PCB’s claim against BCCI for the failure to play bilateral series in 2014 and 2015 denied by the ICC’s Dispute Resolution Committee
The Pakistan Cricket Board (“PCB”)’s $63 million claim against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) for the failure to play bilateral series in 2014 and 2015 has been denied by the International Cricket Council (“ICC”)’s Dispute Resolution Committee (“DRC”).
The central question up for consideration for the DRC was whether BCCI breached an agreement with PCB to play seven bilateral series between 2014 and 2023, two of which were to be home series hosted by Pakistan. These two series were scheduled for November 2014 and December 2015 and for which the PCB claimed damages.
The agreement in question was a letter signed by BCCI and PCB on April 09, 2014. While the PCB contended that the letter in question was a valid agreement, the BCCI on the other hand, contended that it was just a first step in the process that would lead to a bilateral tour and was not a legally binding agreement.
The DRC rejected the PCB’s claim and held that both the cricketing boards were at “cross purposes” as far as the letter is concerned. The DRC held that the April 09, 2014 letter signed between the boards, at most, was a “letter of intent”. The decision by the DRC is final and non-appealable.
The BCCI also argued that the main reason for not playing the bilateral series with Pakistan was also the absence of clearance from the Indian government. The DRC observed that obtaining such clearance was not a legal requirement but just an “oral tradition”., It noted that the readiness with which such approval was granted or not granted was just a reflection of the state of relation between the two countries and was not in itself a requirement in the first place. .
GameChanger Views:
- The bone of contention in this scenario was the April 09, 2014 letter, which, according the DRC was at best a “letter of intent”. With the DRC concluding that the boards were at “cross purposes” as far as the “letter of intent” is concerned, we feel that documentation of agreements between cricketing bodies would assume significance and they will establish a process of having paperwork evidencing “meeting of minds” between them in place.
- The argument of prior clearance from the government put forth by the BCCI did not cut ice with the DRC in the absence of there being any legal requirement to do so. We feel that this is a good practice wherein cricketing boards cannot use prior government approval not being granted by the governments as a reason to cancel a cricketing event in the absence of there being no such legal requirement.
McDonald’s franchisee made illegal profit by denying benefit of GST reduction to customers holds National Anti -Profiteering Authority
The National Anti -Profiteering Authority (“NAPA”), in the case of Shri Ravi Charaya and Ors vs. Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt Ltd, held that Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt Ltd (“Hardcastle”), a franchisee of McDonalds had made an illegal profit of INR 7,49,00,000 (Rupees Seven Crore Forty Nine Thousand Only) by not passing on the benefit of a reduction of GST rates to the consumers. NAPA observed that the GST applicable to McDonalds, November 14, 2017 had been reduced from 18% (Eighteen Percent) to 5% (Five Percent). However, NAPA observed that McDonalds had increased the base price of their products to the extent the GST rates were reduced so as to not provide the benefit of the reduction of the GST rate to the customer..
NAPA held that such an increase in prices would violate the provisions of Section 171 of the Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (“GST Act”), known as the anti-profiteering section which states that any reduction in GST rates should be passed on to the end customer.
NAPA rejected Hardcastle’s contention that the prices were increased due to inflation. NAPA held that the increase of prices was made overnight without any consideration or internal discussions. NAPA held that section 171 of the GST Act is clear and unambiguous and has issued a show-cause notice to Hardcastle in order to determine the penalty.
GameChanger Views:
- The order against Hardcastle by NAPA is the second such order against a restaurant, with the first one being against Jubilant Foods (who are the franchisors of Dominos in India) to be issued notices for not passing the benefits of GST to the end customer. This shows that NAPA has taken this issue seriously and more restaurants, including other franchises of McDonalds may be issued notices for not passing on the benefits of GST to the end customer.
- It is interesting to note that NAPA had issued notice to the franchisee of McDonalds and not McDonalds itself. The price of the products being sold is ultimately determined by McDonalds and not the franchisees. Therefore, we feel that NAPA should have issued notices to McDonalds and not Hardcastle.
Companies not reporting data breaches may have to pay hefty fines as per the governments proposed plans
Following the recent leaks of data by Google and Facebook affecting Indian users, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeiTY”) is proposing to introduce new rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) imposing high penalties on those companies who do not report data breaches to the Controller of Certifying Authority. Presently, the fine imposed on the Companies for not reporting data leaks has been capped at INR 1,50,000 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) under section 44(a) of the IT Act. It has been reported that the MeiTY feels that the fines are too low and need to be revised.
GameChanger Views:
- An increase in fines will be a welcome move for data protection in India. By increasing the penalties on companies, it will act as a deterrent ensuring that companies actively inform the Controller in case of any breach. This is especially relevant in todays economy where there is an increase in the number of small companies collecting personal information about their users.
- The penalties that are being proposed will need to be in line with any penalties that the Government will impose in any future data privacy law.
Government conducting regular meetings with social media companies in order to tackle misinformation being spread before the general election
The Government has started holding fortnightly meetings with major social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter with a view to keep a check on the spread of misinformation of fake news before the general elections. During these meetings, companies have been asked to appoint grievance officers and develop a mechanism to prevent the misuse of their platforms.
GameChanger Views:
- The requirements of coming up with a policy to prevent the spread of fake news may put additional compliance requirements on the establishments. If the Government changes the requests it has made in these meetings to a policy requirement, any social media company, irrespective of its size, will need to come up with a policy to restrict the spread of fake news.
- In order to tackle the spread of fake news, the Government may ask other types of online platforms like blogging websites to have a policy to tackle the spread of fake news.
Disclaimer: The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.