Draft Companies (Authorised to Register), Second Amendment Rules, 2018
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has published a draft of the proposed Companies (Authorised to Register), Second Amendment Rules on their website and invited comments and suggestions till April 09, 2018. This amendment primarily deals with the documentation requirements during incorporation under the Companies Act, 2013.
IRDA on linking AADHAR with Insurance Policies
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s March 13, 2018 order extending the deadline indefinitely for linking AADHAR with various social services, the Insurance Regulator and Development Authority of India released a circular on March 20, 2018 stating that existing holders of insurance policies are no longer mandated to link their AADHAR with their respective policy till the Supreme Court decides otherwise.
Supreme Court on Non-Performing Assets (“NPA”) under SARFAESI
The Supreme Court in its March 19, 2018 judgment in ITC Ltd. v Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & Ors., has held that after the initiation of recovery proceedings for NPAs under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, a secured creditor is bound to consider representations, if any, made by the debtor. Addressing the nature of this section (whether directory or mandatory), the 2 judge bench of Justices SA Bobde and L. Nageshwara Rao observed that “We find the language of sub-section (3A) to be clearly impulsive. It states that the secured creditor ‘shall consider such representation or objection and further, if such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate the reasons for non-acceptance’ thereof”.
Kerala High Court on Maternity Leave of Contract Employees
The Kerala High Court in its February 27, 2018 judgment in Rakhi & Ors. v State of Kerala, has held that contract employees (employed on the basis of short-term revolving contracts) in government institutions are entitled to maternity leave in the same manner as other full time employees in government institutions i.e. 180 days. It has been observed in this judgment that “the inalienable obligations of maternity should not and cannot be a reason to deny equal opportunities to woman employees. This precisely would be the result of limiting maternity leave to women employees, irrespective of the nature of their employment”.