Our team of lawyers routinely guide enterprises and business establishments on their business and legal issues across various functions namely Procurement, Sales, Marketing, Taxation, Auditing, Accounting, Human Resources, Facilities, Imports, Exports, etc and our proficiency and command in corporate laws, tax laws, competition laws, FDI laws, SEBI laws, DTAA’s, AAR’s and well researched understanding of various sectors enables us to handle the complexities involved in transactions in the most practical manner.
Our lawyers regularly appear before Authority for Advance Ruling, GST Council, Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Authority, National Green Tribunal, SEBI, Competition Commission of India for and on behalf of our clients and get the client’s complex business and legal issues resolved.
Date Of Article : 12/14/2022
An order passed under section 26(1), directing investigation by Director General is an administrative order passed only to determine whether allegations made by informant under section 19(1), about possible violations of competition law are true. Once information is received under section 19(1) , CCI, based on material produced by informant has to form a prima facie opinion regarding possible competition law violations. • While forming a prima facie opinion, CCI has to only determine if allegations along with material produced are taken to be true, will that result in breach of competition law. CCI cannot determine legality or correctness of allegations by going into merits of case. It only has to see whether allegations, prima facie, constitute violation of competition law. • Scope of interference of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution of India, in an order passed directing investigation under section 26(1) is extremely limited. CCI and authorities under Act, 2002 are well equipped to conduct investigation and possess expertise in said field. High Courts cannot interfere with such investigation unless there is an abuse of process and primafacie it appears that investigation was marred by mala fides.
Date Of Article : 22-04-2021
STATEMENT OF LIABILITY IN BALANCE SHEET OF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR AMOUNTS TO ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LIABILITY AND GIVES RISE TO FRESH PERIOD OF LIMITATION U/S 18 OF LIMITATION ACT.Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Asset Reconstruction Limitedv.Bishal Jaiswal & Anrhasset aside the five-member Bench judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in V Padma Kumar v. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (the “Padma Kumar case”) and has held that an acknowledgement of liability in the balance sheet of the corporate debtor is an acknowledgment of debt.The Supreme Court also averted to the fact that “the filing of a balance sheet in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act is mandatory, any transgression of the same being punishable by law”. However, what is of importance is that notes that are annexed to or forming part of such financial statements are expressly recognised by Section 134(7) of the Companies Act, 2013. Equally, the auditor’s report may also enter caveats with regard to acknowledgements made in the books of accounts including the balance sheet.It is now apparent that creditors who intend to initiate proceedings under Section 7 and/or 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, will need to ensure thata)Borrowers admit the liabilities owned by them to creditors in their balancesheets till the monies along with interest are repaid/settled; andb)There are no Observations/ Objections/Caveats made by the borrowerseither in the notes, auditors report etc with regard to acknowledgment made in the books of accounts including the balance sheet.