HCs with jurisdiction in the venue of arbitration shall appoint arbitrators: SCT
The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. (“Appellant”) v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. (“Respondent”) held that when the parties to an arbitration have agreed to a particular place as the venue of arbitration, only the High Court which has jurisdiction over the venue can entertain petitions seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
The agreement entered into between the Appellant and Respondent contained a clause stating that the venue of arbitration shall be Bhubaneshwar. The main issue addressed in this case was whether Madras High Court (“Madras HC”) could exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) despite the clause pertaining to the venue. Madras HC decided that in the absence of an express clause which excludes jurisdiction of other courts, both the Madras HC and Orissa High Court (“Orissa HC”) will have jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings.
The SC concluded that only Orissa HC will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under the provisions of the Act.
Quick View:
It is now a settled position of law that when the contract entered into by the Parties specifies the venue of the arbitration, then the matter related to appointment of arbitrator will be decided by the High Court having jurisdiction over that venue. It should be noted that jurisdiction of other High Courts will still be there if there is no express clause specifying the venue of the arbitration.
RTI Amendment Bill, 2019 passed by the Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha passed the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (“Bill”). The Bill was cleared by the Lok Sabha on Monday to amend the Right to Information Act (“Act”). A motion to refer the Bill to Standing Committee was proposed but subsequently rejected.
The Bill has attracted a lot of criticism from ministers and the general public on account of changes made to the fixed term of the Information Commissioners, their service conditions, and payment on the basis of executive rules to be made by the government. Earlier, the Information Commissioners were given the same status and privileges equal to the Election Commissioner. This was done to ensure autonomous and independent functioning.
Quick View:
There is a provision in the Act to ensure the autonomy of Information Commissioners which is not amended by the Bill. However, the power possessed by the Government to introduce rules could significantly deprive the autonomy possessed by the Information Commissioners.
Amendment introduced to Appointment and Qualifications of Directors Rules
The Central Government passed Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Third Amendment Rules, 2019 (“Amendment”) to amend the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 (“Rules”).
A web-form has been inserted in furtherance of a rule regarding cancellation or surrender or deactivation of Directors Identification Number (“DIN”). The compliance for this rule involves submission of an e-form. Now, if an individual has submitted the e-form for any previous financial year submits the web-form in relation to any subsequent financial year, the rule will be complied with. Further, the same form should be submitted if an individual wants to update his personal mobile number. The fee payable for filing the e-form and web-form through the web service is to be payable as per the Rules.
Lastly, any person who holds a DIN is now permitted to change his particulars in the DIN application.
Quick View:
The DIN is a unique 8-digit number allotted to a person who is appointed as the Director of a company. The Amendment to the Rules makes the administrative process of changing the particulars of a DIN application easier by introducing a web-form and incorporating it into the existing compliance mechanism.
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.