RBI prohibits online movie booking platforms from levying “internet handling fee”
In response to a Right to Information (“RTI”) query, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has stated that online movie booking platforms are not authorised to levy handling fees from customers, and any such charges so levied would deemed to be a violation of the RBI’s Merchant Discount Rate (“MDR”) regulations which provide that the costs liable to be paid to a bank by a merchant accepting payments via credit or debit cards, shall be borne by the merchant himself.
The RBI has clarified that it has given no authorization to online portals to levy payment gateway charges or take separate charges on consumers calling them internet usage fees, and that it has issued no instructions to e-commerce portals to charge a separate amount to the consumers for making the products available online.
Quick View:
The clarification is a strong indication of RBI’s eagerness towards ensuring ethical operations of the entities controlled by the Apex Bank. It is also expected to act as a warning sign for businesses throughout different sectors with regards to RBI’s seriousness with respect to protecting consumer rights.
Delhi HC rules that no anti-arbitration injunction to be awarded unless the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive.
The Honourable High Court of Delhi in its judgment on the matter of Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited (HSPL) and TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd (TAQA) v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited, held that an anti-arbitration injunction can be granted only when the initiation of arbitration is found to be vexatious or oppressive and that “an endeavour should be made to support and aid arbitration rather than allow parties to move away from the chosen adjudicatory process“.
A brief summary of the facts of the case is as follows:
Following a dispute between the HSPL and TAQA, and the NCC infrastructure Holdings Limited (“NCCIHL”) arising out of a purported breach of material conditions under a Securities Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) between them, a notice of arbitration was filed by HSPL and TAQA with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in December 2014. After which, the arbitral tribunal rendered an award in January 2018 in favor of HSPL and TAQA.
Thereafter, while HSPL and TAQA moved to enforce the award received from SIAC, NCCIHL challenged the award before the Singapore High Court. In pursuance of the second round of litigation, the NCCIHL sent communication to the HSPL and TAQA seeking data to support its claims for ‘incentive payments’ under the SPA, which was repelled by HSPL and TAQA. Consequently, NCCIHL moved for a second round of arbitration which was deemed to have commenced from December 31, 2018.
Therefore, HSPL and TAQA moved the Honourable High Court of Delhi to seek an anti-arbitration injunction on the second round of arbitration, contending that the same was barred by principles of res judicata, waiver and abandonment. On the other hand, NCCIHL contended that the claims under the second round arbitration were based on distinct and new cause of action, and required new evidence.
Res Judicata is the principle that prohibits the raising of any issue in a subsequent proceeding if the same issues have been raised and finally decided upon in an earlier proceeding.
The Honourable High Court of Delhi while dismissing the plea, opined that this was a case of constructive res judicata at best, and its determination would require a mini-trial at least.
Quick view:
The Delhi High Court’s judgment springs from the long-standing principle that the courts are to aid and encourage the parties who opt for arbitration, instead of allowing them to disregard a mutually agreed adjudicatory process. The court effectively has put a limit on its interference with regards to passing injunctions on arbitration proceedings to only those which included some vexatious elements or oppression.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.