Kavitha Gupta's blog

October 27, 2016 A Liquidated Damages clause does not oust the need to prove the loss: Bombay HC In a claim for liquidated damages, evidence has to be led in support of the same, and such a claim shall be granted on consideration of the basic principles for grant of liquidated damages. Relying on precedents, the High Court has reaffirmed that (a) the amount stipulated as liquidated damages has to be a reasonable compensation and a genuine pre-estimate of damages; (b) should not exceed the amount so stated, or the penalty so prescribed; The actual loss or injury has to be proved for claiming liquidated damages, and such burden may be dispensed with only when actual damage from breach of contract cannot be proved or calculated.  Introduction Recently in Raheja Universal Pvt. Ltd. ( “Appellant” ) v. B.E. Bilimoria & Co. Ltd. 1 ( “Respondent” ), the Bombay High Court ( “High Court” ) elaborated on the scope and implications of liquidated damages under Section 74 o

The Federal Court of Malaysia has held that a Confidentiality agreement signed by the employee should not be used to enforce non-compete clause against their employees and the employer is required to prove the confidential information that has been breached and the irreparable damage caused to the company due to su ch breach including the infringement of its IP rights.  Courts weigh in on requirements for breach of confidentiality claims Newsletters October 18 2016 | Contributed by Gan Partnership Malaysia Facts The appellants in Dynacast (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v Vision Cast Sdn Bhd (1) were part of Dynacast's group of companies (hereafter, 'Dynacast Group') which were in the business of die casting components. In 1980 the second respondent, Mr Cheok, was employed by Dynacast Group and eventually appointed as regional director until he resigned in 2002. Thereafter, Cheok set up Vision Cast – the first respondent in the case at hand. Subseq

THREE KEY QUESTIONS TO ASK IN HIRING OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF FOREIGN  OFFICIALS One of the top academic commentators in the anti-corruption space is Matthew C. Stephenson, co-founder of the  Global Anticorruption Blog . I was intrigued by Stephenson’s piece, entitled “ Does an FCPA Violation Require a Quid Pro Quo? Further Developments in the JP Morgan “Sons & Daughters” Case ”, where he analyzes whether there should be prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for the hiring of family members of foreign government officials and employees of state owned enterprises, under the context of the reports that JPMorgan is in settlement discussions with the Department of Justice (DOJ) for its ‘Sons & Daughters’ hiring initiative which alleged targeted children of Chinese officials for employment to obtain favor with their parents. I wanted to focus on Stephenson’s analysis of what he phrased as ‘three key considerations’ around analyzing the hiring of family me