of Partition Act is a final decree in a partition suit and all proceedings regarding the sale will take place in execution proceedings of its final decree.
2. Such an order of sale is an “Instrument of Partition” U/S 2(15) of Stamp Act, 1899 and requires to be stamped accordingly with Article 45 of the Schedule.

 

This judgement also overruled this Court’s judgment in K.N. Khanna Vs. B.K. Khanna and Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Prem Gupta & Ors. | TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM ISTEW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.Recommended By Colombia

 

 

READ ALSO: SC fillip to women’s property rights

 

Justice Waziri underlined that the “impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming a Karta was that she didn’t possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership”, but section 6, “a socially beneficial legislation”, removed that bar.

 

Top Comment

Hindu culture is because of Woman.Nitin Desai

Justice Waziri said Section 6 gave “equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females, its objective is to recognise the rights of female Hindus and to enhance their rights to equality apropos succession. Therefore, courts would be extremely vigilant in any endeavor to curtail or fetter statutory guarantee of enhancement of their rights. Now that this disqualification has been removed by the 2005 amendment, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.”

 

The son maintained that Hindu law recognises the right of eldest male member to be the Karta. He claimed that even the 2005 amendment recognised the rights of a female to be equal to those of a male only with respect to succession to ancestral properties, not management of estate.

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

Woman can be ‘karta’of a family: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg

The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

| TNN | Feb 1, 2016, 02.02 AM IST

EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint family.EW DELHI: The eldest female member of a family can be its “Karta”, the Delhi high court has ruled in a landmark verdict. A unique position carved out by Hindu customs and ancient texts, “Karta” denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men.

“If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a Karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female co-parcenor of an HUF, from being its Karta,” Justice Najmi Waziri said in a judgment made public earlier this week.

The Karta occupies a position superior to that of other members and has full authority to manage property, rituals or other crucial affairs of the family. These include taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

READ ALSO: Women can claim stridhan even after separation from husband, Supreme Court says

The ruling came on a suit filed by the eldest daughter of a business family in north Delhi staking claim to be its Karta on the passing of her father and three uncles. She was challenging her cousin brother.

The family consisted of four brothers, with the surviving eldest shouldering the responsibility of Karta. Trouble began when the brothers passed away. The eldest son of a younger brother declared himself to be the next Karta, but was challenged by the daughter of the eldest brother who is also the seniormost member of the family.

The term co-parcenor refers to rights derived in Hindu law to be the joint legal heir of assets in a family. Traditional Hindu view, based on treatises such as Dharmshastra and Mitakshara school of law, recognises only male inheritors to ancestral property. Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 introduced section 6 that levelled the playing field for women.

The court termed it “rather odd” that following the amendments, “while females would have equal rights of inheritance in an HUF property, this right could nonetheless be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same”. Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it pointed out, did not place any restriction on women becoming the Karta.

The HC ruling is important because it takes the 2005 reform in the Act to its logical conclusion. While the amendment restricted itself to providing women equal inheritance rights, the verdict now allows them to manage property and rituals of a joint fami

 

Disclaimer

This newsletter is compiled and prepared from the information available in public domain. Nothing in this newsletter should be deemed as legal advice and DSA shall have no liability, whatsoever, with respect to the content published herein.

The Delhi High Court, in a 17 November 2018 interim order (subject to the final outcome of the case) in Horlicks and Anr v Heinz India, held that advertisements are protected under article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution as facets of commercial speech and can only be restricted in accordance with the provisions of article 19(2). The protection given to an advertisement is a necessary concomitant of the right of the public to receive the information. It also clarified that right to privacy cannot be asserted against information that is already in the public domain and that in a democratic country. The free flow of commercial information is indispensable and the public has a right to receive commercial speech.
In view of this order companies need to realign their advertising strategies and take advantage of the order while advertising their products and gaining distinct advantages, as against the competitions.
The court held that “a comparison which is unfavourable to a competitor does not necessarily mean that it is dishonest or unduly detrimental”. It held that the main objective of sections 29(8) and 30(1) of the Trademarks Act and the code made by the Advertising Standards Council of India was “to stimulate competition between suppliers of goods and services to the consumer’s advantage, by allowing competitors to highlight objectively the merits of various comparative products, at the same time, prohibiting practices which may distort competition, be detrimental to competitors and have an adverse effect on consumer choice”. Thus, the intent of the legislature was to allow comparative advertising while at the same time ensuring that consumers are always protected from possibly misleading advertisements.
It held that failure to point out the advantages of one’s product was not necessarily dishonest. The advertiser was not obliged to make a comparison of all the parameters of the products in his advertisement with that of his competitor, so long as it was true and that “it is open to an advertiser to objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of the goods and services in question which may include price”.

The court, however, acknowledged that there was a certain degree of disparagement that was implicit in comparative advertising but it was legal and permissible and the competitor was well within its rights as long as it was honest and not misleading. The court also laid down the test for determining “misleading advertisement” and stated:

1. An advertisement said to be misleading must deceive the target customers, or should at least have the potential to deceive; and

2. Due to its deceptive nature, the advertisement should be likely to affect the economic behaviour of the target customers, in such a way as to cause harm to the competitors of the advertiser.

The court held that the same has to be harmonized with competitive interests and that in the present case, the features being compared were not misleading as the said issues have to be seen not from a hyper-sensitive viewpoint, but from the eyes of an average consumer who is used to a certain rhetoric.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the information used in the impugned advertisement was protected by the Supreme Court’s verdict on right to privacy and held that the judgement was inapplicable to the facts of the present case observing that a right to privacy cannot be asserted against information that is already in the public domain. The court also specified that the Supreme Court, in the said judgment, did not ban or prohibit comparative advertisements.

The court, relying on various judgments, observed that advertisements are not to be read as if they are some testamentary provision in a will or a clause in some agreement with every word being carefully considered and the words as a whole being compared. In determining the meaning of an advertisement, the court has to take into account the fact that public expects a certain amount of hyperbole in advertising and the test to be applied is whether a reasonable man would take the claim being made as one made seriously.

The judgment has widened the scope of comparative advertising in India and has also tried to bring clarity as to which advertisements will be misleading according to sections 29(8) and 30(1) of the Trademarks Act. The judgment is a much-needed elucidation that will help companies in disseminating greater information about their products or services and by keeping comparative advertisements out of the purview of right to privacy. It has ensured that the customers get as much information as possible while purchasing a specific product.

The promulgation of Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, to promote ease of doing business and corporate compliance received presidential consent on 2 November.
The main features of the ordinance are re-categorization and starting a technology driven in-house adjudication mechanism for certain compoundable offences that are subject to penalties, as well as reducing the burden of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by 60% and increasing the role of regional directors in tackling issues of “shell” companies.
According to the ordinance new entities will face stiffer penalties in case of defaults and old corporates have to realign their strategies in line with the amendments. The key highlights of ordinance are:
Amendment in section 2 (41): The amendment empowers central government (instead of NCLT) to approve any period of financial year for a company or a subsidiary or an associate of a company incorporated abroad, which is required for consolidation of its accounts outside India.

Insertion of section 10A: It mandates that every company after the commencement of the new ordinance shall not start any business or exercise borrowing powers unless a director files a declaration within 180 days that every subscriber to the memorandum has paid the value of the shares, and the verification of the registered office as required in section 12 (2) has been filed.

A penalty of up to ₹50,000 (US$715) on the company and ₹1,000 per day on every officer responsible for the default has been set. In case of non-compliance within 180 days, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) has been empowered to remove the name of the company from the register of companies.

Insertion of section 12 (9): The ROC is entitled to initiate action for the removal of the company from the register of companies if after physical verification of the registered office they believe there is a default in compliance of section 12 (1).

Amendment in section 14: The second proviso has been substituted and power of approving conversion of public company in to a private company has been given to the central government instead of NCLT.

Penalty, not fine in section 53 (3): The mandatory punishment of officer in default has been discarded. A penalty of up to the amount raised via issue of shares at discount or ₹500,000, whichever may be less, has been provided for, and the company is mandated to refund the money with a 12% interest rate.

Amendment in section 64(1): In case of contravention, now the company and the officer in default have been made liable to punishment with a fine of up to ₹500,000.

Faster registration of charges under section 77: The extension of period to register the creation of charge after the amendment has been reduced to 60 days upon payment of fees, which may further be extended by 60 days upon payment of ad valorem fees.

Amendment in section 86: A proviso inserted making furnishing of false information under chapter VI liable for action for fraud under section 447.

Stiffer penalties for repeated defaults: The penalties and fine on the company, promoter, director, officer in default, key managerial personnel (KMP), individual has been increased in various sections such as: 92(5), 102(5), 105(3), 117(2), 121(3), 137(3), 140(3), 157(2), 165(6), 191 (5), 197(15). 203(5), 238(3), and 447; and in case of continuing default, a fine per day has been prescribed.

Increased penalty, 102(4): The minimum penalty in case of the default by every promoter, director, manager or other KMP has been enhanced to the higher of ₹50,000 or up to five times the benefit.

Substitution of section 159: Punishment with imprisonment for up to six months has been done away with in case of contravention of section 152, 155 and 156 by any individual or a director of the company.

Insertion of section 164(i): Sub-clause has been inserted making non-compliance of section 165(1), a ground for disqualification of appointment as a director.

Enhancing pecuniary jurisdiction: The regional director is empowered to compound offences having a fine up to ₹2.5 million and sub-section (6) inserted makes all offences under the act punishable with imprisonment or imprisonment with fine.

Insertion of section 454A: Provides for double the penalty in case of repeat of the same default within three years.

The ordinance brings more accountability regarding filings related to creation, modification and satisfaction of charges to promote corporate governance, non-maintenance of registered office and holding of directorships beyond permissible limits.

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 (act), which received presidential consent on 1 August 2018, attempts to facilitate rapid economic and infrastructural growth. It removes the discretionary powers of the courts to stay applications for specific performance of contracts. By making enforcement a mandatory rule the act allows companies to enter into contracts with a legislative and judicial assurance that they will be specifically performed. This nullifies previous advantages enjoyed by defaulting parties of evading their obligations, and gives the enforcing party maximum advantage.
The act amends the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SPA), as described above and, in a major development, inserts a new schedule of infrastructure projects. This provides that courts may not grant injunctions to prevent the application for, and grant of orders for specific performance in disputes over contracts for such projects.
The highlights of the act are:

Compulsory specific performance. The act amends sections 10 and 11 of SPA, so that, save for specific exceptions, it is mandatory for courts to grant orders for specific performance of contracts. Courts no longer have discretionary power to refuse to issue such orders.

Exceptions. Amended section 14 of SPA now allows only four exceptions to the mandatory issuance of a specific performance order. These are where a) a party has already obtained an order for substituted performance of a contract (see below); (b) the performance of a contract involves continuous obligations which the court cannot supervise; (c) there is a contract that is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot order specific performance of its material terms, and (d) where there is a contract that is, by its nature, determinable.

Experts. Inserted section 14A, of the SPA gives a court the power to engage experts where it decides it needs assistance.

Limited liability partnerships (LLP). Sections 15(fa) and 19(ca) are additions to SPA and allow a new LLP formed by the amalgamation of two existing LLP, to apply for, and be subject to orders for specific performance in contract disputes.

Section 16(a) and (c). These substituted sections disallow specific performance of a contract where a party has already obtained an order under section 20 for substituted performance of a contract.

Ready and willing. The act amends the SPA to abolish the mandatory requirement to aver that the party is ready and willing to perform the contract; parties are now only required to prove this evidentially.

Substituted performance of contracts. Amended section 20 of SPA gives relief to a party alleging breach of contract by allowing it either to sue for specific performance of contract or to opt for substituted performance of the contract by a third party, or through its own agency, recovering the expenses and other costs actually incurred, spent or suffered by him, from the party committing such breach. An application for the latter right must follow stipulated procedures and is subject to certain limitations. These are set out in section 20. A party may claim compensation whether it applies for specific or substituted performance.

Injunctions. Added section 20A of SPA states that a court should not grant an Injunction where an Infrastructure project contract is involved, and where such grant would impede or delay its progress or completion. To ensure that the legislative intent is carried out, a new section 41(ha) has been inserted in the SPA, enacting that an injunction shall not be granted in cases subject to section 20A. Section 14 of the act also inserts the new schedule of infrastructure projects into the SPA. Under section 20A of the SPA the government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the schedule relating to any category of projects.

Special courts. Inserted section 20B of the SPA establishes special courts to try cases involving infrastructure project contracts; under section 20C, cases must be concluded within twelve months from the date of summons with a possible extension of six months.

A key factor is whether the amendments to the SPA will operate retrospectively. For this to be the case the legislature must enact a saving or transition clause.

The act clearly brings positive changes to ease doing business and aims to bring certainty to conditions relief for specific performance of contracts. The parties will not be allowed to evade their commitments and will have to carry out their contractual obligations. A defaulting party may face the consequences including substituted performance.

Corporates in course of business enter into contracts, but often, when matters do not go as planned, they have to contend with a raft of new challenges resulting into a dispute. Aside traditional litigation, arbitration has been increasingly adopted as an effective means of resolving international & commercial disputes which if used in an appropriate manner lay out a fair playing field and if possible an advantage specially in respect of Jurisdiction, Governing & Procedural Laws, Time frame, Cost effectiveness etc. to help the business achieve its objectives. The Civil Courts for various reasons have not been able to fulfill these objectives, leaving the Corporates to evolve a strategy to look towards Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms.

The initial attempt made under the Arbitration Act, 1940 allowed the Courts to interfere at every stage of the arbitration proceeding; till the passing of the award although, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 replaced it, and aimed at providing faster and efficient resolution of disputes, but could not achieve the purpose.

In order to make India a Hub for International Arbitration and to facilitate quick enforcement of contracts, easy recovery of monetary claims, reduce the pendency of cases in Courts in October 2015 the 1996 Act was amended which elevated the hopes of the Legal Fraternity to put in place a robust legal strategy which may provide a faster and effective dispute resolution Mechanism .
Some of the major changes brought by the amendment towards the aforesaid are :
• (Section 9). Commencement of arbitral proceedings within 90 days or time given by the Court and limiting the scope of Court’s interference thereafter.
• Section 11. Fixing 60 days for disposal of application for appointment if arbitrator& fixing the Arbitrators Fee
• Section 12. Declaration by the arbitration about independence and impartiality. Insertion of 5th &7th Schedule listing grounds raising doubt to independence and impartiality and ineligibility
• Section 14. Substitution of arbitrator by another one
• Section 17.Making orders passed by the Tribunal enforceable as those of Courts
• . Section 23. Providing for filling counter claim or plead a set-off falling within the scope of arbitration agreement .
• Section 24. Requiring tribunal to hold hearing on day to day basis & impose exemplary cost
• Section 29A &29B. Mandating the passing of the award in 12 months with a maximum extension of 6 months and terminating the mandate beyond that extendable only by Courts & providing for substituting one or all the arbitrator(s) and for reduction of arbitrator’s fee. Fast track procedure for deciding disputes without any oral hearings and passing of award in 6 Months
• Section 28 The tribunal to take into account the terms of contract and trade usages applicable to the transaction
• Section 31 Awarding future interest @ 2% higher than the current rate of interest if not decided by Arbitrator.
• Section 34 Limiting the scope of public policy to challenge the Award. Provision for service of advance notice and disposal within 1 year thereof.
• Section 36. Stay of awards only if granted by the Court
The Arbitration And Conciliation (Amendment) BILL 2018 aims to further improvise the ADR Mechanism by inter-alia providing for.
a. directly approaching the arbitrators from designated arbitral institutions by the Supreme Court or the High Court.
b. creation of ACI (Arbitration Council of India).
c. Providing clarification on the applicability of Amendment Act 2015 (Section 87) .

The provisions of the Act have been amended to ensure that there exists an economically viable , efficient, speedy, dispute resolution mechanism & therefore now every corporate needs to evolve a strategy to how to use the Mechanism to their best advantage depending upon which side of the dispute they may stand which puts a major thrust and importance in drafting and incorporating an appropriate customized arbitration clause in the agreement(s),in line with overall Corporate Strategy.
For customizing an appropriate Corporate Arbitration Strategy Inter-alia the following may be focused:
1. Seat Of Arbitration, Enforcement & Procedural Law: The seat also usually determines the procedural law to be followed unless agreed otherwise. However, preferably the seat should be in a country which is signatory to New York Convention.
2. Governing or Substantial Law: The Governing or the substantial law should be agreed or it might result in a dispute itself if left unspecified and can be of great advantage or disadvantage.
3. Number of Arbitrators: Depending upon the valuation of the matter multi level Clauses for referring disputes upto a certain value to sole arbitrator and beyond that to a larger number of arbitrators can be incorporated.
4. Language of arbitration: this poses a major concern in countries not following English as a formal language ,therefore dual/multi languages can also be agreed upon.
5. Institutional or Ad Hoc Arbitration: Pro’s and Con’s of both be carefully evaluated depending on the anticipated dispute as what may appear to be effective (Cost & Time) may actually be not so.
6. Scope of Arbitration Agreement: Depending upon the potential dispute the scope should be enlarged or minimized.
7. Mandatory Rules & Waiver of Non Mandatory Rules: Since Mandatory Rules cannot be changed they should be specifically incorporated along with waiver of all the Non-Mandatory Rules.
8. Appellate Arbitration: The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the legality of Two Tier Arbitration Procedure or second instance Arbitration, this can be used as an effective mechanism
Majority of the Corporate due to these amendments are once again ready to explore and adopt the ADR mechanism having realised that by thinking strategically and tactically drafting a customized arbitration clause they can not only reduce the ultimate business risks but can also increases odds of success and reduce unnecessary costs and risks like the risk-allocation process .

Following an increase in personal data theft and other digital crimes, a draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, was submitted to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology by a committee of experts chaired by retired justice BN Srikrishna on 27 July.
The proposed data protection framework was prompted by the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) & Anr v Union of India & Ors (2017), in which the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, subject to certain reasonable restrictions, thus striking a balance between protecting the interests of individuals and the legitimate use of data by the state and the private sector. Corporate entities automating workflows and enhancing internal and external collaboration need to implement, evaluate and accordingly update certain processes in order to comply with the proposed data protection law.
Applicability: The draft bill applies to the processing of personal data by the state, Indian corporate entities and Indian citizens located within India, and by entities outside India if it is with respect to any business activity that involves offering goods or services to individuals located in India.
Types of data covered: Section 3 categorizes data into (a) anonymized data, (b) personal data, (c) sensitive personal data, (d) critical personal data, (e) financial data, (f) genetic data and (g) health data.
Rights of data subjects: Chapter VI sets out the rights of the natural person to whom the data relates (“data principal”) in relation to the data processor (“data fiduciary”). The “right to be forgotten”, in section 27, restricts the disclosure of personal data after the purpose is served, or consent withdrawn.
Data protection authority: Chapter X provides for the establishment of an independent authority to oversee enforcement of the personal data protection law.
Transparency and accountability: Chapter VII mandates that data fiduciaries adhere to security safeguards, notify the authority of data breach, assess data protection impact, keep records and conduct data audits, appoint a data protection officer and put in place a mechanism for grievance redressal.
Transfer of data outside India: Chapter VIII lays down restrictions and conditions for cross-border transfer of personal data. It empowers government to classify sensitive personal data as critical and mandate its processing. Corporate entities that have critical personal data must store it in India barring some exceptions.
Among the challenges presented by the bill are problematic exemptions in chapter IX, which nullify almost all of the necessary provisions and rights guaranteed in chapters II to VIII. Chapter IX provides that data principal rights are suspended when processing is necessary for the functioning of the state.
Section 40(1), in chapter VIII, requires corporate and other entities processing personal data to ensure storage on a server or in a data centre located in India. Small businesses and startups will find it hard to afford this and it will also stop them from going global. Also, the date of coming into force of section 40 has not been provided. Section 40(3) bizarrely provides that the central government can decide not to follow the rule in section 40(1) for reasons of “necessity or strategic interests” of the state.
Miscellaneous provisions in chapter XV of the bill give unrestricted power to the government in relation to security and Aadhaar. Section 98(1) allows government to issue “such directions as it may think necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order”, giving it arbitrary powers.
There is no separate provision for surveillance by law enforcement authorities. Sections 42 and 43 provide for processing of personal data in the interests of state security and “of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of any offence or any other contravention of law” but these sections do not specify any consequences for non-compliance. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, already contain such provisions so the bill does not represent a comprehensive surveillance reform.
The bill does not provide any measures for accountability and oversight over the intelligence agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau.
With today’s increased competition and strong emphasis on data protection, Indian companies need to be aware of the provisions of the proposed Protection of Personal Data Bill and accordingly frame a corporate data protection policy as the draft bill provides a healthy balance between privacy and innovation.
Deepak Sabharwal is the managing partner of Deepak Sabharwal & Associates.

Companies with business interests in India need to analyse and evaluate their approach to dealing with mercantile disputes in the wake of amendments by way of an ordinance dated 3 May in the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, now to be known as the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The ordinance continues the government’s efforts to adopt swift and efficient means of resolution for trade disputes in view of the increase in foreign investment and the consequent rise in commercial disputes, by establishing commercial courts below the level of district judge in all jurisdictions, except where the high courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, i.e. in the cities of Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and the state of Himachal Pradesh.
Highlights of the ordinance are:
New name: The new name removed confusion about the courts and clarified that there are separate courts with different procedures established solely for commercial disputes.
Specified value: The “specified value” of commercial disputes to be adjudicated under the act, as defined in section 2(1)(i), was reduced from `10 million (US$147,000) and above to `300,000 and above. This is expected to reduce the time taken to resolve such disputes (now 1,445 days) and improve India’s ranking in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index.
Commercial courts hierarchy and appeal mechanism: The ordinance (i) amends section 3 of the act and introduces commercial courts at the district judge level where the high court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction; (ii) inserts section 3A, introducing commercial appellate courts; (iii) splits commercial courts where the high court does not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction into (a) courts at the level of a district judge and (b) commercial courts below the level of a district judge.
Appointment of judges: Earlier, the state government could appoint commercial court judges only with the concurrence of chief justice of the high court while it now has now the power to appoint such judges without concurrence of the chief justice.
Pre-institution mediation: The ordinance inserts section 12A in the act, which provides that where a suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief, the plaintiff has to attempt to reach a settlement through mediation prior to instituting a suit.
A government-authorized authority must complete the process of mediation within three months from the date of application by the plaintiff. The pre-institution mediate period will not be computed for the purpose of limitation under Limitation Act, 1963.
If a settlement is reached, it must be put into writing and signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator. The settlement will have same status as an arbitral award under section 30(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Insertion of section 21A and omission of sections 9 and 12(1)(e): Section 21A enables the government to make rules and notifications regarding the procedure under section 12A(1). The ordinance omits sections 9 and 12(1)(e), on the transfer of a suit if a commercial dispute is of the specified value.
Section 13 amendment: The term “commercial division of a high court” has been replaced. Section 13 now states that any person aggrieved by the judgment of a commercial court below the level of a district judge may appeal to the commercial appellate court within 60 days.
Now that the ordinance is in force, some key factors must be considered: (1) the burden on the high courts will increase significantly as the reduction in specified value will have the unintended effect of leading to low-value claims being brought before high courts; (2) the separation of jurisdiction has been blurred as the reduction of specified value has led to overlapping of jurisdiction of commercial divisions and courts; (3) the procedure for appointing judges is a challenge to the independence of the judiciary, making this part of the ordinance particularly open to being challenged; and (4) pre-institution mediation will be effective only if efficient mediators devise a strategy to use the mechanism to its best advantage and its intention is met.
In order to save interest and litigation costs, companies will have to evolve a mature legal strategy of making and accepting reasonable claims at the pre-institution mediation stage. Courts may eventually saddle the losing party with heavy costs stating that despite the opportunity it failed to settle the case and prolonged it. The ordinance brings in changes to improve the commercial disputes resolution process and whether it serves this purpose will be seen over a period of time and will depend on how various stakeholders implement it.

Deepak Sabharwal is the managing partner of Deepak Sabharwal & Associates.