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

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

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

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