Kavitha Gupta's blog

Lokpal Act Amended | Deadline For NGO Office Bearers To Declare Assets Deferred Khaitan & Co prev next India August 1 2016 The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Act) which required public servants to declare their assets and liabilities by 31 July 2016 has been amended. Indian industry was taken aback when the definition of ‘public servant’ covered officers of entities receiving government funds and not-for-profit entities receiving foreign contribution exceeding INR 1,000,000 within its scope. After several representations made by numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the government has deferred the deadline for such disclosure until the rules regarding form and manner of the declaration are notified by the central government. Background Prior to the notification of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Amendment Act), the Act required a ‘public servant’ to make a declaration of his assets and liabilities along with similar

India - Challenges Faced By Employers In Addressing Sexual Harassment Complaints. Legal News & Analysis - Asia Pacific - India - Labour & Employment 23 August, 2016 A Brief Background Sexual harassment at the workplace was first recognized as a violation of basic human rights by India’s apex court, the Supreme Court (SC) in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Vishaka Judgment) in 1997. In its judgement, the SC opined that sexual harassment was violative of the fundamental rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution of India, 1950 including the constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, equality, dignity and to practice any profession/carry on any occupation, trade or business. Accordingly, and in the absence of specific legislation at that time, the SC had enunciated guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace. Post the Vishaka Judgment, it was judicially observed that the guidelines framed were not being followed in various workplaces

Storing Export Controlled Data in the Cloud - What’s the Latest? Braumiller Law Group prev next USA August 16 2016 It is common these days for individuals and companies to store data in the “cloud”, which means that a server, or sets of servers located here, there, and everywhere are connected via the Internet. Is there a problem if that data is export controlled? Example 1 – A company has technical data controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). It wants to store that data on a server located outside the U.S. Is that OK? Example 2 – A company has technology controlled under the Export Administration Regulations. It is currently stored on a server in the U.S., however the cloud storage service wants to move it to a foreign server. Is that permissible? Will any of these transactions require an export license or U.S. Government approval? Will the companies get in trouble if they try? Let’s take a look. First: Ca

Subcontractor's claims time limit clause struck down as unreasonable Newsletters April 25 2016 | Contributed by Mayer Brown International LLP Construction United Kingdom A ground works subcontractor attempted to include in its subcontract for the design and installation of vibro compaction a clause (Clause 12(d)) requiring notification of claims within 28 days of either any alleged defect appearing or the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the event complained of. The clause also stated that claims were barred unless so notified within one year of completion of the works. The court decided (1) that the clause was not included in the subcontract. The court went on to consider whether, if it had been included, the Unfair Contract Terms Act would apply, and if so whether the clause would then have passed the act's test of reasonableness. The court ruled that in order for the Unfair Contract Terms Act

Do settlement agreements negate right to adjudicate? Newsletters July 25 2016 | Contributed by Mayer Brown International LLP Facts In J Murphy & Sons Ltd v W Maher and Sons Ltd, [2016] EWHC 1148 , representatives of a subcontractor and its sub-subcontractor had a telephone discussion. The sub-subcontractor confirmed, the same day by email, that a 'final account sum ' had been agreed. The subcontractor acknowledged the email and said that it would prepare the paperwork and associated information to close out the account. It did not challenge the sub-subcontractor's email and, months later, said it was awaiting head office sign-off. Subsequently, it then issued a gross valuation that was substantially less than the final account sum allegedly agreed and made no further payments. The sub-subcontractor took its claim for the final account sum to adjudication, but the subcontractor asked the court for a declaration that the adjudicator had no jurisdicti

BSA Informants: How to Protect Your Company against Copyright Infringement Claims by Disgruntled Employees Seeking a Reward by Keli Swan in Blogs In an effort to enforce the copyrights of its members, Business|The Software Alliance (“BSA”) offers the potential for monetary rewards to any informant that shares information related to software copyright infringement against a company.  Many of our clients are facing audits because an informant has turned them in. Even if a company is able to demonstrate that its software is properly licensed, it is difficult to hold the informant accountable for the time and expense incurred as a result of the audit because the BSA protects the identity of its informants. There are a few tips on how to deal with disgruntled former employees seeking revenge through a BSA reward. 1) Prevention In many instances prevention simply is not possible because a company learns of the potential informant at the same time it receives an audit d