tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post87281730895892605..comments2023-09-15T16:21:31.980+05:30Comments on INDIAN CORPORATE LAW: Clarifications to the Cruz City 1 Holdings Case: What really happened in Renusagar v. General Electric?Umakanth Varottilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438677982004444359noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-68262285740941719612017-05-08T18:06:44.766+05:302017-05-08T18:06:44.766+05:30On the one hand, as was clarified in the Cruz City...On the one hand, as was clarified in the Cruz City case itself, FERA and FEMA differ to the extent the former was more rigid in its application and FEMA regulations allow for a case to case interpretation. This is where the Renusagar case differs from the Tata Docomo as well as the Cruz City case. On the other hand, both FEMA and FERA have the same purpose - i.e., to regulate something as important as forex in India. Thus, when the purpose of the laws itself is so wide in nature and so fundamentally important to economic balance in a country - it is no ordinary law! I do agree with the Court in holding that the violation of these laws alone itself pose a threat to the economy - especially when the value of the transactions is so large that it could affect forex values. Do refer the case of COSID v SAIL and LIC v. Escorts Ltd where courts have interpreted a vital segment of public policy to include economic interests of the country.Manjarinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-77535791394861509302017-05-08T11:11:30.313+05:302017-05-08T11:11:30.313+05:30Craving leave to ADD:
Another equally old, if no...Craving leave to ADD: <br /><br />Another equally old, if not older, concept, with a common prefix- ‘public’ that is of contextual relevance is ‘public interest’. Again, its relevance has assumed greater significance in matters of concern in the broader international perspective; for instance, with regard to administration and adjudication of domestic tax laws, in relation to foreign entities, hence having cross-border implications.<br /><br />In the published article- “Tax Treaties and Nuisances of Case Law” (2007) 227 ITR 17, accordingly, the viewpoints shared read:<br /><br />Q<br /><br />“....more importantly, in respect of a dispute of the same or similar kind as in ... case, it appears that, the crying need of the hour is that our constitutional experts and jurists must address themselves to two important posers:<br /><br /> Is it not eminently desirable to keep in view the cross border implications it entails, so as to proceed with circumspection?<br /><br /> Should not the concept of “public interest” be considered to mean and take within its ambit, also the interests of the public of the other treaty country, not only the Indian public?<br /><br />In the interests of our nation’s legal / judicial system, is one not justified in expecting them to do so, and also come to appropriate conclusions?<br />UQ<br /><br />Now, as before,- Over to eminent law pundits for an incisive deliberation !<br />vswaminoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-18211035812520857362017-05-08T08:44:40.689+05:302017-05-08T08:44:40.689+05:30In today’s abundantly, and overpoweringly, globali...In today’s abundantly, and overpoweringly, globalized economy, the point of sharp poser, craving for a truthful answer, is this: -Should not the age old concept of ‘public policy’ need to be given a ultra-fresh look and suitably but inevitably modified, for universal adoption ? <br /><br />Offhand: The contents of the write-up @ http://htmedialtd.livemintalerts.com/tr/r/2/475641/190606/dnN3YW1pbmF0aGFuMTNAeWFob28uY29t/10/W10%3D may be found to be of contextual relevance, in general; and the quote of economic wisdom advocated by Adam Smith, in particular !<br />vswaminoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-77580707522444863042017-05-08T02:20:20.430+05:302017-05-08T02:20:20.430+05:30This is a brilliant comment. Wonder why it is anon...This is a brilliant comment. Wonder why it is anonymous.Captain Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02750442834984267967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-90671629145090334502017-05-06T23:43:31.370+05:302017-05-06T23:43:31.370+05:30While you are right to claim that the violation of...While you are right to claim that the violation of a law in force in India simpliciter would not violate public policy, in certain cases the law itself might be of such nature that its mere violation is contrary to public policy. This is because the law being derogated forms the essential feature of the public policy in India. For instance, amendment to a fundamental right will not violate basic structure per se but some fundamental right might be so fundamental that any alteration of itself will violate the basic structure. In the present context, in Renusagar the Supreme Court has held that the particular provision of FEMA forms an essential component of the public policy and thus cannot be derogated. On the other hand, in the instant case, the Court might have reached the conclusion that the provision of FEMA being violated by allowing enforcement did not form an essential feature of the public policy of India and in absence of other surrounding factors enforcement action cannot be declined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com