![Fractional Shareholding](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="780" height="440"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
Introduction A fractional share is any stock or other security that a shareholder holds in comparison to a full share. A fraction of a share of stock in a business is known as a fractional share. If the Company Law Committee’s proposal to permit fractional shareholding in India is adopted, an investor who wants to …
The implementation of Fractional Shareholding in India Read More »
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1024" height="576"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
In this episode of TCLF One-on-One, Mr. Abhishek Subbaih, Founder of Bridge Legal and ex-Khaitan, CAM and JSA talks about managing a boutique law firm, Generalisation and Specialisation, Present and Future of Gaming Laws and and more.
![Tata v Mistry Shapoorji Pallonji (Copy)](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="415" height="273"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
In our latest post, the author attempts to highlight the key takeaways from the landmark Tata v. Mistry judgment. In doing so, the author takes a closer look at Article 75 of the Articles of Association and its impact on the future dynamics between TATA and SP group.
![Dispensation of Meetings Companies Act](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1024" height="535"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
Introduction Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 have bestowed upon the High Courts, to sanction the scheme of arrangements. Sections 230 to 240 in the Companies Act, 2013 gives similar power to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Section 391(1) granted the High Court with the power to order a meeting of …
Dispensation of Meetings under Section 230-232: Analysing the Overall Picture Read More »
![Companies Amendment Act](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="550" height="283"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
The Companies (Amendment) Act was recently enacted with a view to promote ease of doing business and ease of living to corporates in India. In this post, the author highlights the substantive changes brought about by the Amendment Act and offers a critical analysis of the same.
![Fiduciary Duty of Charity](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="742" height="495"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
In this post, the author comments upon the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Lehtimaki and others v. Cooper, wherein the Court provided clarification on the interplay between company law and charity law.
![UK Supreme Court Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="872" height="620"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
In this post, the author comments upon the recent landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court in Sevilleja v. Marex Financial Ltd., wherein the Court significantly curbed the scope of the “reflective loss” principle that had been steadily expanding for several decades.
![Reflection of Debt in a Balance Sheet](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1000" height="560"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
In this post, the author critically examines the decision of the Hon’ble NCLAT in V. Padmakumar v. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund & Anr. The author differs from the majority’s widely debated view holding that the reflection of debt in the balance sheet of the Corporate Debtor does not amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and argues that sole reliance on Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013 is misplaced and the implication of the balance sheet along with the Directors’ Report and financial statement must be considered holistically.
![THE CONTEMPORARY LAW FORUM](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="440" height="87"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="440" height="123"><rect width="100%" height="100%"><animate attributeName="fill" values="rgba(153,153,153,0.5);rgba(153,153,153,0.1);rgba(153,153,153,0.5)" dur="2s" repeatCount="indefinite" /></rect></svg>)