Over the years, thousands of Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs) have been executed but the perfect and completely error free agreement eludes us all. The article in this issue brings out some of the essential features of a classic textbook document for better understanding of the topics that need to be covered while drafting an SPA. Under the ‘Notifications & Circulars’ column, Reserve Bank of India’s notification allowing designated AD Category-1 banks to re-schedule ECB due to changes in draw-down or repayment schedule, is covered.
Ration Decidendi column discussed Supreme Court’s decision holding public offer as per Takeover Regulations includes voluntary open offer and economic viability would not be a ground for withdrawal. In this case the Apex Court upheld the sanctity of a voluntary open offer made under Regulation 11 of the new Takeover Regulations. This column also includes the order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) overruling the order of Competition Commission of India imposing penalty on cable operators for denial of market access to the broadcasters and other stakeholders on the ground that non-competitor cannot be held liable for denial of market access.
This issue also covers order of the Competition Commission of India wherein it has held that there is no abuse of dominant position by the Central Government entities providing e-procurement solutions to the Central Government/ State Governments/ Government Departments/ PSUs/ Government Agencies etc. on nomination basis, without any open tender or otherwise going through competitive bidding process. This issue also discusses order of Allahabad High Court on appealability of order returning application made under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for want of jurisdiction.
Examining the applicability of Rule 68B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (RDDB) the Bombay high court held that the bar on sale of immovable property attached under the proceedings, after expiry of three years would not apply to recovery under the RDDB Act. This issue of Corporate Amicus brings a brief analysis of this order of Bombay High Court.
