Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S Sistani and V Kameswar Rao, JJ., dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “Arbitration Act”) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the order of a Single Judge wherein the appellants had raised objections against the award of the arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The crux of the argument of the appellants was that the arbitrator failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not making a full and fair disclosure that he had been appointed as an arbitrator by the respondent in as many as 43 cases prior to the present case. The appellants pleaded that on this ground alone, the award rendered by the arbitrator should be set aside. The appellants, admittedly, had not urged this argument before the Single Judge.

The Court noticed that the arbitrator had issued a notice to the parties, wherein the following relevant sentence was quoted, “….currently adjudicating on multiple claims filed by the claimant company.” The order-sheet reflected that the hearing was attended by counsel for both parties. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interfering with the order passed by the Single Judge for two reasons. The first being that the argument urged before the Court was not raised in front of the Single Judge, and secondly, the judgment in Aditya Ganapa v. Religare Finvest Ltd. (OMP No. 1038 of 2014, decided on 30.01.2015) relied on by the appellants did not fit in the factum of the present case where the arbitrator had indeed, disclosed his interest to the parties. Appeal dismissed. [Sidhi Industries v. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd.,  2017 SCC OnLine Del 12685, decided on 11.12.2017]

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

Circular on Mutual Funds

[SEBI/HO/IMD/DF2/CIR/P/2017/35  dated April 28, 2017]

1.Please  refer  to SEBI  Circular  No. SEBI/HO/IMD/DF2/CIR/P/2016/42 dated 18 March 2016.

2.In partial modification of the above mentioned circular, para C of the circular pertaining to disclosure of executive remuneration shall read as under:

“With the  underlying objective to promote transparency in remuneration policies so that executive remuneration is aligned with the interest of investors, MFs/AMCs shall make the  following disclosures pertaining to a financial year on the MF/AMC website under a separate head–’Remuneration‘:

1. Name, designation and remuneration of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief  Investment  Officer  (CIO) and Chief Operations Officer (COO) or their  corresponding equivalent by whatever name called.

2. Name, designation and remuneration received by top ten employees in terms of remuneration drawn for that financial year.

3. Name,  designation  and  remuneration of  every  employee of  MF/AMC whose :

a. Annual remuneration was equal to or above one crore and two lakh rupees for that financial year.

b. Monthly remuneration in the aggregate was not less than eight lakh and fifty thousand rupees per month, if the employee is employed for a part of that financial year.

4. The  ratio  of  CEO’s  remuneration  to  median  remuneration  of  MF/AMC employees.

5. MF’s total AAUM, debt AAUM and equity AAUM and rate of growth over last three years. For  this  purpose,  remuneration  shall  mean  remuneration  as  defined  in clause  (78)  of section  2 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The AMCs/MFs shall disclose this information within one month  from  the  end  of  the  respective financial year (effective from FY 2016-17).”

3. This   circular   is   issued   in   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   under Section 11 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992, read with the provision of Regulation 77 of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 to  protect  the  interests  of  investors  in  securities  and  to  promote  the development of, and to regulate the securities market.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

Supreme Court Cases

Cases Reported in 2014 SCC VOL. 6 JULY 14, 2014 PART 3

Termination whether based on material evidence, can be examined by Court, but not sufficiency of the grounds. Furthermore, there is no need of assignment/disclosure of reasons for invocation of pleasure doctrine. Lastly, Court cannot substitute its own conclusion on the basis of materials on record. In a constitutional set-up, when office is held during the pleasure of the President, it means that the officer can be removed by the authority on whose pleasure he holds office without assigning any reason. The authority is not obliged to assign any reason or disclose any cause for the removal.

Union of India v. S.P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351