Kavitha Gupta's blog

 Waiver of ‘without prejudice’ privilege in India  ‘Without prejudice’ privilege finds statutory recognition within Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act.  This privilege governs admissibility of evidence in court and is founded on the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences rather than litigate them towards a conclusion’. While legal professional privilege is a substantive right, ‘without prejudice’ privilege is generally a rule of admissibility, either based on a contractual, or implied contractual right, or on public policy.6 An important ruling in this regard discussing the contours of ‘without prejudice’ privilege is the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.7 Laying down general principles on such documents, the Court observed that a genuine intent to settle, which is a precondition to the applicability of the principle, can be deduced through surrounding circumstances and clear context indicating inte

  It was a whirlwind affair. The Manhattan socialite and the sophisticated Parisian. Tiffany & Co. (NYSE: “ TIF ”) and LVMH, Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE (OTC: “ LVMUY ”), announced their engagement, via   joint press release , on November 25, 2019 and set a date in 2020. The proposed combination valued Tiffany’s stock at $135 per share in an all-cash deal, yielding an implied aggregate transaction value of approximately $16.2 billion. The holidays were magical, and all seemed well with the world. But 2020 arrived and brought with it unforeseen developments around the globe. Tiffany’s Madison Avenue neighbor, Brooks Brothers,  filed for bankruptcy  on July 8, 2020 and Tiffany & Co. itself experienced significant declines in its business, with global sales down 45% for the fiscal quarter ended April 30 and down 29% for the quarter ended July 31. Tiffany & Co. lost over $32 million during the first six months of its fiscal year. LVMH stated publicly that Tiffany’s business

  Penalty clause VAR: “extremely harsh” but still enforceable 11 March 2021 -  Post by: Danielle Tullett The court in  Permavent v Makin  determined that although the provision before it was “extremely harsh” it was not “out of all proportion” to the claimants’ legitimate business interests and so was not an unenforceable penalty. Makin and Yeremeyev had operated a business which supplied roofing products to the construction industry through several companies, including Permavent and Greenhill. Makin invented roofing products under the name “Easy Roof System”, a number of which he successfully patented. Following the breakdown of the relationship between the business partners, Makin left the business and terminated the patent licenses to Permavent. Permavent brought initial proceedings against Makin claiming that it was the owner of the relevant patents and a settlement agreement was reached. Under the settlement agreement Makin would receive a number of payments in exchange for which

Good Article on ERP softtware disputes: Multinational organisations spend significant money and resources on enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, which automates processes in operations, finance and human resource. Although ERP software can be supplied off-the-shelf, many customers seek modifications or a bespoke product. The substantial cooperation necessary between the supplier and purchaser of ERP software makes it ripe for disputes. This article discusses common pitfalls to watch out for. Click  here  to access the article. https://1f2ca7mxjow42e65q49871m1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/OutlookNewsletter_December2020.pdf  ERP SOFTWARE DISPUTES: https://www.39essex.com/december-2020-edition-of-outlook-a-roundup-of-news-and-views-from-39-essex-chambers-commercial-and-construction-group/