Kavitha Gupta's blog

Supreme Court clarifies validity of arbitration agreements in MoUs Nishith Desai Associates India   May 13 2015 An arbitration clause is a separate and independent agreement. The arbitration agreement survives and does not necessarily come to an end even if the MoU does not materialize into a full-fledged agreement. Parties are bound to refer disputes arising out of and in relation to the MoU to arbitration if provided in the dispute resolution clause. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India (“ Supreme Court ”) in the recent case of  Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd (“Appellant”)  v.  Gujarat  Mineral Development Corporation 1  (“ Respondent ”) has addressed the issue of separability and survival of an arbitration clause contained in a Memorandum of Understanding (“ MoU ” ). The Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement in the MoU was valid as it constitutes a stand-alone agreement independent from its underlying contract. FACTS The parties entered

CCI rejects complaints against Flipkart, Snapdeal and other e-retail majors New Delhi:  The Competition Commission has rejected allegations of unfair business practices against five online retail majors -- Flipkart, Snapdeal, Amazon, Jabong and Myntra -- as it did not find any prima facie evidence of violations. The complaints were filed against Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd, Xerion Retail Pvt Ltd, Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd and Vector E-commerce Pvt Ltd. After looking into the matter for the past few months, the fair trade regulator has ruled that these entities did not violate competition norms by indulging in cartelisation or by abusing their dominant position. Jasper runs Snapdeal.com, Xerion owns Jabong.com, while Vector is the company behind Myntra.com. Myntra has been acquired by Flipkart.com "... the Commission is of the prima facie view that no case of contravention of the provisions of either section 3 or section 4 of the Act is made

One of the interesting judgment of Madras High Court wherein the company paid nearly Rs. 1.68 crores for non-constitution of the sexual harassment committee.   In this case, the HC held that it is the duty of the employer to provide safe environment and the court  rejected the argument that the vicarious liability of the employer is not applicable as the grievance is between co-worker and worker.   This case law reminds that even a company could be liable for huge damages if it fails to takes appropriate action.   I am sure this is just a beginning and will open doors for aggrieved person to seek damages from the company apart from the perpetrator for any wrong doing. In the recent case of ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. Vs. Mr. Justice T.N.C. Rangarajan, the High Court of Madras (“HC”) has directed  a company to pay compensation of Rs. 1.68 crores for not constituting the Committee to deal with sexual harassment issues (“Vishakha Committee”)  as mandated by the Supreme Court’s Vishakha

Labour law compliances made easier in Bangalore Nishith Desai Associates Preetha S and Vikram Shroff India May 6 2015 Introduction of an online portal for ensuring compliance under the state-specific labour law in Bangalore / State of Karnataka. Mandatory registration for all establishments on the portal from April 1, 2015. Registration certificate to be issued within 15 days after payment of fee and verification of details. Portal to facilitate other compliances such as renewal and amendment of registration certificates, filing of annual returns, etc. Commercial establishments 1  in India’s information technology capital, Bangalore, are required to use an online facility for ensuring compliances under the state-specific labour law, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (“ Karnataka S&E Act ”). The online system, known as the ‘ e-karmika ’  portal 2 , which was first introduced in Bangalore (revenue division) in 2013, has b