February 2, 2023

KEY HIGHTLIGHTS OF THE UNION BUDGET, 2023

 

 

“The Union Budget of 2023 hopes to build on the foundation laid in the previous budget, and the blueprint drawn for India@100. We envision a prosperous and inclusive India, in which the fruits of development reach all regions and citizens, especially our youth, women, farmers, IBCs, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes” – Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Finance Minister

Here are the Key Highlights of the Budget for certain industries presented by our Jurists Krishna Ramanathan and Nishtha Kansal:

#finance #development #india #unionbudget2023 #unionbudget #financeminister #financeministry #legal #legalnews #highlights

January 18, 2023

Legal Metrology Training at Halonix Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

We’re happy to share that The Young Jurist (TYJ) team has successfully concluded a physical training under the legal metrology and allied provisions of laws for Halonix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. at their head office in Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. Our Senior Jurist Mr. Raj Dev Singh and Jurist Manan Agarwal successfully delivered the training and explained the importance of maintaining the uniformity of standards in weights and measures being used in trade and transactions.

We’re grateful to Halonix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for their long continued association with TYJ.

TYJ has an excellent track record for years in supporting several domestic and international companies with manufacturing units on the land to comply with the standards of legal metrology, food laws, Drugs & Cosmetics, Seeds Act & Insecticides Act. The expert team of TYJ takes pleasure in supporting companies with their legal metrology compliances and strives to achieve goals with utmost accuracy, skills, and legal knowledge!

January 18, 2023

Legal Metrology Audit at STL – Sterlite Technologies Limited (STL), Silvassa, Daman

 

 

We, the team at The Young Jurist (TYJ), are elated to be sharing that we have successfully conducted the physical audit in Silvassa, Daman under the legal metrology and allied provisions of laws, for STL – Sterlite Technologies Limited (STL), for its digital networks All-in 5G solutions. We have been accomplishing this exercise for several manufacturing companies on a regular basis for years. Our team is constantly looking forward to pursuing these physically hectic but well satisfactory tasks, for, the very change it brings from the operational floor of the law offices and courtrooms.

Thank you to the core team Krishna RamanathanNishtha KansalVasundhara Asthana and Manan Agarwal also special mention and our heartfelt gratitude towards our intern Kushagra Singh.

TYJ is proud to be associated with STL, which is one of the industry’s leading integrators of digital networks providing All-in 5G solutions. Their capabilities across optical networking, services, software, and wireless connectivity place us amongst the top optical players in the world. Wishing STL many more years of successful operations in Indian and overseas market!

#legalmetrology #audit #legal #law #manufacturing #tyj

January 17, 2023

National Legal Summit & Award 2022

 

 

Greetings from The Young Jurist!

We are proud to have successfully sponsored the “National Legal Summit & Award 2022” at Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune with the support of “Rohitt Salwan Abhijeet Tople Raj Dev Singh ATUL JUVLE Subhash Shete Prashant Marathe Panduranga Acharya Anil PM Suhas Tuljapurkar Vivek N. Kuber Nishant Nayan Deepalakshmi Vadivelan SHILPA THAKUR Neha Satav Vaidehee Chhatre Adv. Rajesh Karanjkar Dr. Swapnil ChaturLegasis Private Limited ConsultCorp Legal Services Legal Funda Lawteller Magazine Legal Desire Legavent Corporations. Our Jurists, Ms.Vasundhara Asthana, Ms. Nishtha Kansal and Mr. Krishna Ramanathan represented The Young Jurist (TYJ) at the event.

Thanking you all of you for your immense support to make this as huge successful event of the year 2022.
Jai Hind!

January 17, 2023

Labour Arbitration and Commercial Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis – Authored by Krishna Ramanathan (Jurist)

Since its independence from the British Regime in 1947, India throughout its formative years of development has developed a societal consciousness. Because of this socio-economic welfare became one of the most important aspects of the governing body of the state. With the damage of World War II still wandering around, a tidal wave of unemployment and trade union movements coming up and about, the need for state intervention in favor of labourers was ploughed through.[1] Keeping that in mind, the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was enacted to lay down the framework and guidelines which can be used to provide methods of investigation and settlement of industrial disputes2. Industrial Disputes Act provided a sense of empowerment to the ‘workmen’ to use its mechanisms effectively against the oppressive tactics of employers. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, they can file against a lot of threatening issues ranging from payment of their wages to employment benefits and especially illegal and unfair labour practices. It can be said that Industrial Disputes Act is the primary legislation in India which is enacted to provide a harmonious relationship between the employers and the employees in the industrial setting.

Section 10(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for voluntary reference of an industrial dispute between an employer and an employee to arbitration. It states that “Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and the employer and the workmen agree to refer the dispute to arbitration, they may, at any time before the dispute has been referred under section 10 to a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, by a written agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration and the reference shall be to such person or persons (including the presiding officer of a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal) as an arbitrator or arbitrators as may be specified in the arbitration agreement.” Section 10(a) also provides certain provisions to prohibit union strikes and lockouts during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings.

In the past, the application of the Arbitration Act of 1940 was expressly excluded from the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 in order to “voluntary reference disputes to arbitration” under it. However, the same has since been repealed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.[2] Since Arbitration and Conciliation Act is considered to be a latter statute and Industrial Disputes Act is considered to be a special statute, it raises the question of which of the two acts should prevail. This matter is considered to be classified only through judicial pronouncement or a legislative amendment which changes the wordings of “Arbitration Act of 1940” to “Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996”.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 does not expressly address the question of what category of disputes are arbitrable and which are not. Furthermore, the same question has risen in front of the Indian Judicial system in a variety of contexts. In recent times, the question of arbitrability of certain disputes on the matters of fraud and disputes arising between shareholders and intellectual property litigation have been answered by the Indian courts, however, the matter of labour and industrial disputes is still up in question whether they are arbitrable under Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 or not. It has been answered by the Indian courts in some sense that the industrial and labour disputes are not arbitrable under Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Furthermore, these judgments have raised the question of insertion of arbitration clauses in employment agreements.

In the case of Kingfisher Airlines v. Captain Prithvi Malhotra and Others[3], the case was filed due to various labour recovery proceedings instituted by pilots and staff members of the now defunct Kingfisher Airlines. It was contended by the pilots and the staff that the proceedings were instituted before the specially empowered labour courts for the recovery of their unpaid wages and other employment salary benefits. Kingfisher Airlines contested the same by  invoking Section-8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which states that “Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

1.    A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

2.    The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

3.    Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”[4]

The same application was rejected by the Labour court which retained its own jurisdiction over the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, Kingfisher Airlines decided to move to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court to challenge the order passed by the labour court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court decided to affirm the order passed by the Labour Court, therefore, maintaining the stance that labour disputes were not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court further provided justification by stating that the inquiry was not solely based on whether the claim being urged was in personem or in rem which was held by the Apex Court in Booze Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance[5], but whether the resolution of the claim was exclusively reserved for adjudication by a particular court or tribunal for public policy reasons. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the resolution of labour and industrial disputes have been reserved for resolution before the judicial fora constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its judgement also examined the scheme of Industrial Disputes Act and concluded that the Industrial Disputes Act provides for a unique process of Arbitration for collective labour claims. The court therefore concluded that if there were to be adjudication of labour and industrial claims outside of the purview of the courts or tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act then the reference to and resolution by arbitration would have to be governed by the specific provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 and not the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.[6]

It was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in this case that the claims under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. However, if some cases are arbitrable then they have to conform with the requirements and procedures laid down by the Industrial Disputes Act.

In other countries such as the United States of America, there has been a running debate whether commercial arbitration and labour arbitration should be merged together or not. Labour arbitration in United States refers to arbitration in unionized workplaces, referring to only unionized employees and their management. Labour Management Relation Act (LMRA) is the primary source of law regulating labour arbitration, in specific, Section-301 which states that “Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labour organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labour organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties”[7] In comparison, Commercial Arbitration law covers a vast area of agreements ranging from agreements between merchants, consumers, management and nonunionized employees. The Federal Arbitration Act is the primary source of law in these types of disputes.[8] It was understood that the Labour Management Relations Act and Federal Arbitration Act were developed on parallel tracks. However the two have somehow managed to converge onto similar tracks.

In similar fashion, in India, if the labour arbitration law which is the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is merged with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, then the former would lose its credibility. With the industrial sector with unionized employees facing discrimination on a regular basis, the only governing law protecting them and their employment interest would be hampered. Since most of the labour sector comes from poverty hit background, the present law is as it is not well known to the populace. If the said law was meant to be removed and the commercial arbitration law i.e., Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 was implemented over them, they the power to submit claims in front of an arbitrator as a power tool of collective bargaining would be lost. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 provides the employee unions a blanket of safety by providing proper framework and procedures to settle their dispute with their employer. If the said Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is removed, then the employers or the management would gain the power of appointing their own arbitrator which would work for their own benefit.

If there was any motion to commercialize labour disputes then it would cause a havoc of problems. Labour disputes are governed by Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, if they were to be commercialized then it would mean that they would fall under the ambit of Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 which would further result in labour arbitration becoming a substitute for litigation. Hence, it would be in everyone’s good interest if the same is not commercialized and the sanctity of Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is maintained to be what it is, a power tool for safeguarding the unions from losing their employment benefits.

[1] Teamwork, ‘Brief History of India: Ancient, Medieval and Modern History’ (Important India, February 13,

2017) <https://www.importantindia.com/25677/brief-history-of-india/> accessed 09 December 2020 2 Statement of Objects and Reasons, Industrial Disputes Act 1947

[2] Section 85, Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.

[3] Kingfisher Airlines v. Captain Prithvi Malhotra and Others, 2013 BOMCR 7 738

[4] Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996

[5] Booze Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance, 2011 AIR SC 2507

[6] Kingfisher Airlines v. Captain Prithvi Malhotra and Others, 2013 BOMCR 7 738

[7] Stephen L. Hayford, The Federal Arbitration Act: Key to Stabilizing and Strengthening the Law of Labour Arbitration, 21 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR LAW 521-574 (2000)

[8] Stephen L Hayford, Unification of the Law and Labour Arbitration and Commercial Arbitration: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, 124 YALE LAW JOURNAL 781-783 (2015)

January 17, 2023

Case Analysis – Authored by Manan Agarwal (Jurist)

Facts of the Case

A 600 MW thermal power plant owned by the appellant VPIL (Vidarbha Power Industries Private Ltd) is located in Maharashtra. The MIDC (Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation) gave the appellant a contract via a competitive bidding procedure for a group power project, which was subsequently transformed into an independent power project. A power purchase agreement between RIL (Reliance Industries Limited) and VPIL was authorized by the MERC (Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission) on February 20, 2013, subject to receiving an MIDC non-objection certificate for the power project agreement.

On April 1st, 2014, the appellant began supplying electricity to RIL in accordance with a PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) approved by MERC. Additionally, MERC accepted the final rate for the appellant’s power plant for the years 2014–2015 and 2015–2016. The issue here is that the appellant submitted a request in January 2016 to raise the authorized tariff rates allowed by MERC due to an increase in fuel expenses as a result of the cost of acquiring coal for the power plant’s operation. Ironically, the appellant has no choice but to update the tariff rates since, in the absence of doing so, the sale of electricity will result in a loss given the ongoing increase in fuel costs.

However, as of 20 June 2016, the MERC has decided the matter, rejecting the large percentage of real gasoline expenses that the appellant claimed for the years 2014–2015 and 2015–2016. The MERC has also limited the rate for the years 2016–2017 through 2019–2020. APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity) received an appeal from the party that felt wronged by the decision, disputing the exclusion of real fuel expenses, against the MERC ruling. The APTEL found in favor of the appellant and approved the amount of Rs. 1730 crores that represented the appellant’s true cost.

They had brought a petition before the Supreme Court opposing the enforcement of an APTEL order that was submitted before MERC, but which is still pending. Therefore, the Company was unable to pay its financial creditor, i.e., Axis Bank.

NCLT, Mumbai:

Axis Bank filed a Section-7 application at Mumbai NCLT to start a corporate insolvency resolution procedure (CIRP) against Vidarbha Power Industries Private Limited (VPIL). As there was an ongoing arbitration award case before the supreme court, the Respondent submitted a variety of applications for a stay of proceedings. However, on January 29, 2021, the adjudicating body rejected the MA and started the CIRP against the VPIL.

“This Authority is required only to see whether there has been debt and the Corporate Debtor defaulted in making the repayments. These two aspects when satisfied would trigger Corporate Insolvency. Therefore, the decision of the Authorities as well as of the Hon ‘ble Apex Court would not affect the proceedings before this Authority one way or the other. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this Authority need not stay its hands from considering the Company Petition as prayed for. As it is, there has been a considerable delay in the disposal of the Company Petition. It will accordingly be appropriate that the Company Petition is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Hence ordered.”

Supreme Court Held:

The adjudicating authority should also take into account the reasons the CD gave for the occurrence of default with the financial creditor, such as the existence of awards or decrees with amounts greater than the debt’s total, as well as the fact that the NCLAT made a mistake in determining that the debt existed and the CD award was pending. The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was valid, overturned the NCLT and NCLAT decisions rejecting the petition, and directed NCLT to evaluate the appellant’s request for a stay of the proceedings pending consideration of the merits and the CD situation.

A fresh start for businesses halted by decremental amounts

This Supreme Court decision in the Vidarbha Industries case has established a precedent for corporate debtors and created a new alluring defense against the start of the corporate bankruptcy resolution procedure. specifically in circumstances when the decision in CD’s favor exceeds the present sum. Therefore, this has evolved into a new standard under which the adjudicating body would cross-verify the corporate debtor’s justification for the stay of proceedings. If it is determined to be legal and the decree amount is more than the default, the adjudicating body is required to take it into account. The Supreme Court has made mention of the NCLT’s authority as well as its purview.

“Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC may confer discretionary power on adjudicating authority and such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. If the facts and circumstances warrant the exercise of discretion in a particular manner, discretion would have to be exercised in that manner. Ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit an application under Section 7 of the IBC of the IBC and initiate CIRP on the satisfaction of the existence of financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has to consider the grounds made out by the Corporate Debtor against admission, on its own merits. For example, when admission is opposed on the ground of the existence of an award or a decree in favor of the Corporate Debtor, and the Awarded/decretal amount exceeds the amount of the debt, the Adjudicating Authority would have to exercise its discretion under Section 7(5)(a) of the IBC to keep the admission of the application of the Financial Creditor in abeyance unless there is a good reason not to do so.”

Thus, Vidarbha Power Industries Limited v. Axis Bank is a significant piece of law, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided a new line of defense for corporate debtors for the revival of businesses that are actually not at fault. Additionally, after critically assessing the situation, the Supreme Court has increased the duty placed on adjudicating authorities to examine and verify the claims made by the parties and their position regarding debt default.

January 17, 2023

Newsalert

 

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) issued a Notification today i.e., 30th November, 2022 vide which the figures, letters and words “1st Day of December, 2022” shall be substituted by the figures, letters and words “1st Day of January, 2023” under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Amendment Rules, 2022.

Thus, it can be construed that these rules shall come into force from 1st January, 2023. The Notification has been attached below.

#governmentofindia #consumeraffair #legalmetrology #legal #newsalert

January 17, 2023

Legal Metrology Audit at Factory of Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

 

Compliance under Legal Metrology is indispensable to its Stakeholders!

We’re happy to share that The Young Jurist (TYJ) team has successfully concluded a physical audit under the legal metrology and allied provisions of laws for Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Solar Business Unit) at their manufacturing facility in Haridwar SIDCUL, Uttarakhand.

Kudos to the core TYJ team Raj Dev Singh (Sr. Jurist, TYJ), Rahul L Akhariya (Sr. Jurist, TYJ), Nishtha Kansal (Jurist, TYJ), Manan Agarwal (Jurist, TYJ), Krishna Ramanathan (Jurist, TYJ) and Vasundhara Asthana (Jurist, TYJ) for their relentless efforts and achievement!

We’re grateful to Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Solar Business Unit) for their long continued association with TYJ and to maintain high-quality legal metrology compliance in their brilliant range of electronics and electrical products for consumers.

TYJ has an excellent track record for years in supporting several domestic and international companies with manufacturing units on the land to comply with the standards of legal metrology, food laws, Drugs & Cosmetics, Seeds Act & Insecticides Act. The expert team of TYJ takes pleasure in supporting companies with their legal metrology compliances and strives to achieve goals with utmost accuracy, skills, and legal knowledge!

#legal #legalmetrology #legalaudit #india #team #grateful #manufacturing #compliance #electronics #solar #audit #electrical

January 17, 2023

Legal Metrology Audit at Warehouse of Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

 

Greetings to everyone!

Glad to share that The Young Jurist (TYJ) have successfully conducted the physical audit in Bhiwandi, Mumbai, under the legal metrology and allied provisions of laws, for our client Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (Solar Business Unit). We do this exercise for many manufacturing companies on a regular basis for years. Our Team always gets excited pursuing these physically hectic tasks but good for the very change from the operational floor of the law office and the courtrooms. Thank you to the core team Krishna Ramanathan Nishtha Kansal Vasundhara Asthana and also special thanks to our interns Pratyush Sharma, Soumya Sharma & Utkarsh Dixit from SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS).

Proud to be associated with Panasonic as they are really doing awesome for years and touching consumer hearts in India and overseas markets, best wishes to the company to be more successful in the upcoming years!

Chat Now
How Can I Help You?
TYJ Support
Hello,
Welcome to TYJ!
How can I help you?