Tort is a Wrongful act, Tort is derived from French word. Tort is a Civil Wrong & Damages and Injury. Tort arises any person rights were infringed or violated. Tort is a Civil suits awarded damages were against the specific person. However in criminal the award is punishment and the suit is Criminal Suit and the against the public. In Tort Law there is no Act or Section therefore the law not based on the Ordinance or Bill is purely based on the historical case laws. The person who commits tort known as Tortfeasor. Read more....
The role of Independent Directors plays an important role in achieving the aims and objectives of Good Corporate Governance. Independent Directors plays a vital role to improve the proper and impartial working of the corporate companies. Further, the independent directors had control over the internal process, which can help the shareholders and the public at large to know if any mismanagement or fraud is being done by the company. The guidelines, role etc. are broadly set out in a code described in Schedule IV of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, as per Companies Act, 2013 and LODR 2015, the appointment of Independent Director Company is made mandatory. Any company not adhering to the provisions of appointment of Independent Directors in the board will be a Non-Compliant Company and penalty and actions will be imposed as per the Companies Act and LODR 2015 against the said company.
There is no concept of geographical restriction in a virtual world, so as to foist territorial jurisdiction of NCLT to a place where the registered office of the company is located hence outright regressive. It is axiomatic to state, one needn’t be stationed at the registered office to receive e-mails thus the brick and mortar physical location of a registered office has by far lost it’s relevance in the virtual world, and in any case filing application in NCLT within the territorial jurisdiction of NCLT where the registered office of the company doesn’t accrue any known special advantage either to the corporate debtor or the petitioner.
Sweeping reforms are taking place in the labour laws. The second National Commission on Labour (2002), under the chairmanship of Ravindra Varma, was assigned with the task of proposing a type of umbrella legislation to cover the unorganised workers, particularly regarding wages, hours of work, working conditions, safety and social security. The Commission reviewed the current labour legislation and proposed that it be reconsolidated into broader classes such as industrial relations, wages, social security and welfare and working conditions. It emphasised the need for uniform and adequate social security coverage to prevent compromising workers’ basic needs. It suggested the simplification and unification of current laws towards this end. As a result of these recommendations, the Parliament has enacted the Code on Social Security, 2020.
(By Adv. Partho Sarkar, can be reached at email@example.com) Analysis of NCLT Delhi-II Judgment in Worldwide Metals (P) Ltd Vs JP Engineers (P) Ltd. dated 7th October, 2020 Case: Worldwide Metals (P) Ltd Vs JP Engineers (P) Ltd. in IA/4208/2020 & 2…
Section 434(1)(c) of Companies Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’) read with Rule 5 of The Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016 (‘Transfer Rules’) provides for transfer of those winding up proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) filed under Section of 433(e) of Companies Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’) i.e. on the ground of inability to pay debts where the petition has not been served to the respondent in compliance with Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (‘1959 Rules’). Thereafter, these petitions are to be treated as applications under Section 7, 8 or 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’). This article attempts to explain how provisions of the Code can still be used to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in relation to a Corporate Debtor even if the winding up petition against the same Corporate Debtor is not transferred under Rule 5.
The dispute centres around three things – (1) The valuation of Kotak Venture Fund OCRPS; (2) The right of Kotak Venture Fund to redeem such OCRPS when it had participated in the process to convert its OCRPS into equity shares of Indus Biotech/Corporate Debtor; and (3) Fixing of the QIPO date. All are determinants in coming to a judicial conclusion whether or not a default has occurred, the facts don’t conjure that a default has occurred. The invocation of arbitration thus was held to be justified. It was also adjudicated - Indus Biotech is a solvent, debt-free and profitable company. It will unnecessarily push an otherwise solvent, debt-free company into CIRP, not a desirable result at this stage. (The author in the Epilogue has explained the incorrect premise adopted in arriving at the ruling).