CELEBRATING MORE THAN YEARS
AWARDS & RECOGNITION
UPDATES
PRACTICE AREAS
PEOPLE
News and Articles
News & Articles
CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LOST DOCUMENTS
In a significant development in the realm of consumer protection, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the matter of Manoj Madhusudhanan v. ICICI Bank Ltd (2023 SCC Online NCDRC 323) recently delivered a ruling in a case that has far-reaching implications for banks and consumers alike. Background: Manoj Madhusudhanan, the complainant had applied for a housing loan with ICICI Bank Limited and entrusted the bank with the original title documents of a property as collateral. The documents were intended to be transferred to the bank's central facility via a courier service, Blue Dart Express. However, during transit, the documents went missing, sparking a legal battle that raised several critical issues. Issues: The case raised a series of complex issues, ranging from liability and compensation to the extent of financial loss suffered by the complainant. The key issues are elaborated hereunder: Whether it was ICICI Bank or the courier service i.e., Blue Dart Express, who was responsible for the safekeeping of these crucial documents? Whether the loss of these documents constituted a "deficiency in service" on the part of ICICI Bank, affecting his clear title to the property, and potentially diminishing its value should he decide to sell it or use it as collateral in the future? Whether the NCDRC has jurisdiction to deal with the present case and what is the appropriate compensation to be awarded to the complainant for his losses and mental agony? Held: The NCDRC rendered a decisive verdict on these issues. The NCDRC ruled that ICICI Bank was primarily responsible for the custody and security of the original title documents of the property. It emphasized that the deficiency in service was evident and that the complainant's claim for compensation was legitimate. The NCDRC acknowledged the complainant's argument that the loss of the original documents had compromised his legal title to the property. It was determined that this fact warranted compensation and indemnification against any future losses he might incur. While the complainant had initially sought Rs 5 crore in compensation, the NCDRC disagreed with this amount, and after factoring in the compensation previously awarded by the banking ombudsman, directed ICICI Bank to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation. Additionally, ICICI Bank was instructed to issue an indemnity bond and cover litigation costs of Rs 50,000. This landmark ruling has significant implications for both financial institutions and consumers. Here are some key takeaways and comments regarding the case. The ruling underscores the importance of consumer protection in financial transactions. It establishes that banks have a duty to safeguard the original documents entrusted to them by customers and should be held accountable for any loss. The case provides much-needed legal clarity regarding the liability of banks when entrusted with important documents. The ruling's emphasis on "deficiency in service" as a valid ground for compensation sets a strong precedent. It reaffirms the rights of consumers in financial transactions, especially in cases involving the loss or mishandling of important documents. Consumers can pursue remedies beyond the banking ombudsman's decisions, as indicated in the ruling. The case highlights the importance of jurisdictional questions in consumer protection cases. It clarifies that the NCDRC's jurisdiction is based on the value of goods or services and compensation claimed, rather than the total value of the property itself. MHCO Comment: In conclusion, the NCDRC's ruling in the ICICI Bank case serves as a landmark decision that upholds consumer rights and places the onus on banks to ensure the safety of documents entrusted to them. This ruling carries significant implications for the banking industry, customer relations, and the broader realm of consumer protection in India. It reaffirms the importance of legal safeguards in financial transactions and underscores the need for accountability and compensation in cases of service deficiency. Authors: Purvi Asher - Partner | Bhushan Shah - Partner | Shreya Dalal - Associate Partner | Daksha Kasekar - Associate
News & Articles
MCA UPDATE | MANDATORY DEMATERIALISATION OF SECURITIES OF PRIVATE COMPANIES
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) on 27 October 2023 notified an amendment to the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (Amendment Rules 2023), which affects all companies, but majorly the private companies. The Amendment Rules 2023 introduces two significant changes: (i) concerning the bearer of share warrants under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, and (ii) mandatory dematerialisation of securities for all private companies excluding small companies. The Amendment Rules 2023 mark a significant milestone in India's corporate regulatory landscape. These rules introduce crucial changes aimed at enhancing transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the issuance and management of securities for both public and private companies. Rule 9 Amendment for Public Companies: Enhancing Share Warrants The Amendment Rules 2023 focuses on public companies that had previously issued share warrants under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. Here are the key provisions: Within 3 months of the Amendment Rules 2023's implementation, public companies must inform the Registrar about the details of these share warrants in Form PAS-7; Within 6 months, these public companies must request share warrant holders to surrender them for dematerialization. For this, the company has to place a notice for the bearers of share warrants in Form PAS-8 on their website. The company also has to publish the notice in a newspaper in the vernacular language which is in circulation in the district and in an English Newspaper widely circulated in the state in which the company’s registered office is situated. Non-compliance results in conversion and transfer to the Investor Education and Protection Fund established under Section 125 of the Companies Act, 2013. Rule 9B: Private Companies’ Mandatory Dematerialization Rule 9B, a new addition, significantly impacts private companies that do not qualify as small companies: The rules apply to private companies, excluding small companies, and extend to various categories, including foreign subsidiaries, domestic subsidiaries, Section 8 companies (non-profit companies), domestic holding companies, and companies governed by special acts. The Private companies not qualifying as small companies, according to their audited financial statements for the financial year ending after 31 March 2023, must comply within 18 months of that financial year's closure (i.e., by 30 September 2024). The private companies subject to these rules must ensure the dematerialization of securities held by promoters, directors, and Key Managerial Personnel before any securities-related transactions i.e., buyback, issue of bonus shares, and/or rights offer. It's important to note that government companies are exempt from these Amendment Rules 2023. It is important to note that a small company is a company that is not a public company and has a paid-up share capital equal to or below Rs 4 crore or such a higher amount specified not exceedingly more than Rs.10 crores. MHCO Comment: The Amendment Rules 2023 signify a pivotal development in India's corporate regulatory landscape. They seek to promote transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the issuance and management of securities. Timely compliance with the specified timelines and requirements is essential for companies to effectively adapt to these changes, avoid penalties, and secure their operations in the evolving regulatory environment. Historically, private companies often saw shares registered under untraceable or unidentified names, which raised concerns about black money. With the mandatory dematerialization of shares, the government aims to address this issue. Authors: Bhushan Shah - Partner | Shreya Dalal - Associate Partner | Daksha Kasekar - Associate
News & Articles
LEGAL UPDATE | BOMBAY HIGH COURT'S STANCE ON INDIVIDUAL TENEMENT OCS
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Najma Aslam Merchant versus The State of Maharashtra held that there is no concept of a flat-wise Occupancy Certificate (“OC”). OCs are issued to the part or whole of a built structure i.e., either a whole building or up to a specified floor. Brief Facts: The Petitioner herein had filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court to facilitate the redevelopment of building known as Quettawala Residency wherein she owned two flats on the 7th floor. After filing the Writ Petition the parties agreed to settle their dispute by entering into Consent Terms on 16 March 2023. As per the Consent Terms, the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 were required to apply for the OC in connection with the new building by 20 June 2023 and in the event the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 failed to obtain the OC they would be liable for payment to Petitioner. Since, the OC was not received by 20 June 2023, the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court alleging disobedience of an order of the High Court. Contention of the Parties: The Petitioners contented that the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 failed to obtain the OC by 20 June 2023. On failure of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 to obtain OC, no amount received by the Petitioner. The Respondents Nos. 7 to 10 argued that the there is no liability to pay because an OC for two flats and only two flats was obtained on 22 June 2023. Held: The Division Bench of Bombay High Court rejected the submission made by the Respondents Nos. 7 to 10 holding that there is no concept of a flat-wise OC. OCs are issued for either part or whole of the build structure i.e., either a whole building or up to a specified floor. The Court further held that it would inconceivable that there could be water supply to two flats on the 7th floor but not to other flats on that floor nor to any of the flats above or below the 7th floor. The Division Bench held that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) must not be misled by any individual into granting certificates contrary to the law. The Court further held that it is always open to any officer of the MCGM to refuse to grant any such OC which is obtained for a particular floor. The Court further held that it is not open to the developer to go to MCGM citing the consent terms and the order of the High Court and demand issuance of the OC in a manner not contemplated by law. The Court concluded that the concept of a part OC or an OC applied to the building and not to individual tenements in the building. MHCO Comment: The division bench has made an important decision by explaining that a part Occupancy Certificate (OC) cannot be given for individual tenements. They specifically directed the municipal authorities not to approve requests for OCs that apply only to a specific floor. This decision is a positive move to protect individuals who have faced difficulties with developers. This order is a welcome step to ensure that individuals are not harassed by delays in obtaining OCs for their homes. Authors: Bhushan Shah - Partner | Hasti Parekh - Associate
News & Articles
LEGAL UPDATE | INCREASE IN PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF CITY CIVIL COURTS IN BOMBAY
The Government of Maharashtra acting through Law and Judiciary Department on 16 January 2024 notified an amendment to Section 1(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 whereby pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has been increased from Rs 1 crore to Rs 10 crore having effect from 28 January 2024. On 20 November 2023, the Governor of Maharashtra proposed to carry out the amendment to the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (“Act”) whereby it was proposed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Courts at Bombay to be increased from Rs 1 Crore to Rs 10 crores. On 16 January 2024, the Government of Maharashtra through its Law and Judiciary Department notified increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Courts at Bombay which shall be effective from 28 January 2024. The increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Courts at Bombay will largely reduce the burden from the Bombay High Court. It would further reduce the backlog of the cases lying in the Bombay High Court and will largely assist the judiciary system for quick disposal of the cases. Additionally, all the cases filed before the Bombay High Court which are now below the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs 10 crores will be transferred to City Civil Courts at Bombay. However, the transfer of cases will take substantial amount of time and for initial few months there is a high possibility of the pleadings being not available in the appropriate Court due to non-receipt of papers on time. Further, matters in which the trial has started would have to be now heard a fresh. It will also be pertinent to see whether the infrastructure of the City Civil Court would be able to cope up with such a huge influx of matters especially in terms of upkeeping the records, both electronically as well as physically. Additionally, such transfer of cases would only cause further chaos and would render delay in justice to the public at large. Authors: Bhushan Shah - Partner |  Aakash Mehta - Associate
MHCO Updates
News & Articles
ARBITRATION UPDATE: UNILATERAL APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
Overview: In a recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India concerning the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE) versus M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), the Court addressed critical issues surrounding the independence and impartiality of arbitral tribunals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). This decision is significant as it reaffirms the principles of party autonomy while ensuring that such autonomy does not compromise the essential standards of impartiality in arbitration proceedings. Brief background of the case: The instant case had arisen out of several appeals which highlighted concerns pertaining to appointment of arbitrators, particularly in public-private contracts. The Law Commission of India had previously emphasized that while parties have the autonomy to choose their arbitrators, this should not override the principles of impartiality and independence, especially during the formation of an arbitral tribunal. Following these recommendations, amendments were made to the Arbitration Act, specifically Section 12(5), which disqualifies individuals with certain relationships to either party from serving as arbitrators. Issues: Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or curate a panel of arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law? Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators? Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows a government entity to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or majority of the arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? Held: In view of the issues mentioned hereinabove, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether existing arbitration clauses that allowed one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators violated these principles. The court underscored that an arbitrator must be independent of the parties involved to prevent any bias or perceived bias. This ruling was rooted in previous judgments, including Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd[1]., which established that a limited choice in appointing arbitrators could lead to a lack of confidence in the arbitral process. Highlights of the judgment: Independence and Impartiality: The court reiterated that both independence and impartiality are foundational to arbitration. It stressed that any appointment process must reflect these values to maintain trust in arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.   Automatic Disqualification: The instant judgment clarifies that individuals whose relationships fall under specified categories in the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act are automatically disqualified from being appointed as arbitrators, regardless of prior agreements between parties.   Broad-based panels: The Court mandated that in cases involving government entities, there must be a broad-based panel of potential arbitrators to ensure fairness and impartiality. This requirement aims to prevent any perception of favouritism or bias towards one party.   Public-private contracts: The ruling highlighted the unique nature of public-private contracts, emphasizing that when a government entity is involved, there is an increased obligation to uphold impartiality standards due to the inherent power dynamics at play.   Prospective Overruling: The Court also introduced the concept of prospective overruling concerning its decision, indicating that while this ruling would apply moving forward, it would not invalidate past appointments made under previous interpretations of the law.   MHCO Comment: The Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment serves as a pivotal reinforcement of arbitration principles in India, balancing party autonomy with necessary safeguards against bias. By insisting on independent and impartial appointment processes for arbitrators, particularly in public contracts, the Court aims to foster a more equitable arbitration environment. This decision not only clarifies existing ambiguities in arbitration law but also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues, thereby enhancing the integrity and reliability of arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism in India.   [1] Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2017) 4 SCC 665
News & Articles
STAMP DUTY UPDATE: STAMPING AUTHORITIES DO NOT HAVE POWER TO DETERMINE MARKET VALUE IN A COURT AUCTION PROCESS
The Bombay High Court recently clarified the scope of the stamp authority’s power in cases involving properties sold through court supervised auctions. In the instant case, a Writ Petition No.3651 of 2024 was filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court seeking to quash and set aside the impugned demand notice dated 7 February 2024 issued by Office of Joint District Registrar, Collector of Stamps inter alia levying stamp duty of Rs 83,60,550/- and penalty of Rs 23,41,000/- on a property acquired under a Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee constituted by Supreme Court. Brief Facts A Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee was constituted by the Supreme Court by an order dated 10 May 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 20971 of 2017 to sell the assets of Citrus Check Inn Ltd. (“CCIL”) and Royal Twinkle Star Club Limited (“RTSCL”) and all their associate/sister concerns. Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee followed e-auction process for sale of the premises land together with the building thereon comprising of plots collectively admeasuring about 2160 sq.mtrs. bearing Gat No.107, 108 and 109 having plinth/Plot No.229 in Amby Valley City, Pune, Maharashtra wherein Trident Estate Private Limited (“Petitioner No 1”) was the successful bidder for Rs. 2,51,00,000/- and certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner No 1. Petitioner No 1 presented a certificate for registration before Sub-registrar of Lonavala and expressed its willingness to pay 5% stamp duty on the amount reflecting in the certificate. However, the sub-registrar of Lonavala verbally rejected Petitioner No 1’s request for registration of the certificate. Being aggrieved by the same, Petitioner No 1 made an application to the office of the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps (Rural), Pune, Maharashtra seeking direction for registration of the certificate. Petitioner No 1 had also initiated appropriate proceedings before Bombay High Court seeking necessary interim reliefs since the certificate was valid up to 17 August 2024 and thereafter, there was no provision in Registration Act, 1908 for registering it. In response to the application filed by the Petitioner No 1 before Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps (Rural), Pune, Maharashtra the impugned notice was issued to Petitioner No 1 calling upon them to pay stamp duty on the market value derived by Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps (Rural), Pune, Maharashtra and not as per certificate issued by Sale-cum-Monitoring Committee appointed by Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner No 1 that once a sale is conducted by a Court or under the aegis of Court, the Stamp Authorities could not embark upon a journey to determine the true market value themselves, come to conclusion on the value of the property and levy stamp duty on that basis. Main Issue for Consideration Whether in a case where a sale is conducted by a Court or under the aegis of Court, the stamp authorities can embark upon a journey to determine the true market value of the property sold in an e-auction conducted by the Court and levy stamp duty thereon? High Court Judgement The High Court relied upon the Judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Spectrum Constrictions and Developers LLP [2022 SCC Online Bom 3693] and Judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar of Assurances & Another v. ASL Vyapar Pvt Ltd & Anr [2022 SCC Online SC 1554] and held that the price offered by the Petitioner No 1 is above the reserve price and highest bid received for the property. The High Court further appreciated that the price received in any auction could be slightly less as any bidder has to take care of the scenario of the auction process being challenged resulting in passage of time or failure of entire auction process. The High Court further held that auction of a property by a court is possibly one of the most transparent methods by which the property can be sold. Even in a Court monitored auction, the Registering Authority determining what the market price would amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price. The Court quashed the impugned order issued by Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps (Rural), Pune, Maharashtra demanding stamp duty and penalty on the market value. MHCO Comment The High Court has rightly held and cleared the ambiguity that, the role of the Collector of Stamps is to charge stamp duty on the document presented before him and he is not empowered to determine the market value of the property and charge stamp duty based on their calculation instead of the document presented before him.
News & Articles
REAL ESTATE UPDATE | PART OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE CANNOT CONSTITUTE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION
The Supreme Court in the recent case of Venkataraman Krishnamurthy & Or. v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. has held that a Part Occupancy certificate cannot constitute a proper delivery of possession and is not equivalent to an Occupancy certificate. BRIEF FACTS: The appellants intended to purchase an apartment in a building to be constructed by the respondent-company at New Cuffe Parade, Wadala, Mumbai. The parties executed Agreement to Sell dated 29 November 2013 (“Agreement”). The sale consideration was fixed at Rs 7,55,50,956/-. As per the payment schedule, this sale consideration was to be paid in four sets of ‘application money’, and the balance amount, being Rs 5,83,53,615/-, was to be paid on initiation of fit outs. As per the Agreement, possession of the apartment was to be delivered to the appellants for fit outs by 30 June 2016 or, with a grace period of one year, by 30 June 2017. CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES: The Appellants alleged that the respondent-company had not delivered possession of the apartment for fit outs by the said date and that they had terminated the Agreement, the appellants approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”). Their prayer was for refund of the amount paid by them with compound interest thereon @ 18% p.a. along with compensation for the harassment, mental agony and torture suffered by them, apart from litigation costs. The respondent-company, however, asserted that it had received the Occupation Certificate for the appellants’ apartment on 8 June 2017, which was well before the expiry of the grace period, and it had called upon the appellants by e-mail on the very same day to make the balance payment in order to initiate the possession process. However, the same was a part occupancy certificate. The respondent company also claimed that the Appellants were trying to get out of bearing the additional burden of the newly introduced Goods and Service Tax payable by them in relation to the subject transaction. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: Whether the Appellants have a right to terminate the agreement when there is a clear delay on part of the Respondent in this factual matrix? Whether a Part Occupancy Certificate obtained by the developer constitutes a valid offer of possession? HELD: The Part Occupancy Certificate was not equivalent to a full Occupancy Certificate and did not constitute proper delivery of possession. Therefore, the Respondents were in the wrong for claiming that the Appellants had failed to take possession.  It was also held that the NCDRC had overstepped its jurisdiction by not strictly interpreting the Agreement’s terms and introducing its own logic instead of following the Agreement’s provisions. The order was also reprimanded for suggesting that the appellants might continue with the Agreement despite clear delay on part of the Respondent company. The Supreme Court further held that the appellants were fully within their rights to terminate the Agreement as per Clause 11.3, which allowed termination within 90 days after the grace period expired.  The court rejected the company's claim that the appellants were trying to avoid tax liability. Therefore, the court set aside the NCDRC's order while directing the respondent company to refund Rs 2,25,31,148. The refund was directed to be made in 12 equal monthly instalments along with interest to be paid at 12% per annum from the date of receipt. MHCO COMMENT: The Supreme Court has been mindful in admonishing the NCDRC for overstepping their authority. This is a progressive step in ensuring that authorities ensure that they pass orders which uphold equity and justice. The court has also upheld the basic tenet of interpretation by reminding the Courts that they cannot rewrite or substitute their own interpretation of commercial terms when there exists an explicit contract in place.
News & Articles
SEBI UPDATE
Background: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) recently issued an advisory directed at registered intermediaries and regulated entities (Advisory). This Advisory aims to clarify the protocols for communication with SEBI officials, particularly concerning the interpretation of operational measures and policy issues related to the securities markets. Nature of Communications: SEBI frequently receives various forms of communication from registered intermediaries and regulated entities. These communications often seek clarifications on specific operational measures or policy interpretations. However, SEBI has emphasized that any such communication with SEBI officials, whether it be summaries of discussions, meeting minutes, or personal interpretations should not be construed as official approvals or clarifications unless explicitly stated by SEBI itself. This distinction is crucial to prevent misunderstandings regarding the regulatory framework. Explicit Written Communication Required: In light of the above, SEBI, through its Advisory, recommends that all registered intermediaries and regulated entities ensure that any actions requiring approval or clarification are undertaken only after receiving explicit written communication from SEBI. This requirement underscores the importance of documented guidance in maintaining regulatory compliance and avoiding potential pitfalls in operational practices. Utilizing the SEBI Informal Guidance Scheme For those seeking interpretive guidance or no-action letters, SEBI recommends utilizing the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Informal Guidance) Scheme, 2003 (Informal Guidance Scheme). The Informal Guidance Scheme provides a mechanism for registered intermediaries, listed companies, and mutual funds to seek informal guidance on regulatory matters. Eligible entities can request two types of letters under the Informal Guidance Scheme: no-action letters, which indicate whether SEBI would recommend any action for a proposed transaction, and interpretive letters, which clarify specific legal provisions in the context of a proposed transaction. To initiate a request, entities must submit a detailed letter and a fee of ₹25,000, outlining all relevant facts and applicable legal provisions. SEBI aims to respond within 60 days but may conduct hearings if necessary. MHCO Comment: The Advisory issued by SEBI reinforces the necessity for clear and documented communication between market participants and regulatory authorities. By adhering to this advisory and utilizing the Informal Guidance Scheme, when necessary, registered intermediaries and regulated entities can navigate the regulatory landscape more effectively while ensuring compliance with SEBI's requirements. However, it is important to note that the letters issued through SEBI’s Informal Guidance Scheme are not legally binding and SEBI can also take a contrary view in future. Therefore, entities following the guidance provided by SEBI may still find themselves in hot waters with SEBI, which in our view defeats the purpose of providing paid guidance.  
LIFE AT MHCO