DECEMBER 2020 • STRICTLY FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION

I1234

1234MUMBAI : AZB House | Peninsula Corporate Park | Ganpatrao Kadam Marg | Lower Parel | Mumbai 400013 | India | tel +91 22 40729999 | fax +91 22 66396888 | E-MAIL mumbai@azbpartners.com

MUMBAI : One Forbes | 5th Floor | V B Gandhi Marg | Kala Ghoda | Mumbai 400001 | India | tel +91 22 49100600 | fax +91 22 49100699 | E-MAIL disputeresolution.mumbai@azbpartners.com

DELHI : AZB House | Plot No. A8 | Sector 4 | Noida 201301 | National Capital Region Delhi | India | tel +91 120 4179999 | fax +91 120 4179900 | E-MAIL delhi@azbpartners.com

gurgaon : Unitech Cyber Park | 602 Tower-B | 6th floor | Sector 39 | Gurgaon 122001 | National Capital Region Delhi | India | tel +91 124 4841300 | fax +91 124 4841319 | E-MAIL gurgaon@azbpartners.com

bangalore : Embassy Icon | 7th Floor | Infantry Road | Bangalore 560 001 | India | tel +91 80 42400500 | fax +91 80 22213947 | E-MAIL bangalore@azbpartners.com

pune : Onyx Towers | 1101-b | 11th floor | North Main Road | Koregaon Park | Pune 411001 | India | tel +91 20 67256666 | fax +91 20 67256600 | E-MAIL pune@azbpartners.com

Inter alia… is a legal newsletter published each quarter by AZB & Partners for a select list of clients and colleagues. Each issue aims to provide a snapshot of the recent legal developments in certain critical areas: infrastructure, foreign direct investment, securities law, exchange control regulations, corporate law, media and entertainment, intellectual property and banking. We hope you will find the content informative and useful. If you have any questions or comments, please email us at: editor.interalia@azbpartners.com or call AZB & Partners.

page

2 : Corporate & SCRA

2 : Foreign Exchange

4 : Capital Markets

7 : Banking and Finance

9 : Telecommunications

9 : Media

9 : Taxation

10 : Information Technology

10 : Litigation & Arbitration

In This Issue

2020 年 12 月 仅限于私人传阅

公司和 SCRA

外汇管理

资本市场

银行与金融

电信

媒体

税务

信息技术

诉讼和仲裁

是 AZB & Partners 律所为精选的客户和同事每个季度发布的一则法律时事通讯。每个

热点旨在提供一个关于确定的重要领域：基础建设、外国直接投资、证券法、外汇管理条例、公司法、

媒体和娱乐、知识产权和金融最近法律发展情况的概述。我们希望您会发现这是有益和实用的内容。

如果您有任何问题或者建议，请发送邮件到我们的邮箱：editor.interalia@azbpartners.com 或者

打电话到 AZB & Partners 律所。

孟买 /

孟买 /

德里 /

古尔冈 /

班加罗尔 /

普恩 /

2 december 2020

1234I

Corporate & SCRA

V On account of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) had previously issued a Circular dated March 24, 2020 waiving the requirement of having at least one director of every company stay in India for at least 182 days per Financial Year (under Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’)) for the Financial Year 2019-20. Pur-suant to a Circular dated October 20, 2020, such relaxation has been extended to Financial Year 2020-21 as well.

V MCA has, by its Notification dated December 18, 2020, amended the Companies (Appoint-ment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 (‘Directors Appointment Rules’), which in-ter alia required that every individual named in the independent directors’ data bank pass an online proficiency self-assessment test within a period of one year from the date of inclusion of their name in the data bank. This timeline has now been increased to two years, and the passing score has been reduced from 60% to 50%. Further, any person who has served in certain capaci-ties for a total of at least three years (instead of the previously mandated 10 years) as on the date of inclusion of their name in the data bank is exempted from the proficiency test. These capac-ities include, as a director or key managerial person (‘KMP’) in one or more of: (i) listed public companies; (ii) unlisted public companies having a paid-up share capital of ₹ 10 crore (approx. US$ 1.4 million) or more; (iii) a body corporate listed on a recognised stock exchange or in a country which is a member State of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and the regulator of the securities market in such member State is a member of the International Organization of Securities Commissions; (iv) a body corporate incorporated outside India hav-ing a paid-up share capital of US$ 2 million or more; or; (v) statutory corporations set up under an Act of Parliament or any State Legislature carrying on commercial activities.

V The MCA has by way of a Notification dated October 16, 2020, amended the Companies (Pro-spectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (‘PAS Rules’). Rule 14(1) of the PAS Rules pro-vides that for the purposes of Sections 42(2) and 42(3) of the Companies Act, a company will not make an offer or invitation to subscribe to securities through private placement unless the proposal has been previously approved by the shareholders of the company, by a special resolu-tion for each of the offers or invitations. The MCA has now relaxed this requirement, with imme-diate effect, in relation to qualified institutional buyers (‘QIBs’) and provided that in relation to private placements to QIBs, it will be sufficient if the company passes a special resolution once a year for all the allotments to QIBs during the year.

V The MCA, by its Notification dated December 21, 2020, has notified 45 sections of the Com-panies (Amendment) Act, 2020 (‘CAA’). Details of the provisions proposed to be amended by the CAA are reported here. The key provisions notified under the CAA, inter alia, include: (i) amendments related to provisions of winding up and dissolution of a company; (ii) reduction of penalties and fines/imprisonment for certain offences; and (iii) removal of imprisonment for certain offences.

Foreign Exchange

V In line with the initiative of the Government of India (‘GOI’) to amend the existing For-eign Direct Investment (‘FDI’) regime, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (‘DPIIT’) has issued Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOPs’) dated November 9, 2020 for processing FDI proposals. The SOPs set out a framework for online filing of applications seek-ing prior approval for investments in sectors or activities that require prior approval under the Consolidated FDI policy dated October 15, 2020 (FDI Policy) and Foreign Exchange Manage-ment (Non-Debt Instrument) Rules, 2019. Annexure 1 to the SOP provides the list of documents to be submitted with the application, including the details of the significant beneficial owners of the investor entity. Additionally, the proforma for application for security clearance for FDI Pro-posals requires disclosure of “ultimate beneficial ownership” (without defining this term) of the investor company and details of shareholders of the investor company holding more than 10% shares. These details are also relevant in the context of the Government’s recent amendment to the FDI regime, which requires prior approval of the Government for investments from coun-tries sharing land border with India (details of which can be accessed here).

As per the SOP, applications for approvals must be filed through the Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal (‘FIFP’). In this regard, the following points are key: i. The GOI has identified the FIFP as the nodal online application point for all future

V Relaxation on Minimum Residency Requirement for Directors of a Company

V MCA Notification in Relation to Appointment of Independent Directors

V Relaxation in Relation to Private Placements to QIBs

V Commencement of Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020

V Government Issues Standard Operating Procedure for Online Filing of FDI Proposals

公司 & SCRA

由于新冠疫情疫情仍在持续，公司事务部（MCA）此前已发布 2020 年 3 月 24 日的通知，要

求每家公司每个财年至少有一名董事在印度的最短停留期为 182 天 （《公司法》2013 年第 149

条规定）。 根据日期为 2020 年 10 月 20 日发布的的通告，此类宽限政策也已延至 2020-21 财政

年度。 MCA 放宽对公司董事的最

低居留要求

公司事务部（MCA）于 2020 年 12 月 21 日发布通知，通告 2020 年《公司（修订）法》（'CAA'）

的 45 个相关条款，并将该修订法案的相关修改公布。该修订法案包括：（i）与公司清算和解散规

定有关的修订；（ii）减少某些罪行的刑罚和罚款 / 监禁；（iii）免除对某些罪行的监禁。

2020 年公司法（修正案）

公司事务部（MCA）在 2020 年 10 月 16 日对 2014 年公司（招股说明书和证券分配）规则（'PAS

规则 '）进行了修订。 该规则第 14（1）条规定，针对《公司法》第 42（2）条和第 42（3）条，

旧条款说除非私募发行，否则公司不得提出要约或邀请来认购证券；如发起认购证券，需由公司股

东批准，对每个要约或邀请均采用特别决议。 现在，MCA 已放宽了对合格机构买主（QIB）的要

求对于私募到 QIB 的配售，只要公司每年通过一次特别决议就可决定一年中对 QIB 的所有拨款。

有关私下向 QIB 配售的放宽

规定

公司事务部在 2020 年 12 月 18 日的通知中修订了 2014 年《公司（董事任命和任职资格）规则》，

其中特别要求独立董事须通过个人数据库测试，即独立董事需在其姓名录入数据库当日起的一年内

通过在线能力自我评估测试。现在，自录入姓名到通过测试的时间延长至两年，及格分数从 60％

降低至 50％。此外，自将其姓名列入数据库之日起，任何人在某些职位上服务至少 3 年（而不是

以前规定的 10 年）都可以免除能力验证。这些能力包括（i）（一种或多种）上市公司的董事或主

要管理人员（'KMP'）身份；（ii）缴足股本为 1 亿卢比（约 140 万美元）或以上的非上市公众公司；（iii）

在认可的证券交易所上市的法人团体或在洗钱问题金融行动特别工作组成员国中的一个国家，并且

该成员国的证券市场监管者是国际证券组织的成员；（iv）在印度境外注册成立的法人团体，其缴

足股本为 200 万美元或以上；（v）根据《议会法》或任何进行商业活动的州议会设立的法定公司。

有关委任独立董事的 MCA

通知

政府发布在线提交 FDI 提案的

标准操作程序

根据印度政府（'GOI'）修改现有外国直接投资（'FDI'）制度的倡议，工业和内部贸易促进部

（'DPIIT'）发布了标准操作流程（'SOPs'）日期为 2020 年 11 月 9 日，用于处理外国直接投资提案。

标准操作流程为根据 2020 年 10 月 15 日的《综合外国直接投资政策》（FDI 政策）和《外汇管理》

（非债务）需要事先批准的行业或活动的投资寻求在线申请的框架《金融工具规则》（2019 年）。

标准操作流程附件 1 列出了与申请一起提交的文件清单，包括投资者实体的重要实益拥有人的详细

信息。此外，申请外国直接投资提案担保书的形式要求披露投资者公司的“最终实益拥有权”（未

定义此条款）以及持有超过 10％股份的投资者公司股东的详细信息。这些细节也与政府最近对外

国直接投资制度的修正有关，该修正案要求政府事先批准与印度共享土地边界的国家的投资（详情

可点击此处）。

根据标准操作程序，必须通过外国投资便利化门户（'FIFP'）提交批准申请。 相关要点如下：

印度政府确定为外国直接投资政策下所有未来提案的在线上申请须从外国投资便利化i.

外汇管理

2020 年 12月

2 december 2020

1234I

Corporate & SCRA

V On account of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) had previously issued a Circular dated March 24, 2020 waiving the requirement of having at least one director of every company stay in India for at least 182 days per Financial Year (under Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’)) for the Financial Year 2019-20. Pur-suant to a Circular dated October 20, 2020, such relaxation has been extended to Financial Year 2020-21 as well.

V MCA has, by its Notification dated December 18, 2020, amended the Companies (Appoint-ment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 (‘Directors Appointment Rules’), which in-ter alia required that every individual named in the independent directors’ data bank pass an online proficiency self-assessment test within a period of one year from the date of inclusion of their name in the data bank. This timeline has now been increased to two years, and the passing score has been reduced from 60% to 50%. Further, any person who has served in certain capaci-ties for a total of at least three years (instead of the previously mandated 10 years) as on the date of inclusion of their name in the data bank is exempted from the proficiency test. These capac-ities include, as a director or key managerial person (‘KMP’) in one or more of: (i) listed public companies; (ii) unlisted public companies having a paid-up share capital of ₹ 10 crore (approx. US$ 1.4 million) or more; (iii) a body corporate listed on a recognised stock exchange or in a country which is a member State of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and the regulator of the securities market in such member State is a member of the International Organization of Securities Commissions; (iv) a body corporate incorporated outside India hav-ing a paid-up share capital of US$ 2 million or more; or; (v) statutory corporations set up under an Act of Parliament or any State Legislature carrying on commercial activities.

V The MCA has by way of a Notification dated October 16, 2020, amended the Companies (Pro-spectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 (‘PAS Rules’). Rule 14(1) of the PAS Rules pro-vides that for the purposes of Sections 42(2) and 42(3) of the Companies Act, a company will not make an offer or invitation to subscribe to securities through private placement unless the proposal has been previously approved by the shareholders of the company, by a special resolu-tion for each of the offers or invitations. The MCA has now relaxed this requirement, with imme-diate effect, in relation to qualified institutional buyers (‘QIBs’) and provided that in relation to private placements to QIBs, it will be sufficient if the company passes a special resolution once a year for all the allotments to QIBs during the year.

V The MCA, by its Notification dated December 21, 2020, has notified 45 sections of the Com-panies (Amendment) Act, 2020 (‘CAA’). Details of the provisions proposed to be amended by the CAA are reported here. The key provisions notified under the CAA, inter alia, include: (i) amendments related to provisions of winding up and dissolution of a company; (ii) reduction of penalties and fines/imprisonment for certain offences; and (iii) removal of imprisonment for certain offences.

Foreign Exchange

V In line with the initiative of the Government of India (‘GOI’) to amend the existing For-eign Direct Investment (‘FDI’) regime, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (‘DPIIT’) has issued Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOPs’) dated November 9, 2020 for processing FDI proposals. The SOPs set out a framework for online filing of applications seek-ing prior approval for investments in sectors or activities that require prior approval under the Consolidated FDI policy dated October 15, 2020 (FDI Policy) and Foreign Exchange Manage-ment (Non-Debt Instrument) Rules, 2019. Annexure 1 to the SOP provides the list of documents to be submitted with the application, including the details of the significant beneficial owners of the investor entity. Additionally, the proforma for application for security clearance for FDI Pro-posals requires disclosure of “ultimate beneficial ownership” (without defining this term) of the investor company and details of shareholders of the investor company holding more than 10% shares. These details are also relevant in the context of the Government’s recent amendment to the FDI regime, which requires prior approval of the Government for investments from coun-tries sharing land border with India (details of which can be accessed here).

As per the SOP, applications for approvals must be filed through the Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal (‘FIFP’). In this regard, the following points are key: i. The GOI has identified the FIFP as the nodal online application point for all future

V Relaxation on Minimum Residency Requirement for Directors of a Company

V MCA Notification in Relation to Appointment of Independent Directors

V Relaxation in Relation to Private Placements to QIBs

V Commencement of Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020

V Government Issues Standard Operating Procedure for Online Filing of FDI Proposals

december 2020 3

1234I

proposals under the FDI Policy; ii. The SOPs identify the specific timelines/ steps to be followed for processing appli-

cations that are filed online; iii. The SOPs also provide a list of competent authorities for processing foreign in-

vestment proposals. The SOPs clarify that in respect of sectors/activities which are presently under the automatic route but required earlier Government approval, the concerned administrative ministry/department (as identified by DPIIT) would be the competent authority for the grant of post facto approvals. However, the post facto approval process will not automatically condone any past breaches of regula-tions (applicable at the time of such investments), which will be dealt with by the regulators on a case to case basis;

iv. The SOPs have replaced the inter-ministerial group discussion process, with a sim-pler and expeditious procedure to decide proposals, which involves the compe-tent authority, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’), the Ministry of External Affairs (‘MEA’), and additionally the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) (only if such pro-posal for foreign investment requires security clearance under the FDI Policy);

v. The SOPs have prescribed timelines for internal consultations of the DPIIT, the com-petent authority, MEA and MHA. Broadly, a timeline of six to eight weeks has been en-visaged for internal discussions of the concerned Governmental bodies on any pro-posal. The SOPs specify that the competent authority must convey its decision on the proposal to the applicant, within four weeks of completing its internal consultations;

vi. In case of proposals involving total foreign equity inflow of more than ₹ 5,000 crore (approx. US$ 684 million), the competent authority is required to place the same for the consideration of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (‘CCEA’) within the aforesaid timelines. The CCEA’s decision has to be conveyed to the applicant within one week thereof;

vii. The SOPs have also rationalized and specified the documents that have to be sub-mitted along with the application, as well as the approval letter formats typically to be issued by the relevant competent authority. The standard approval letter format shared in the SOPs provides additional conditions which inter alia relate to valuation, taxability and compliance with the prevention of money laundering guidelines; and

viii. DPIIT may be approached for obtaining clarifications (on a need only basis regard-ing specific issues on the FDI policy).

V The RBI by its Circular dated November 13, 2020 has updated the Master Directions on ‘Re-porting of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999’ dated January 01, 2016. The Circular dis-continues 17 of the existing returns and reports prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Man-agement Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’) with immediate effect. The discontinued forms which have been listed in the annexure to the Circular include: i. Daily inflow/outflow of foreign funds on account of investment by Foreign Portfo-

lio Investors (‘FPIs’); ii. Monthly data relating to actual inflow /outflow of remittances on account of in-

vestments by Foreign Institutional Investors (‘FIIs’) in the Indian capital market; iii. Inflow/outflow of remittances on account of investments by Foreign Venture Cap-

ital Investor (‘FVCIs’) and market value of investments made by FVCIs; iv. Reporting of inflow/outflow details in respect of mutual fund by asset manage-

ment companies; v. Form DRR for issue/transfer of sponsored/unsponsored depository receipts: Please

note that it is only the hardcopy filing of form DRR that has been discontinued. The domestic custodian may continue to report the form DRR on FIRMS application in terms of Regulation 4 (5) of FEMA (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019; and

vi. Monitoring of disinvestments by overseas corporate bodies.

V The RBI through its Circular dated November 17, 2020 has delegated the powers to compound certain contraventions relating to the ‘transfer or issue of securities by a person resident outside India’ to the regional offices/ sub-offices of RBI. Further, the RBI has notified that classification of certain contraventions as ‘technical’ (i.e. dealt with by way of an administrative/ cautionary advice) will be discontinued and such contraventions will be regularized by imposing minimal compounding amount as per the compounding matrix contained in the Master Direction on Compounding of Contraventions dated January 01, 2016.

V In relation to the approval processes for export of goods and services, the RBI by a Circular dated December 4, 2020 has delegated the following powers to the Authorised Dealer Banks (‘AD Banks’):

V RBI Discontinues FEMA Filings to Ensure Minimal Compliance Costs

V RBI Issues Circular to Delegate Powers of Compounding Certain Contraventions to its Regional /Sub-Offices

V RBI Grants Powers to AD Banks with Respect to Approval Processes for Export of Goods and Services

门户开始；

标准操作流程确定处理在线提交的申请所应遵循的具体时间表 / 步骤；

标准操作流程还说明了参与处理外国投资建议书的相关政府机构。标准操作流程解释，

目前仍处于自动批准流程但仍然需要政府部门进行批准审核的申请或投资，相关的行

政部门（由工业和内部贸易促进部确定）进行最后审批。 在该类投资的审批过程中，

相关批准程序会追究该投资审批的任何违规行为，监管机构将视具体情况予以处理；

标准操作流程取代了部门间小组讨论过程，采用了更简单，更快捷的程序来决定提案，

其中涉及主管当局包括印度储备银行（'RBI'）、外交部（'MEA'）、 以及内政部（'MHA'）

（仅当此类外国投资提案需要根据 FDI 政策进行安全检查时）；

标准操作流程为工业和内部贸易促进部、主管当局、外交部和内政部的内部磋商提供

了时间日程。 总体上说，有关政府机构就任何提案进行内部讨论的时间确定为六到八

个星期。 标准操作流程规定，主管当局必须传达其关于在完成内部磋商后的四个星

期内向申请人提出建议；

如果涉及外国资本流入总额超过 500 亿卢比（约合 6.84 亿美元）的提议，则主管当

局必须将上述提议置于上述内阁中，以供内阁经济事务委员会（'CCEA'）审议。 时

间线。 内阁经济事务委员会的决定必须在决定后的一周内传达给申请人；

标准操作流程还合理化并指定了必须与申请一起提交的文件，以及通常由相关主管部

门签发的批准书格式。标准操作流程中共享的标准批准书格式提供了附加条件，这些

条件尤其涉及评估，征税和遵守预防洗钱准则。

可以与工业和内部贸易促进部联系以获得澄清（仅在有关 FDI 政策特定问题的必要基

础上）。

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii.

关于货物和服务出口的批准程序，印度储备银行在 2020 年 12 月 4 日的通函中将以下权力授予

了授权经销商银行（'AD 银行 '）：

外国证券投资人（'FPI'）进行投资引起的外国资金的每日流入 / 流出；

与外国机构投资者（'FII'）在印度资本市场进行投资而产生的汇款实际流入 / 流出有

关的月度数据；

由于外国风险资本投资者（'FVCI'）进行的投资以及由 FVCI 进行的投资的市场价值

而产生的汇款流入 / 流出；

资产管理公司报告共同基金的流入 / 流出明细；

发行 / 转让有担保 / 无担保存托凭证的国际税务通知（DRR）表：请注意，只有国际

税务通知 DRR 表格的实体拷贝文件被终止。 国内保管人可能会继续按照 2019 年

FEMA（非债务工具的付款方式和报告方式）条例第 4 条第（5）款，就 FIRMS 应

用报告 DRR 表格；

管控海外法人团体的投资。

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

印度储备银行（'RBI'）在 2020 年 11 月 13 日的通函中更新了 2016 年 1 月 1 日发布的“1999

年外汇管理法报告”总指导。该通函确定停止使用 17 项由《外汇管理法》规定的报告和申请表，

并且立即生效。 通函附件中列出的已停止项目包括：

印 度 储 备 银 行（RBI） 终 止

FEMA 备案以确保最低合规成

本

印度储备银行（RBI）授予经销

商银行有关货物和服务出口批准

程序的权力

印度储备银行通过其 2020 年 11 月 17 日的通函，将处理印度境外居民转让或发行证券有关的

某些违法行为的权力下放给印度储备银行的区域办事处 / 分支机构。 此外，印度储备银行已经通知，

某些违规行为将被分类为“商法问题”（即通过行政 / 警告建议进行处理），根据 2016 年 1 月 1

日发布的《关于调和违约行为的主要指导》，将按照法规中包含的复利矩阵施加最小复利量来规范

此类违规行为。

印度储备银行（RBI）发出通知，

授权将某些违法行为加重到其地

区 / 分支机构

2020 年 12月

4 december 2020

1234I

i. The ceiling of US$ 1 million has been removed and AD Banks have been allowed to regularize dispatch by the exporter directly to the consignee or his agent, resident in the country of final destination;

ii. Power to write-off without limits has been delegated to AD Banks even in cases where documents are dispatched directly to the exporter;

iii. AD Banks will now be permitted to allow Indian companies to set-off their ex-port receivables against import payables for goods and services with their overseas group or associate companies, either on net basis or gross basis through a central-ised treasury arrangement; and

iv. AD Banks will be able to consider refund requests without insisting on import of goods, which are perishable in nature, or had been auctioned or destroyed by the port, customs. At present, refund of export proceeds to the overseas importer is required to be made due to poor quality of the goods exported.

Capital Markets

V The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) had, on October 8, 2020, amended the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘Listing Regula-tions’) to mandate disclosures by listed entities relating to the initiation of forensic audits. Our Client Alert on this amendment can be accessed here. On November 27, 2020, SEBI has issued frequently asked questions (‘FAQs’) in relation to this requirement, and made the following key clarifications: i. Forensic audits refer to audits initiated with the objective of detecting any mis-

statements in financials, misappropriation/ siphoning or diversion of funds, but do not cover matters such as product quality control, manufacturing, recruitment practices, supply chain process and matters that would not require revision to fi-nancial statements of the listed entity; and

ii. In the disclosure of the final forensic audit report, any personally identifiable in-formation (including names of individuals and commercially sensitive informa-tion) may be expunged.

V Under Regulation 24(3) of the Listing Regulations, a listed company is required to place the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of the unlisted subsidiaries at the listed com-pany’s board meeting. Through its informal guidance dated October 22, 2020 to Redington (In-dia) Limited, SEBI has clarified that for the purpose of compliance with Regulation 24(3) of the Listing Regulations, if a listed entity has a foreign subsidiary which is not required to have a board of directors and conduct board meetings, the requirement will be met in accordance with Regulation 24(4) which mandates that the management of the unlisted subsidiary will periodi-cally bring to the notice of the board of directors of the listed entity, a statement of all significant transactions and arrangements entered into by the unlisted subsidiary.

V SEBI has, by way of a Notification dated October 8, 2020, made the following key amend-ments to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008: i. Matters to be included in the debenture trust deed with respect to debt securities

are now aligned with the matters to be included in a debenture trust deed under the Companies Act and the deed will be bifurcated into two parts–Part A contain-ing statutory/standard information pertaining to the debt issue and Part B con-taining details specific to the particular debt issue;

ii. The issuer of debt securities is required to give an undertaking in the information memorandum / disclosure document that the assets on which charge is created are free from any encumbrances or where the assets are already charged, the permis-sion or consent to create a second or pari passu charge on the assets of the issuer has been obtained from the earlier creditor;

iii. The issuer will be required to create a recovery expense fund (‘REF’), to enable debenture trustees (‘DTs’) to take prompt action for enforcement of security in case of defaults with respect to listed debt securities. SEBI has issued a Circular on October 22, 2020, requiring such issuers to deposit an amount equal to 0.01% of the issue size (capped at ₹ 25,00,000 (approx. US$ 34,000)) in cash or cash equiva-lents, including bank guarantees (subject to certain conditions) with the designat-ed stock exchange. In case of a default, the DT is required, after obtaining consent from the holders of the debt securities for enforcement of security, to call upon the designated stock exchange to release the REF to the DT. The Circular became effec-

V SEBI FAQs on Disclosure of Forensic Audits

V SEBI’s Informal Guidance Regarding Regulation 24 of the Listing Regulations

V Amendments to SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008

取消了 100 万美元的上限，并且允许出口银行规范出口商直接发往收货人或其代理（最

终目的地国）的发货；

即使单据直接发送给出口商，也可以无限制地将冲销权下放给授权经销商银行。

现在将允许经销商银行允许印度公司通过集中的国库安排以净额或毛额与国外集团或

联营公司的商品和服务的进口应付款抵销其出口应收款；

如果遭遇进口易腐烂或已被港口，海关拍卖或销毁的货物，授权经销商银行是否退款

可另行考虑。 而目前的旧有规定中，出口商品质量发生问题，银行需要将出口款项退

还给海外进口商。

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

与债券证券有关的债券信托契约中应包括的事项现已与《公司法》所规定的债券信托

契约中所包括的事项保持一致，并且该契约将分为两部分 – 甲部分包含与之相关的

法定 / 标准信息债务发行和 B 部分包含特定债务发行的详细信息；

债务证券发行人必须在信息备忘录 / 披露文件中作出承诺，在其上进行抵押的资产不

存在任何产权负担，或者已经抵押该资产的，则允许或同意进行第二次或同等抵押。

已从较早的债权人那里获得了发行人资产的抵押；

发行人将被要求设立追回费用基金（'REF'），以使债券受托人（'DT'）能够迅速采

取行动，以防上市债务证券违约。印度证券交易委员会（SEBI）已于 2020 年 10 月

22 日发布通知，要求该发行人以现金或现金等价物（包括银行担保）存入相当于发行

规模 0.01％的金额（上限为 25,00,000（约 34,000 美元））。 （视特定条件而定）

在指定证券交易所进行交易。如果发生违约，则在获得债务证券持有人的同意以执行

证券后，债券受托人（DT）必须要求指定的证券交易所将费用基金开放给债券受托人

（DT）。该通知自 2021 年 1 月 1 日起生效，适用于 2021 年 1 月 1 日或之后提出

i.

ii.

iii.

资本市场

法务审计是指旨在发现财务上的任何错误陈述，盗用 / 窃取或挪用资金而发起的审计，

但不涵盖诸如产品质量控制，制造，招聘实践，供应链流程以及不需要修改的事项上

市实体的财务报表；

在最终的法证审计报告的披露中，任何个人身份信息（包括个人姓名和商业敏感信息）

都可能被删除。

i.

ii.

印度证券交易委员会（'SEBI'）已于 2020 年 10 月 8 日修订了 2015 年 SEBI（《上市义务和

信息公布要求》）条例（《上市规则》），以要求上市实体公布与发起证券交易有关的信息。法医

审计。可以在此处访问有关此修订的客户警报。 SEBI 于 2020 年 11 月 27 日发布了与此要求有关

的常见问题（'FAQ'），并作了以下主要澄清 :

SEBI 关于司法审计公开的

常见问题

根据《上市规则》第 24 条第（3）款，上市公司必须将未上市子公司的董事会会议情况进行记

录并提供给董事会。印度证券交易委员会（SEBI SEBI 在 2020 年 10 月 22 日给 Redington（India）

Limited 的非正式指导中明确指出，为遵守《上市规则》第 24（3）条的规定，如果上市实体的外

国子公司不在董事会及相关会议上进行记录，则需要按照要求将根据第 24（4）条规定，未上市

子公司的管理层应定期将所有实体的声明，通知上市实体董事会其非上市子公司订立的重大交易

和安排。

SEBI 关于上市规则第 24 条

的非正式指南

印度证券交易委员会（SEBI 已通过 2020 年 10 月 8 日的通知对 2008 年印度证券交易委员会

（SEBI（发行和发行债务证券）条例进行了以下主要修订：

2008 年 SEBI（债务证券的

发行和上市）条例的修正案

2020 年 12月

4 december 2020

1234I

i. The ceiling of US$ 1 million has been removed and AD Banks have been allowed to regularize dispatch by the exporter directly to the consignee or his agent, resident in the country of final destination;

ii. Power to write-off without limits has been delegated to AD Banks even in cases where documents are dispatched directly to the exporter;

iii. AD Banks will now be permitted to allow Indian companies to set-off their ex-port receivables against import payables for goods and services with their overseas group or associate companies, either on net basis or gross basis through a central-ised treasury arrangement; and

iv. AD Banks will be able to consider refund requests without insisting on import of goods, which are perishable in nature, or had been auctioned or destroyed by the port, customs. At present, refund of export proceeds to the overseas importer is required to be made due to poor quality of the goods exported.

Capital Markets

V The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) had, on October 8, 2020, amended the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘Listing Regula-tions’) to mandate disclosures by listed entities relating to the initiation of forensic audits. Our Client Alert on this amendment can be accessed here. On November 27, 2020, SEBI has issued frequently asked questions (‘FAQs’) in relation to this requirement, and made the following key clarifications: i. Forensic audits refer to audits initiated with the objective of detecting any mis-

statements in financials, misappropriation/ siphoning or diversion of funds, but do not cover matters such as product quality control, manufacturing, recruitment practices, supply chain process and matters that would not require revision to fi-nancial statements of the listed entity; and

ii. In the disclosure of the final forensic audit report, any personally identifiable in-formation (including names of individuals and commercially sensitive informa-tion) may be expunged.

V Under Regulation 24(3) of the Listing Regulations, a listed company is required to place the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of the unlisted subsidiaries at the listed com-pany’s board meeting. Through its informal guidance dated October 22, 2020 to Redington (In-dia) Limited, SEBI has clarified that for the purpose of compliance with Regulation 24(3) of the Listing Regulations, if a listed entity has a foreign subsidiary which is not required to have a board of directors and conduct board meetings, the requirement will be met in accordance with Regulation 24(4) which mandates that the management of the unlisted subsidiary will periodi-cally bring to the notice of the board of directors of the listed entity, a statement of all significant transactions and arrangements entered into by the unlisted subsidiary.

V SEBI has, by way of a Notification dated October 8, 2020, made the following key amend-ments to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008: i. Matters to be included in the debenture trust deed with respect to debt securities

are now aligned with the matters to be included in a debenture trust deed under the Companies Act and the deed will be bifurcated into two parts–Part A contain-ing statutory/standard information pertaining to the debt issue and Part B con-taining details specific to the particular debt issue;

ii. The issuer of debt securities is required to give an undertaking in the information memorandum / disclosure document that the assets on which charge is created are free from any encumbrances or where the assets are already charged, the permis-sion or consent to create a second or pari passu charge on the assets of the issuer has been obtained from the earlier creditor;

iii. The issuer will be required to create a recovery expense fund (‘REF’), to enable debenture trustees (‘DTs’) to take prompt action for enforcement of security in case of defaults with respect to listed debt securities. SEBI has issued a Circular on October 22, 2020, requiring such issuers to deposit an amount equal to 0.01% of the issue size (capped at ₹ 25,00,000 (approx. US$ 34,000)) in cash or cash equiva-lents, including bank guarantees (subject to certain conditions) with the designat-ed stock exchange. In case of a default, the DT is required, after obtaining consent from the holders of the debt securities for enforcement of security, to call upon the designated stock exchange to release the REF to the DT. The Circular became effec-

V SEBI FAQs on Disclosure of Forensic Audits

V SEBI’s Informal Guidance Regarding Regulation 24 of the Listing Regulations

V Amendments to SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008

december 2020 5

1234I

tive from January 1, 2021 and applies to applications for listing of debt securities made on or after January 1, 2021. Existing issuers with listed debt securities will be provided an additional time period of 90 days to create a REF; and

iv. Additional disclosures in the disclosure documents / information memorandum have been prescribed.

SEBI has issued Guidelines dated November 3, 2020 to give effect to the aforesaid amend-ments and certain amendments dated October 8, 2020 to the SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regu-lations, 1993, which were introduced to secure the interest of investors in listed debt securities and to enable DTs to perform their duties effectively (‘Guidelines’). These Guidelines inter alia require the issuer of listed debt securities to provide specified documents (such as details and underlying documentation with respect to the assets on which a charge is proposed to be cre-ated) to the DT at the time of execution of the debenture trustee agreement to enable the DT to exercise due diligence with respect to the creation of security.

V SEBI has, by way of Circular dated November 12, 2020 provided that in order to enable a DT to discharge its obligations in respect of listed debt securities, the DT must undertake independ-ent periodical assessment of the compliance with covenants or terms of the issue of listed debt securities including for ‘security created’. In this regard, under the Circular, SEBI has provided monitoring and disclosure requirements by DTs which have come into force with effect from the quarter ended December 31, 2020 for listed debt securities, the key features of which are set out below: i. Monitoring of ‘security created’ / ‘assets on which charge is created’: DTs will

carry out due diligence for creation of security at the time of issuance of debt secu-rities and on a continuous basis and carry out periodical monitoring as prescribed under the Circular. The terms of periodical monitoring are required to be included in the debenture trust deed, and SEBI has prescribed a timeline within which de-benture trust deeds for existing listed debt securities are to be amended / supple-mented;

ii. Disclosure on website by DT: The DT will make the disclosures as specified under the Circular, on a continuous, quarterly, half-yearly and yearly basis, on its web-site; and

iii. Reporting of regulatory compliance: Earlier formats for periodical reporting by DTs have been rescinded and the DTs are now required to furnish revised periodi-cal reports to SEBI in the formats as prescribed under the Circular.

V SEBI has amended the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 on October 19, 2020, to clarify that any act of diversion, misutilisation or siphoning off of assets/ earnings of a listed company or concealment of such act or any device, scheme or artifice to manipulate the books of accounts/ financial statements of such companies, that would directly or indirectly manipulate the price of securities of such companies, will be and will always be deemed to have been considered as manipulative, fraudu-lent and an unfair trade practice in the securities market.

V SEBI on October 8, 2020 has revised the FAQs to the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. SEBI clarified that a listed company should maintain structured digital data-base (‘SDD’) internally, which will contain information including details of unpublished price sensitive information (‘UPSI’), details of persons with whom such UPSI is shared (along with their permanent account number / other unique identifier) and details of persons who have shared the information. Similarly, another SDD should be maintained internally by fiduciaries and intermediaries. The illustration to this FAQ was also amended to clarify that the individuals from listed companies (sharing UPSI) and individuals from fiduciaries or intermediaries (re-ceiving UPSI from listed companies) should be identified in the SDDs.

V SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust sought clarification on whether the existing SEBI norms limit ‘qualified buyer’ under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) only to those AIFs which are body corporates for the purposes of subscribing to security receipts issued by an asset recon-struction company. In response, SEBI on October 26, 2020 stated that as per the existing regula-tory framework, Categories II and III AIF established as a ‘trust’ may qualify as ‘qualified buyer’ under the SARFAESI Act and subscribe to security receipts issued by an asset reconstruction company, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Notification dated May 16, 2018 issued by the RBI, the AIF Regulations, SARFAESI Act and other applicable laws.

V International Financial Services Centres Authority on December 9, 2020 has issued a Circu-lar amending the norms governing the set-up of AIFs in International Financial Services Cen-tres (‘IFSC’) under SEBI (IFSC) Guidelines, 2015 (‘IFSC Guidelines’) and the operating guidelines

V Monitoring and Disclosures by Debenture Trustees

V Amendment to SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003

V SEBI revises FAQs on Insider Trading Regulations

V SEBI’s Informal Guidance regarding Certain Provisions of the AIF Regulations

V AIFs in International Financial Services Centres

印度证券交易委员会（SEBI 已发布日期为 2020 年 11 月 3 日的准则，以实施 1993 年 SEBI

（债券受托人）条例的上述修正案和 2020 年 10 月 8 日的某些修正案，以确保投资者在上市债务

证券中的权益并引入 使 DT 能够有效地履行职责（“指南”）。 这些准则尤其要求上市债务证券

的发行人在执行债权受托人协议时向 DT 提供指定文件（例如与拟在其上创建抵押的资产有关的详

细信息和基础文件） 使债券受托人（DT）能够对创建安全性进行尽职调查。

的债务证券上市申请。将为现有的发行上市债务证券的发行人提供 90 天的额外时间

来创建 REF；

已规定了公开文件 / 信息备忘录中的其他公开信息。iv.

监管“已创建的担保” /“产生担保的资产”：债券受托人（DT）会在发行债务证券

时持续进行尽职调查，以建立担保，并按照通函的规定进行定期监视。 定期监控的条

款必须包含在债券信托契约中，并且 SEBI 规定了一个时间表，在此时间表中将对现

有上市债务证券的债券信托契约进行修改 / 补充；

债券受托人（DT）会在网站上进行披露：债券受托人（DT）将按照通函的规定，在

其网站上连续，每季度，每半年和每年进行一次披露；

遵守法规的报告：债券受托人（DT）的较早的定期报告格式已被废除，并且现在需要

以通函规定的格式向证券交易委员会提供修订的定期报告。

i.

ii.

iii.

印度证券交易委员会已通过 2020 年 11 月 12 日的通函规定，为了使债券受托人（DT）能够

履行其与上市债务证券有关的义务，DT 必须 契约的遵守情况或上市发行条款进行独立的定期评估。

债务证券，包括“创造的证券”。 在这方面根据通函，SEBI 已提供了 DT 的监控和披露要求，这

些要求自截至 2020 年 12 月 31 日的第一季度上市债务证券，其主要特征如下：

债权受托人的监督和披露

2003 年 SEBI（禁止与证券市

场有关的欺诈和不公平交易行

为）条例的修正案

证券交易委员会已于 2020 年 10 月 19 日修订了 2003 年证券交易委员会（禁止与证券市场有

关的欺诈和不公平交易惯例）条例，以阐明任何挪用，滥用或掠夺上市公司资产 / 收益或隐瞒上市

公司收益的行为 直接或间接操纵此类公司的证券价格的，用以操纵此类公司的账簿 / 财务报表的

行为或任何设备，计划或技巧将被并始终被视为具有操纵性， 证券市场中的欺诈和不公平贸易行为。

SEBI 修订了有关内幕交易法规

的常见问题解答

SEBI 于 2020 年 10 月 8 日修订了 2015 年 SEBI（禁止内幕交易）法规的常见问题解答。

SEBI 明确指出，上市公司应在内部维护结构化数字数据库（'SDD'），该数据库将包含未公开价

格的详细信息 敏感信息（'UPSI'），与之共享此 UPSI 的人员的详细信息（以及其永久帐号 / 其

他唯一标识符）以及共享该信息的人员的详细信息。 同样，受托人和中介机构应在内部维护另一

个 SDD。 还对本常见问题解答的说明进行了修改，以阐明在 SDD 中应标识出来自上市公司的个

人（共享 UPSI）和来自受托人或中介机构的个人（从上市公司接收 UPSI）。

SEBI 关于 AIF 法规某些规定

的非正式指南

证券交易委员会多元资产投资信托基金要求澄清现有的 SEBI 规范是否仅将 2002 年金融资

产的证券化和重组以及“担保权益执行法”（'SARFAESI 法 '）中的“合格买方”限制为“

AIF”。 认购资产重建公司发行的安全收据的目的。 作为回应，证券交易委员会于 2020 年 10 月

26 日表示，根据现有的监管框架，根据 SARFAESI 法，被确立为“信托”的 II 类和 III 类 AIF 可

能有资格成为“合格买方”，并认购资产重建发行的担保收据 公司，受印度储备银行（RBI）于

2018 年 5 月 16 日发出的通知，AIF 规定，SARFAESI 法案和其他适用法律中提及的条件的约束。

国际金融服务中心的 AIF 国际金融服务中心管理局（International Financial Services Centers Authority）于 2020 年

12 月 9 日发布了通函，修订了 2015 年 SEBI（'IFSC'）准则（'IFSC 准则 '）和国际金融服务

2020 年 12月

6 december 2020

1234I

dated November 26, 2018. The amendment has been introduced to align the current framework governing AIFs in IFSCs with the international framework. The key changes introduced by the Circular deal with: (i) engagement by an AIF in leveraging activities and the conditions thereof; and (ii) co-investment in a portfolio company through a segregated portfolio by issuing a sepa-rate class of units and the conditions thereof.

V SEBI had, by its Circular dated October 10, 2019, prescribed the framework for issue of de-pository receipts, which inter alia barred non-resident Indians (‘NRIs’) from holding depository receipts issued by Indian companies. This Circular was discussed in our previous write-up avail-able here. By its Circular dated December 18, 2020, SEBI has clarified that the above restriction will not apply to issue of depository receipts to NRIs pursuant to: (i) share based employee ben-efit schemes implemented in terms of the SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014; and (ii) a bonus or rights issue. Further, SEBI has clarified that the listed company will be responsible for identifying NRIs who are issued depository receipts under employee benefit schemes and for providing information of such NRI holders to the designated depository for the purpose of monitoring of limits.

V The regulations prescribed by SEBI require stock exchanges and syndicate members to dis-close bidding data on the stock exchange website and bidding terminals of syndicate members respectively for public information. The data is required to be updated by stock exchanges on an hourly basis. However, public communication, including advertisement material, relating to issue of specified securities or units are required to contain only such information as contained in the draft offer document/offer document. With regard to offer for sale (‘OFS’) transactions on the stock exchange platform, the seller is not required to disclose any information regarding the listed company. However, by virtue of being a listed company, certain information regard-ing the company is available on the websites of the stock exchanges and therefore available to the public. Through its informal guidance dated October 28, 2020 to Citigroup Global Markets India Private Limited, SEBI stated that the book running lead managers (‘BRLMs’) will not share the bidding data (standalone and aggregate) with investors during the bidding period. SEBI has also stated that the BRLMs will not share information (other than the bidding data) available in the public domain, including information on the websites of the stock exchanges and the issuers in an initial public offer, rights issue, further public offer, qualified institutions placement and OFS of specified securities and units as and when requested by investors. SEBI has clarified that BRLM may direct investors to the channels wherefrom publicly available information can be accessed.

V The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (‘SCRR’) currently prescribes the following in relation to an initial public offering (‘IPO’):Post IPo Market CaPItalIsatIon (CalCulated at the IPo PrICe)

MInIMuM IPo sIze tIMelIne to Meet MInIMuM PublIC shareholdIng requIreMent of 25%

Up to ₹ 1,600 crore 25% of the post-IPo equity share capital

By way of the IPo

Greater than ₹ 1,600 crore but up to ₹ 4,000 crore

₹ 400 crore Three years from the date of listing

Greater than ₹ 4,000 crore 10% of the post-IPo equity share capital

Three years from the date of listing

On November 20, 2020, SEBI issued a consultation paper from the perspective of issuers with a post-IPO market capitalisation exceeding ₹ 10,000 crore for reviewing (i) the minimum IPO size and (ii) the timeline for meeting the minimum public shareholding requirement of 25%. The consultation paper proposed the following revisions to the SCRR and invited com-ments from the public:

Post IPo Market CaPItalIsatIon (CalCulated at the IPo PrICe)

MInIMuM IPo sIze tIMelIne to Meet MInIMuM PublIC shareholdIng requIreMent

Greater than ₹ 10,000 crore and up to ₹ 1,00,000 crore ₹ 1,000 crore

+

5% of the post-IPo market capitalisation in excess of ₹ 10,000 crore

• 10% to be achieved within 18 months from the date of listing• 25% to be achieved within three years from the date of listing

Greater than ₹ 1,00,000 crore

• 10% to be achieved within two years from the date of listing• 25% to be achieved within five years from the date of listing

V SEBI issued a consultation paper on December 2, 2020 regarding issue of non-convertible de-bentures (‘NCDs’) along with warrants as a staple product and as a segregated product, offered through qualified institutions placement (‘QIP’) under SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Re-

V Clarifications on Issue of Depository Receipts to NRIs

V SEBI’s Informal Guidance regarding Disclosure of Bidding Data of Securities

V Consultation Paper on Review of Requirement of Minimum Public Offer for Large Issuers

V Consultation Paper on Review of NCDs along with Warrants under QIP

中心（IFSC）准则中有关在国际金融服务中心（IFSC）设立 AIF 的规范，并在操作准则的日期

为 2018 年 11 月 26 日引入此修订。

SEBI 在其 2019 年 10 月 10 日的通函中规定了发行存托凭证的框架，其中特别禁止非居民印

度人（'NRI'）持有印度公司发行的存托凭证。 本通函已在我们之前的文章中进行了讨论。 SEBI

在其 2020 年 12 月 18 日的通函中阐明，上述限制将不适用于根据以下条件向 NRI 发行存托凭

证：（i）根据 2014 年 SEBI（基于股份的员工福利）法规实施的基于股份的员工福利计划； （ii）

红利或供股。 此外，SEBI 澄清说，上市公司将负责识别根据雇员福利计划发行了存托凭证的

NRI，并负责将这些 NRI 持有人的信息提供给指定的存管机构，以监控限额。

向 NRI 发出存托凭证的澄清

SEBI 制定的规定要求证券交易所和集团成员在各自的证券交易所网站和集团成员的投标终端

上公开招标数据，以供公众参考。该数据需要由证券交易所每小时更新一次。但是，与发行特定

证券或单位有关的公共通讯，包括广告材料，仅应包含要约文件 / 要约文件草稿中包含的信息。关

于在证券交易平台上的要约（'OFS'）交易，卖方无需披露有关上市公司的任何信息。但是，由于

是上市公司，有关该公司的某些信息可在证券交易所的网站上获得，因此也可以向公众公开。通

过其 2020 年 10 月 28 日对花旗集团全球市场的非正式指导，印度私人有限公司（SEBI）表示，

在竞标期间，由书籍负责人管理（'BRLM'）不会与投资者共享竞标数据（独立和汇总）。 SEBI

还表示，BRLM 不会共享公共领域中可用的信息（除竞标数据外），包括在首次公开募股，供股，

进一步公开发售，合格发行的证券交易所和发行人网站上的信息。根据投资者的要求，指定证券

和单位的机构配置和OFS。 SEBI已阐明，BRLM可能会将投资者引导至可以访问公开信息的渠道。

SEBI 关于证券竞标数据披

露的非正式指南

有关根据《检验计划》对大

额可转让存单及认股权证进

行审查的咨询文件

1957 年《证券合同（管理）规则》（'SCRR'）目前就首次公开募股（'IPO'）规定了以下内容：检讨大型发行人最低公开发

售要求的咨询文件IPO 后市值

（按 IPO 价格计算）最低 IPO 规模

达到 25％的最低公开持股要求的

时间表

高达 1,600 千万卢比 首次公开募股后股本的 25％ 通过 IPO

大于 1,600 千万卢比，最高至 4,000

亿卢比40 亿卢比 自上市之日起三年

超过 400 亿卢比 首次公开募股后股本的 10％ 自上市之日起三年

SEBI 于 2020 年 11 月 20 日发布了一份咨询文件，从发行后市值超过 100 亿卢比的发行人

的角度审阅（i）最低 IPO 规模和（ii）满足上市公司最低公众持股要求的时间表 25％。 该咨询文

件对 SCRR 提出了以下修订，并请公众发表意见：

IPO 后市值（按 IPO 价格计算） 最低 IPO 规模 达到最低公众持股要求的时间表

超 过 10,000 亿 卢 比， 最 高 至

1,000 万卢比 1,000 亿 卢 比 + 超 过 10,000 亿 卢 比 的

IPO 后市值的 5％

● 自上市之日起 18 个月内达到 10％

● 自上市之日起三年内达到 25％

超过 10,000 万卢比● 从上市之日起两年内达到 10％

● 自上市之日起五年内实现 25％

SEBI 于 2020 年 12 月 2 日发布了一份咨询文件，内容涉及通过 SEBI 的合格机构配售（'QIP'）

发行的不可转换债券（'NCD'）以及权证，作为认股权证的主要产品和分离产品。 《 2018 年

2020 年 12月

6 december 2020

1234I

dated November 26, 2018. The amendment has been introduced to align the current framework governing AIFs in IFSCs with the international framework. The key changes introduced by the Circular deal with: (i) engagement by an AIF in leveraging activities and the conditions thereof; and (ii) co-investment in a portfolio company through a segregated portfolio by issuing a sepa-rate class of units and the conditions thereof.

V SEBI had, by its Circular dated October 10, 2019, prescribed the framework for issue of de-pository receipts, which inter alia barred non-resident Indians (‘NRIs’) from holding depository receipts issued by Indian companies. This Circular was discussed in our previous write-up avail-able here. By its Circular dated December 18, 2020, SEBI has clarified that the above restriction will not apply to issue of depository receipts to NRIs pursuant to: (i) share based employee ben-efit schemes implemented in terms of the SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014; and (ii) a bonus or rights issue. Further, SEBI has clarified that the listed company will be responsible for identifying NRIs who are issued depository receipts under employee benefit schemes and for providing information of such NRI holders to the designated depository for the purpose of monitoring of limits.

V The regulations prescribed by SEBI require stock exchanges and syndicate members to dis-close bidding data on the stock exchange website and bidding terminals of syndicate members respectively for public information. The data is required to be updated by stock exchanges on an hourly basis. However, public communication, including advertisement material, relating to issue of specified securities or units are required to contain only such information as contained in the draft offer document/offer document. With regard to offer for sale (‘OFS’) transactions on the stock exchange platform, the seller is not required to disclose any information regarding the listed company. However, by virtue of being a listed company, certain information regard-ing the company is available on the websites of the stock exchanges and therefore available to the public. Through its informal guidance dated October 28, 2020 to Citigroup Global Markets India Private Limited, SEBI stated that the book running lead managers (‘BRLMs’) will not share the bidding data (standalone and aggregate) with investors during the bidding period. SEBI has also stated that the BRLMs will not share information (other than the bidding data) available in the public domain, including information on the websites of the stock exchanges and the issuers in an initial public offer, rights issue, further public offer, qualified institutions placement and OFS of specified securities and units as and when requested by investors. SEBI has clarified that BRLM may direct investors to the channels wherefrom publicly available information can be accessed.

V The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (‘SCRR’) currently prescribes the following in relation to an initial public offering (‘IPO’):Post IPo Market CaPItalIsatIon (CalCulated at the IPo PrICe)

MInIMuM IPo sIze tIMelIne to Meet MInIMuM PublIC shareholdIng requIreMent of 25%

Up to ₹ 1,600 crore 25% of the post-IPo equity share capital

By way of the IPo

Greater than ₹ 1,600 crore but up to ₹ 4,000 crore

₹ 400 crore Three years from the date of listing

Greater than ₹ 4,000 crore 10% of the post-IPo equity share capital

Three years from the date of listing

On November 20, 2020, SEBI issued a consultation paper from the perspective of issuers with a post-IPO market capitalisation exceeding ₹ 10,000 crore for reviewing (i) the minimum IPO size and (ii) the timeline for meeting the minimum public shareholding requirement of 25%. The consultation paper proposed the following revisions to the SCRR and invited com-ments from the public:

Post IPo Market CaPItalIsatIon (CalCulated at the IPo PrICe)

MInIMuM IPo sIze tIMelIne to Meet MInIMuM PublIC shareholdIng requIreMent

Greater than ₹ 10,000 crore and up to ₹ 1,00,000 crore ₹ 1,000 crore

+

5% of the post-IPo market capitalisation in excess of ₹ 10,000 crore

• 10% to be achieved within 18 months from the date of listing• 25% to be achieved within three years from the date of listing

Greater than ₹ 1,00,000 crore

• 10% to be achieved within two years from the date of listing• 25% to be achieved within five years from the date of listing

V SEBI issued a consultation paper on December 2, 2020 regarding issue of non-convertible de-bentures (‘NCDs’) along with warrants as a staple product and as a segregated product, offered through qualified institutions placement (‘QIP’) under SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Re-

V Clarifications on Issue of Depository Receipts to NRIs

V SEBI’s Informal Guidance regarding Disclosure of Bidding Data of Securities

V Consultation Paper on Review of Requirement of Minimum Public Offer for Large Issuers

V Consultation Paper on Review of NCDs along with Warrants under QIP

december 2020 7

1234I

quirements) Regulations, 2018 (‘ICDR Regulations’). Through the consultation paper, SEBI has proposed to discontinue segregated offering of NCDs along with warrants to QIBs through the QIP route. Further, stapled offering of NCDs along with warrants to QIBs may be retained under the ICDR Regulations, with the ability to segregate the instruments after the issuance/allotment. SEBI has also proposed to allow issuance of ‘naked warrants’ to QIBs through QIP mechanism with guidelines on upfront payment, pricing and tenure of warrants.

Banking and Finance

V The RBI had, on August 6, 2020 (‘Original Circular’), issued revised instructions to sched-uled commercial banks and payment banks for opening of current bank accounts with a view to improve credit discipline. For our summary of the Original Circular, please click here. The RBI, on November 2, 2020, extended the timeline for compliance with the Original Circular with reference to existing current, cash credit (‘CC’) and overdraft (‘OD’) accounts from November 05, 2020 to December 15, 2020. The RBI, on December 14, 2020, also issued FAQs on operational issues regarding the maintenance of existing current accounts by the banks.

V Reversing the restriction placed under the Original Circular, the RBI has now permitted opening of specific accounts required under statute or the instructions of regulatory authorities, without requiring compliance with the Original Circular, on the condition that such accounts must be used for permitted and specified transactions only. An indicative list of such accounts has been provided which includes RERA accounts (for maintaining 70% of advance payments collected from the home buyers), accounts permitted under FEMA, and accounts for the pur-poses of initial public offerings, new fund offers, follow on public offers, dividend payments, allotment of debentures or issuance of commercial papers.

Additionally, the FAQs also clarify the following: i. Banks must monitor all current and CC/OD accounts on a half-yearly basis; ii. Only fund and non-fund based credit facilities sanctioned by scheduled commer-

cial banks and payments banks will be included for the purpose of computing ag-gregate exposure of the banking system to a borrower;

iii. Banks may open a current account in relation to a specific project, if the borrow-er has not availed any CC/OD facilities for that project and the cash flows in the current account are from that specific project only. For borrowers with multiple projects / multiple business units, banks may open multiple escrow accounts for the monitoring of project-wise / unit-wise cash flows, subject to the above;

iv. Where term loans are for purposes other than supply of goods or services and the payment destination is unidentifiable, banks may route such term loans through CC/OD or current accounts of the borrower opened in accordance with the Origi-nal Circular. Where the payment destination is identifiable, banks may make dis-bursement of the term loan directly without routing it through CC/OD accounts;

v. Where there are multiple lending banks, borrowers are free to choose their escrow managing banks but all such lending banks must be a part of the escrow agree-ment, the terms and conditions of which may be decided mutually by the lending banks and the borrower; and

vi. Banks may only debit collection accounts for transferring funds into the escrow account of borrower.

V The RBI, on October 22, 2020 (‘HFC Circular’), introduced changes to the regulatory frame-work for Housing Finance Companies (‘HFCs’). The key changes are set out below: i. HFC Definition – An HFC is now a company incorporated under the Companies

Act which fulfils the following conditions: (a) It is a non-banking financial company (‘NBFC’) whose financial assets, in the

business of providing finance for housing, constitute at least 60% of its total assets (netted off by intangible assets); and

(b) Out of the total assets of the company (netted off by intangible assets), not less than 50% should be by way of housing finance, i.e. financing, for the purchase, construction, renovation, repairs of residential dwelling units for individuals;

ii. Minimum Net Owned (‘NOF’) Requirement – The NOF for a company to com-mence and/or carry on the business of housing finance as its principal business is now ₹ 200,000,000 (approx. US$ 2.74 million). Existing HFCs have been given a staggered timeline of upto March 31, 2022 to comply with this requirement;

iii. NBFC-ICCs – HFCs which seek to be treated as NBFC – Investment and Credit Com-

V Opening of Current Accounts by Banks – Need for Discipline

V Review of Regulatory Framework for Housing Finance Companies

资本和披露要求）条例》（《 ICDR 条例》）。 通过咨询文件，SEBI 建议停止通过 QIP 路线

向 QIB 单独发行 NCD 和认股权证。 此外，根据 ICDR 规定，可以保留 NCD 的主要产品以及对

QIB 的认股权证，并具有在发行 / 分配后分离票据的能力。SEBI 还提议允许通过 QIP 机制向 QIB

发行“裸认股权证”，其中包括预付款，定价和认股权证的指导原则。

银行与金融

审查住房金融公司的监管框架

印度储备银行已于 2020 年 8 月 6 日（' 原始通知 '）向预定的商业银行和支付银行发布了经修

订的指示，以开设经常账户，以改善信贷纪律。 有关我们的原始通函的摘要，请单击此处。 印度

储备银行于 2020 年 11 月 2 日将参照现有通函的时间表从 2020 年 11 月 5 日至 2020 年 12 月

15 日，参考了现有的往来，现金信贷（'CC'）和透支（'OD'）账户。 2020 年 12 月 14 日，印

度储备银行还发布了有关银行维护现有经常账户的运营问题的常见问题解答。

银行开设经常账户 – 需要纪律

取消了原始通函的限制，印度储备银行现在允许开立法规或监管机构指示要求的特定账户，而

无需遵守原始通函，但前提是必须使用此类账户进行许可和指定的交易 只要。 提供了此类帐户的

指示性清单，其中包括 RERA 帐户（用于维持从购房者处收取的预付款的 70％），FEMA 允许

的帐户，以及用于首次公开募股，新基金发行以及公众关注的帐户 要约，股息支付，债权证的分

配或商业票据的发行。

此外，常见问题解答还阐明了以下内容：

银行必须每半年对所有经常账户和 CC / OD 账户进行监控；

为了计算银行系统对借款人的总风险敞口，仅包括经计划的商业银行和支付银行批准

的基于基金和基于非基金的信贷额度；

如果借款人尚未为该项目使用任何 CC / OD 设施，并且该帐户中的现金流量仅来自

该特定项目，则银行可以开设与该项目有关的活期帐户。 对于具有多个项目 / 多个业

务部门的借款人，银行可以开设多个托管账户，以监控项目 / 单位现金流量，但要满

足上述条件；

如果定期贷款用于提供商品或服务以外的目的，并且付款目的地无法确定，则银行可以

通过 CC / OD 或根据原始通函开立的借款人的往来账户来安排定期贷款。 在可以确定

付款目的地的地方，银行可以直接支付定期贷款，而无需通过 CC / OD 帐户进行安排；

有多家借贷银行的，借款人可以自由选择代管银行，但所有此类借贷银行必须是代管

协议的一部分，其条款和条件可以由借贷银行与借款人共同决定；

银行只能将用于将资金转入借款人的托管帐户的收款帐户借方。

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

HFC 的定义 – HFC 现在是根据《公司法》注册成立的公司，并且满足以下条件：

（a）它是一家非银行金融公司（'NBFC'），其金融资产在提供住房融资业务中至少

占其总资产的 60％（以无形资产净额清算）；

（b）在公司总资产中（以无形资产扣除），不少于 50％应通过住房融资，即为个人

住宅的购置，建造，翻新，修理提供融资 ;

拥有净资产的最低要求 – 一家公司以其主要业务开始和 / 或开展房屋融资业务的

NOF 现在为 200,000,000 卢比（约合 274 万美元）。现有的氢氟碳化合物的时间安

i.

ii.

RBI 于 2020 年 10 月 22 日发布（'HFC 通告 '），对住房金融公司（'HFC'）的监管框架进

行了更改。关键更改如下：

2020 年 12月

8 december 2020

1234I

panies (‘NBFC-ICCs’), must approach the RBI for conversion of their certificate of registration from HFC to NBFC-ICC, in a manner as set out in the HFC Circular;

iv. Applicability of NBFC Guidelines – Certain guidelines applicable to NBFCs have been extended to HFCs. This list consists of the RBI Master Direction – Monitor-ing of Frauds in NBFCs (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 and RBI Master Direction – Information Technology Framework for the NBFC sector dated June 8, 2017. In addition, instructions issued by the RBI with respect to the following have been made applicable to all HFCs: (a) definition of public deposits; (b) implementa-tion of Indian Accounting Standards; (c) relevant Master Directions in respect of loans against security of shares; (d) relevant Master Directions in respect of loans against security of single product – gold jewellery; (e) relevant Master Directions in respect of levy of foreclosure charges; (f) guidelines on securitization transac-tions and reset of credit enhancement; (g) managing risks and code of conduct in outsourcing of financial services; (h) guidelines on liquidity risk management framework; and (i) guidelines on liquidity coverage ratio.

v. Exposure to Group Companies in Real Estate Business – In case of companies in a group engaged in real estate business, HFCs may have exposure either to the group company engaged in real estate business or lend to retail individual home buyers in the projects of such group companies. Such exposure directly or indi-rectly, cannot be more than 15% of owned fund for a single entity in the group and 25% of owned fund for all such group entities. HFCs are required to follow arm’s length principles in letter and spirit in relation to such transactions.

The RBI intends to harmonize the regulations for HFCs and NBFCs in a phased manner to avoid any potential disruptions. Further, HFCs are proposed to be exempted from certain re-quirements under the RBI Act, 1934 with respect to maintenance of percentage of assets and re-serve fund, which will be effected through separate notifications. A master direction addressed to HFCs in this regard is expected soon.

V With a view to improve the flow of credit to the unserved and underserved sectors of the economy and make available funds at an affordable cost, the RBI, on November 5, 2020, su-perseded its previous Circular dated September 21, 2018 on co-origination of loans by banks and NBFCs for lending to priority sector with a new ‘co-lending model’ (‘CLM’). All outstanding loans under the superseded Circular will continue to be classified under priority sector until earlier of their repayment or maturity.

Under the new scheme, foreign banks (including wholly owned subsidiaries) with less than 20 branches will not be permitted to co-lend with NBFCs. Banks may not enter into a CLM ar-rangement with an NBFC belonging to its promoter group. Banks and NBFCs are required to formulate board approved policies for co-lending and publish such policies on their websites. Banks are permitted to co-lend with all registered NBFCs (including housing finance compa-nies), based on a prior agreement which clearly sets out the arrangement and the roles and responsibilities of the parties. Depending on the nature and specifics of the agreement, banks would be required to adhere to additional circulars issued by the RBI.

Co-lending banks will take their share of the individual loans on a back-to-back basis in their books. However, NBFCs are required to retain a minimum of 20% share of the individual loans on their books. Further, banks can claim priority sector status in respect of their share of credit while engaged in co-lending. The NBFC will be the single point of interface for the customers for customer related issues and shall enter into loan agreements with the borrowers demarcating the roles of the co-lenders. Co-lenders are also required to formulate a grievance redressal arrangement to resolve any complaints registered by borrowers with the NBFC, failing which it can be escalated by the borrower to the concerned Banking Ombudsman/Ombudsman for NBFCs or the Customer Education and Protection Cell in RBI.

All transactions between the lenders relating to co-lending will be routed through an es-crow account maintained with the banks. Additionally, in the event of termination of the CLM between the co-lenders, the lenders are required to implement a business continuity plan to ensure uninterrupted service to the borrowers till repayment of the loans under the CLM.

V Co-Lending by Banks and NBFCs to Priority Sector

排错综复杂，直到 2022 年 3 月 31 日才能符合这项要求；

NBFC-ICC – 试图被视为 NBFC – 投资和信贷公司（'NBFC-ICC'）的 HFC，

必须按照 RBI 中规定的方式，向 RBI 申请将其注册证书从 HFC 转换为 NBFC-ICC。

NBFC 准则的适用性 – 适用于 NBFC 的某些准则已扩展到 HFC。该清单包括

2016 年印度储备银行总行指令 – 监视 NBFCs（储备银行）指令中的欺诈行为，以

及 2017 年 6 月 8 日印度储备银行总行指令 – NBFC 行业信息技术框架。以下内容

适用于所有 HFC：（a）公共存款的定义； （b）执行印度会计准则； （c）有关以

股份作为抵押的贷款的相关主要指示； （d）有关针对单一产品（黄金珠宝）抵押的

贷款的主要指导书； （e）征收丧失抵押品赎回权的费用的相关主要指示； （f）证

券化交易和重新设置信用增强准则； （g）管理金融服务外包中的风险和行为准则； （h）

流动性风险管理框架准则； （i）流动资金覆盖率指引。

从事房地产业务的集团公司的风险 – 如果从事房地产业务的集团中的公司，氢氟碳

化合物可能会从事房地产业务的集团公司的风险，或向此类集团公司的项目中的零售

个人购房者贷款 。 对于集团中的单个实体，此类风险直接或间接不得超过其自有资

金的 15％，对于所有此类组实体，不得超过其自有资金的 25％。 HFC 在此类交易

中必须遵循公平原则。

iii.

iv.

v.

印度储备银行打算分阶段协调 HFC 和 NBFC 的法规，以避免任何潜在的干扰。 此外，根据

1934 年的《印度银行家协会法》（RBI Act），提议将氢氟碳化合物免除某些有关维持资产和储

备金百分比的要求，这些要求将通过单独的通知予以实施。 预计不久将有一个针对氢氟碳化合物

的主要指导。

为了改善对未进行服务和服务不足的经济部门的信贷流动，并以可承受的成本提供资金，印度

储备银行（RBI）于 2020 年 11 月 5 日取代了其之前于 2018 年 9 月 21 日发布的通过新的“共

同贷款模式”（'CLM'）向优先部门贷款的银行和 NBFCs 贷款。被取代的通函项下的所有未偿

贷款将继续归类于优先领域，直至其还款或到期日更早。

根据新计划，分支机构少于 20 个的外国银行（包括全资子公司）将不得与 NBFC 共同抵押。

银行不得与属于其发起人集团的 NBFC 订立 CLM 安排。银行和 NBFC 必须制定董事会批准的共

同贷款政策，并在其网站上发布此类政策。允许银行与所有已注册的 NBFC（包括住房金融公司）

共同出借，前提是事先达成协议，明确规定双方的安排，角色和职责。根据协议的性质和细节，

要求银行遵守印度储备银行发布的其他通函。

共同贷款银行将背对背地将其在个人贷款中的份额记入账簿。但是，NBFC 必须在其账簿中

保留至少 20％的个人贷款份额。此外，在进行共同贷款时，银行可以就其信贷份额要求优先部门

地位。 NBFC 将是客户处理与客户有关的问题的单点界面，并应与借款人签订贷款协议，界定联

合贷款人的角色。还要求联合贷款人制定申诉补救方案，以解决借款人在 NBFC 上登记的任何投诉，

否则借款人可以将其上报给有关 NBFC 的银行监察员 / 监察员或 RBI 的客户教育和保护小组。

贷方之间与共同贷款有关的所有交易将通过与银行保持的代管账户进行路由。此外，如果联合

贷款人之间的 CLM 终止，则贷方必须执行业务连续性计划，以确保为借款人提供不间断的服务，

直到根据 CLM 偿还贷款为止。

银行和 NBFC 向优先部门的

共同贷款

2020 年 12月

8 december 2020

1234I

panies (‘NBFC-ICCs’), must approach the RBI for conversion of their certificate of registration from HFC to NBFC-ICC, in a manner as set out in the HFC Circular;

iv. Applicability of NBFC Guidelines – Certain guidelines applicable to NBFCs have been extended to HFCs. This list consists of the RBI Master Direction – Monitor-ing of Frauds in NBFCs (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 and RBI Master Direction – Information Technology Framework for the NBFC sector dated June 8, 2017. In addition, instructions issued by the RBI with respect to the following have been made applicable to all HFCs: (a) definition of public deposits; (b) implementa-tion of Indian Accounting Standards; (c) relevant Master Directions in respect of loans against security of shares; (d) relevant Master Directions in respect of loans against security of single product – gold jewellery; (e) relevant Master Directions in respect of levy of foreclosure charges; (f) guidelines on securitization transac-tions and reset of credit enhancement; (g) managing risks and code of conduct in outsourcing of financial services; (h) guidelines on liquidity risk management framework; and (i) guidelines on liquidity coverage ratio.

v. Exposure to Group Companies in Real Estate Business – In case of companies in a group engaged in real estate business, HFCs may have exposure either to the group company engaged in real estate business or lend to retail individual home buyers in the projects of such group companies. Such exposure directly or indi-rectly, cannot be more than 15% of owned fund for a single entity in the group and 25% of owned fund for all such group entities. HFCs are required to follow arm’s length principles in letter and spirit in relation to such transactions.

The RBI intends to harmonize the regulations for HFCs and NBFCs in a phased manner to avoid any potential disruptions. Further, HFCs are proposed to be exempted from certain re-quirements under the RBI Act, 1934 with respect to maintenance of percentage of assets and re-serve fund, which will be effected through separate notifications. A master direction addressed to HFCs in this regard is expected soon.

V With a view to improve the flow of credit to the unserved and underserved sectors of the economy and make available funds at an affordable cost, the RBI, on November 5, 2020, su-perseded its previous Circular dated September 21, 2018 on co-origination of loans by banks and NBFCs for lending to priority sector with a new ‘co-lending model’ (‘CLM’). All outstanding loans under the superseded Circular will continue to be classified under priority sector until earlier of their repayment or maturity.

Under the new scheme, foreign banks (including wholly owned subsidiaries) with less than 20 branches will not be permitted to co-lend with NBFCs. Banks may not enter into a CLM ar-rangement with an NBFC belonging to its promoter group. Banks and NBFCs are required to formulate board approved policies for co-lending and publish such policies on their websites. Banks are permitted to co-lend with all registered NBFCs (including housing finance compa-nies), based on a prior agreement which clearly sets out the arrangement and the roles and responsibilities of the parties. Depending on the nature and specifics of the agreement, banks would be required to adhere to additional circulars issued by the RBI.

Co-lending banks will take their share of the individual loans on a back-to-back basis in their books. However, NBFCs are required to retain a minimum of 20% share of the individual loans on their books. Further, banks can claim priority sector status in respect of their share of credit while engaged in co-lending. The NBFC will be the single point of interface for the customers for customer related issues and shall enter into loan agreements with the borrowers demarcating the roles of the co-lenders. Co-lenders are also required to formulate a grievance redressal arrangement to resolve any complaints registered by borrowers with the NBFC, failing which it can be escalated by the borrower to the concerned Banking Ombudsman/Ombudsman for NBFCs or the Customer Education and Protection Cell in RBI.

All transactions between the lenders relating to co-lending will be routed through an es-crow account maintained with the banks. Additionally, in the event of termination of the CLM between the co-lenders, the lenders are required to implement a business continuity plan to ensure uninterrupted service to the borrowers till repayment of the loans under the CLM.

V Co-Lending by Banks and NBFCs to Priority Sector

december 2020 9

1234I

Telecommunications

V The Department of Telecommunications (‘DoT’) by way of its Notification dated November 5, 2020 issued new guidelines for Other Service Providers (‘OSPs’) (‘OSP Guidelines’) supersed-ing the existing guidelines. The OSP Guidelines aim to improve ease of doing information tech-nology business in India, particularly for voice-based business process outsourcing (‘BPO’) ser-vices. The key changes introduced under the OSP Guidelines include: (i) deletion of definition of ‘Application Services’ that earlier created ambiguity for various businesses including providers of IT enabled services. The revised OSP Guidelines have now limited application to voice based Business Process Outsourcing entities; (ii) removal of registration requirements for OSP centres; (iii) liberalization of the concept of work from home and work from anywhere; (iv) removal of the requirement to deposit bank guarantee by an OSP to avail any facility or dispensation provided; (v) allowing the sharing of Electronic Private Automatic Branch Exchange (EPABX) infrastructure between domestic OSPs and international OSPs without any regulatory approval; and (vi) removal of penalties, audit provisions and procedural compliances such as periodic reporting obligations and submission of a network diagram approved by telecom service pro-viders to regulatory authorities.

Media

V The Government had, through Press Note No. 4 of 2019 dated September 18, 2019 (‘PN 4’), amended the law relating to FDI in digital media. Following PN 4, FDI in entities engaged in the uploading / streaming of news and current affairs through digital media was permitted only with the prior approval of the Government and only to the extent of 26%. FDI in such entities was not subject to any restrictions before the introduction of PN 4.

The Government has now, through a clarification issued on October 16, 2020, clarified that the entities to which the new policy would apply are: (i) digital media entities (which stream/upload news and current affairs on websites, apps or other platforms); (ii) news agencies (which gather writes and distribute/transmit news, directly or indirectly to digital media entities and/or news aggregators); and (iii) news aggregators (which use software or web applications, aggre-gate news content from various sources and such websites, blogs, podcasts, video blogs and user submitted links in one location). All these entities are required to align their FDI to 26% within one year from October 16, 2020.

Following these changes and notifications by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (‘MIB’), entities engaged in these activities are now required to comply with various require-ments, including notifying MIB of their compliance with FDI regulations, proposals for reduc-ing FDI (where required) and additional requirements in relation to Government approval for further capital infusions, citizenship requirements for directors and chief executive officers and prior security clearance for all foreign personnel deployed in India for more than 60 days.

V The Government issued a Notification dated November 9, 2020 stating that all digital au-dio-visual content (including films, web shows, and news and current affairs content) on over-the-top (‘OTT’) streaming platforms will now fall under the ambit of the MIB. The MIB will be able to regulate such content which was, until now, largely unregulated, except for the general provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 governing online content and the volun-tary self-regulatory code of best practices signed in 2020 by 15 OTT platforms (including Netflix and Hotstar) under the aegis of the Internet and Mobile Association of India.

Taxation

V In a recent decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated October 13, 2020 involving an Indian subsidiary of a German company, ITAT held that the dividend distribution tax (‘DDT’) rate as provided for in the Indian German Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) would prevail over the rates as provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). ITAT further held that any amendment to the domestic tax provisions would not override the DTAA. The case involved payment of dividend by an Indian subsidiary to its German parent company and the Indian subsidiary was paying DDT as mandated under Section 115O of the IT Act. Subsequently, for the Financial Year 2012-13, the plea for the beneficial rate available under

V Department of Telecommunications Issues New Guidelines for ‘Other Service Providers’

V New FDI Policy for Digital Media – News and Current Affairs

V Government Notification to Bring OTT Platforms under MIB

V ITAT Rules that Beneficial DTAA Rates to Prevail over DDT Rate under IT Act

电 信

媒 体

税 务

电信部（'DoT'）在 2020 年 11 月 5 日发出的通知中，发布了针对其他服务提供商（'OSP'）

的新指南（'OSP 指南 '），以取代现有指南。 OSP 指南旨在提高在印度开展信息技术业务的便利性，

特别是基于语音的业务流程外包（'BPO'）服务。 OSP 指南中引入的主要更改包括：（i）删除“应

用程序服务”的定义，该定义先前为包括 IT 启用服务的提供商在内的各种业务造成了歧义。修订

后的 OSP 准则现已将其应用范围仅限于基于语音的业务流程外包实体。 （ii）取消 OSP 中心的

注册要求；（iii）自由化在家工作和在任何地方工作的概念； （iv）取消了 OSP 存入银行担保以

使用任何提供的便利或付款的要求； （v）允许在国内 OSP 和国际 OSP 之间共享电子专用自动

分支交换（EPABX）基础结构，而无需任何监管部门的批准； （vi）取消罚款，审计规定和程序

合规性，例如定期报告义务，以及将电信服务提供商批准的网络图提交监管机构。

电信部发布“其他服务提供商”

的新指南

政府已通过 2019 年 9 月 18 日的 2019 年第 4 号新闻说明（'PN 4'）修订了有关数字媒体中

外国直接投资的法律。在 4 号公告之后，只有在获得政府事先批准的情况下，才允许在从事通过

数字媒体上传 / 流媒体新闻和时事的实体中进行 FDI，且比例不得超过 26％。在引入第 4 号公告

之前，此类实体的 FDI 不受任何限制。

政府现在已通过 2020 年 10 月 16 日发布的一项澄清，澄清了适用新政策的实体是：（i）数

字媒体实体（在网站，应用或其他平台上流 / 上载新闻和时事新闻） ）; （ii）新闻机构（收集或

直接或间接地向数字媒体实体和 / 或新闻聚合方收集和分发 / 传播新闻的新闻机构）； （iii）新闻

汇总器（使用软件或 Web 应用程序，汇总来自各种来源的新闻内容，以及在一个位置中的此类网

站，博客，播客，视频博客和用户提交的链接）。所有这些实体都必须在 2020 年 10 月 16 日起

的一年内将其 FDI 调整为 26％。

根据信息广播部（'MIB'）的这些更改和通知，从事这些活动的实体现在必须遵守各种要求，包

括向 MIB 通知其遵守 FDI 法规，减少 FDI 的建议（在必要时）以及有关政府批准进一步注资的额外

要求，董事和首席执行官的公民身份要求以及在印度部署超过 60 天的所有外国人员的事先安全检查。

新的数字媒体外国直接投资政

策 – 新闻和时事

政府于 2020 年 11 月 9 日发布了一项通知，其中规定，流媒体流媒体平台上的所有数字视听

内容（包括电影，网络节目以及新闻和时事内容）现在都将受到影响 MIB。 MIB 将能够对迄今

为止基本上不受监管的内容进行监管，但 2000 年《信息技术法》的一般条款除外，该条款规定

了在线内容以及由 15 个 OTT 平台在 2020 年签署的自愿性最佳做法自律守则（包括 Netflix 和

Hotstar），隶属于印度互联网和移动协会。

政 府 通 知 将 OTT 平 台 纳 入

MIB

在 2020 年 10 月 13 日所得税上诉法庭（'ITAT'）的一项涉及德国公司印度子公司的裁决中，

ITAT 认为印度双重担保中规定的股息分配税（'DDT'）税率避税协议（'DTAA'）的适用税率高

于 1961 年所得税法（'IT 法 '）所规定的税率。 ITAT 还认为，对国内税收规定的任何修改都不会

覆盖 DTAA。该案涉及一家印度子公司向其德国母公司支付股息，而该印度子公司正在按照《信

息技术法》第 115O 条的规定支付滴滴涕。随后，在 2012-13 财政年度，在 DTAT 之前首次通

过补充理由接受了 DTAA 下可享受的优惠利率的请求。

ITAT 规则，根据 IT 法案，有

利 的 DTAA 费 率 优 先 于 DDT

费率

2020 年 12月

10 december 2020

1234I

the DTAA was taken up for the first time before the ITAT by way of an additional ground.ITAT whilst relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej

and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax1 held that DDT was a tax levied on the company paying the dividend and not on the shareholder. ITAT by relying on various provisions of domestic tax law also observed that the tax was on income of the shareholder which included dividend. Having observed so, ITAT then analysed the leg-islative history of DDT and observed that the intent of shifting the burden of tax back on the company rather than on the shareholders was merely for convenience/administrative purposes and hence, even though the terminology used in Section 115-O was “additional income tax”, in substance the tax was that of the shareholder and it was only for administrative purposes that the burden of payment of tax was shifted on the company.

Information Technology

V The GOI, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (‘MEITY’) has by way of its Order dated November 24, 2020, blocked access to further 43 Chinese mobile appli-cations, in addition to, previous blocking orders issued by the MEITY on June 29, 2020 (blocking 59 applications) and September 2, 2020 (blocking 118 applications). The Order has been issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the basis that these applica-tions are engaged in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of State and public order. MEITY has relied on reports received from the Cyber Crime Coordination Center, Ministry of Home Affairs as the basis for issuing the Order. A committee set up under the (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, will recommend whether these restrictions should continue or be lifted, until which time, these applications will continue to remain blocked.

MEITY in response to a right to information application has clarified that while no penal-ties are prescribed for individual users found using the blocked apps, intermediaries are lia-ble to penalties as prescribed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for non-compliance with the blocking order.

Litigation & Arbitration

V In Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation,2 the Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) overruled the decision in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia,3 and held that landlord-tenant disputes under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’) and disputes un-der lease/tenancy agreements governed by the TP Act are arbitrable. However, landlord-tenant disputes which are covered and governed by rent control legislations would not be arbitrable, as a specific Court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction such situations. The Court also held that disputes relating to mortgage under the TP Act were incapable of being settled by arbitration as they involved rights in rem (against the world in general) as opposed to rights in personam.

V The SC in the case of Noy Vallensina Engineering S.P.A. v. Jindal Drugs Ltd.4 has held that a foreign arbitral award rendered in a foreign seated arbitration cannot be set aside by the Courts of India under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’).

V A single judge of the Gujarat High Court in GE Power Conversion India Private Limited v. PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd.5 has held that the Arbitration Act does not per se prohibit two Indian parties from choosing a foreign seat as the seat of an arbitral proceeding. Such an agreement would not violate the Arbitration Act, the public policy of India or the Indian Con-tract Act, 1872. It further held that the nationality of the parties has no relevance for considering the applicability of Part II of the Arbitration Act, which is solely based on whether the foreign seat of arbitration is signatory to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. If this requirement is fulfilled, Part II of the Act will be appli-cable.

1 328 ITR 81. 2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1018 3 (2017) 10 SCC 706 4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 957 5 Arb. Pet. 131 & 134 of 2019

V Government Continues to Ban Chinese Apps on Security Concerns

V SC Holds that Disputes Arising from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are Arbitrable

V SC on Maintainability of Appeal against Order Granting Enforcement of Foreign Award

V Choice of Foreign Law and Seat of Arbitration between Two Indian Parties

ITAT 在依据 Godblej 和 Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited1 诉所得税副局

长一案依赖 Hon’ble Bombay 高等法院的裁决时，裁定 DDT 是对支付股息的公司而非股东征

收的税款。 ITAT 依靠国内税法的各种规定还指出，税收是对包括股息在内的股东收入进行的。观

察到这一点之后，ITAT 随后分析了滴滴涕的立法历史，并观察到将税负转移给公司而不是转移给

股东的意图仅仅是出于便利 / 行政目的，因此，即使在第 115 条中使用了术语 -O 是“附加所得税”，

实质上是股东出于公司管理目的将税务进行转移。

信息技术

GOI 通过电子和信息技术部（'MEITY'）于 2020 年 11 月 24 日发出的命令，除 MEITY 于 6

月发布的先前禁止令外，还禁止访问另外 43 种中国移动应用程序 2020 年 9 月 2 日（阻止 59 份申请）

和 2020 年 9 月 2 日（阻止 118 份申请）。该命令是根据 2000 年《信息技术法》第 69A 条发布

的，其依据是这些申请从事的活动有损于印度的主权和完整，印度的防御，国家安全和公共秩序。

MEITY 依靠内政部网络犯罪协调中心提供的报告作为发布该命令的基础。根据（禁止公开访

问信息的程序和保护措施）规则（2009 年）成立的委员会将建议继续还是取消这些限制，直到这

些时候，这些申请将继续保持禁止状态。根据对信息权申请的回应，MEITY 已明确规定，虽然未

对使用被阻止的应用程序发现的个人用户规定罚款，但中介机构应根据 2000 年《信息技术法》第

69A 条的规定，对不遵守阻止规定的行为施加罚款命令。

政府继续出于安全考虑禁止

中文应用程序

诉讼和仲裁

最高法院认为，1882 年《财

产转让法》引起的争议是可

以仲裁的

在 Vidya Drolia 和 Ors. 诉杜尔加贸易公司案 2，印度最高法院（'SC'）否决了 Himangni

Enterprises 诉 Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia 案 3 的裁决，并裁定根据 1882 年《财产转让法》

（'TP 法 '）以及根据 TP 法管辖的租赁 / 租赁协议下的争议是可以仲裁的。但是，由房租控制立

法涵盖和管理的房东 / 房客纠纷将是不可仲裁的，因为特定的法院或论坛已被授予此类情况的专属

管辖权。法院还认为，根据《 TP 法》与抵押有关的争议无法通过仲裁解决，因为它们涉及物权（针

对整个世界），而不涉及人身权利。

关于对外国裁决的强制执行

上诉的可维持性标准委员会

对于 Noy Vallensina Engineering S.P.A. v。Jindal Drugs Ltd. 4 裁定，根据 1996

年《仲裁与和解法》（“仲裁法”）第一部分，印度法院不能撤销在外国仲裁中作出的外国仲裁裁决。

两个印度政党之间的外国法

选择和仲裁地

古吉拉特邦高等法院的一名法官在 GE Power Conversion India Private Limited 诉

PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd. 案 5 中裁定，《仲裁法》本身并不禁止两个印度当事

方选择外国席位作为仲裁程序的所在地 。 这样的协议不会违反《仲裁法》，印度的公共政策或

1872 年的《印度合同法》。它进一步认为，当事方的国籍与考虑《仲裁法》第二部分的适用性无关。

根据外国仲裁地是否签署 1958 年《纽约公约承认或执行外国仲裁裁决公约》。如果满足此要求，

则该法第二部分将适用。

1

2

3

4

5

2020 年 12月

10 december 2020

1234I

the DTAA was taken up for the first time before the ITAT by way of an additional ground.ITAT whilst relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej

and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax1 held that DDT was a tax levied on the company paying the dividend and not on the shareholder. ITAT by relying on various provisions of domestic tax law also observed that the tax was on income of the shareholder which included dividend. Having observed so, ITAT then analysed the leg-islative history of DDT and observed that the intent of shifting the burden of tax back on the company rather than on the shareholders was merely for convenience/administrative purposes and hence, even though the terminology used in Section 115-O was “additional income tax”, in substance the tax was that of the shareholder and it was only for administrative purposes that the burden of payment of tax was shifted on the company.

Information Technology

V The GOI, through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (‘MEITY’) has by way of its Order dated November 24, 2020, blocked access to further 43 Chinese mobile appli-cations, in addition to, previous blocking orders issued by the MEITY on June 29, 2020 (blocking 59 applications) and September 2, 2020 (blocking 118 applications). The Order has been issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the basis that these applica-tions are engaged in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of State and public order. MEITY has relied on reports received from the Cyber Crime Coordination Center, Ministry of Home Affairs as the basis for issuing the Order. A committee set up under the (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, will recommend whether these restrictions should continue or be lifted, until which time, these applications will continue to remain blocked.

MEITY in response to a right to information application has clarified that while no penal-ties are prescribed for individual users found using the blocked apps, intermediaries are lia-ble to penalties as prescribed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for non-compliance with the blocking order.

Litigation & Arbitration

V In Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation,2 the Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) overruled the decision in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia,3 and held that landlord-tenant disputes under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’) and disputes un-der lease/tenancy agreements governed by the TP Act are arbitrable. However, landlord-tenant disputes which are covered and governed by rent control legislations would not be arbitrable, as a specific Court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction such situations. The Court also held that disputes relating to mortgage under the TP Act were incapable of being settled by arbitration as they involved rights in rem (against the world in general) as opposed to rights in personam.

V The SC in the case of Noy Vallensina Engineering S.P.A. v. Jindal Drugs Ltd.4 has held that a foreign arbitral award rendered in a foreign seated arbitration cannot be set aside by the Courts of India under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’).

V A single judge of the Gujarat High Court in GE Power Conversion India Private Limited v. PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd.5 has held that the Arbitration Act does not per se prohibit two Indian parties from choosing a foreign seat as the seat of an arbitral proceeding. Such an agreement would not violate the Arbitration Act, the public policy of India or the Indian Con-tract Act, 1872. It further held that the nationality of the parties has no relevance for considering the applicability of Part II of the Arbitration Act, which is solely based on whether the foreign seat of arbitration is signatory to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. If this requirement is fulfilled, Part II of the Act will be appli-cable.

1 328 ITR 81. 2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1018 3 (2017) 10 SCC 706 4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 957 5 Arb. Pet. 131 & 134 of 2019

V Government Continues to Ban Chinese Apps on Security Concerns

V SC Holds that Disputes Arising from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are Arbitrable

V SC on Maintainability of Appeal against Order Granting Enforcement of Foreign Award

V Choice of Foreign Law and Seat of Arbitration between Two Indian Parties

december 2020 11

1234I

Separately, the Delhi High Court in the case of Dholi Spintex Pvt. Ltd v. Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd.6 has held that an arbitration agreement/clause is independent of the underlying contract. Accordingly, the parties may choose a different governing law for the arbi-tration clause, from the substantive law of the underlying contract. The Delhi High Court also clarified that two Indian parties can choose a foreign law as the law governing arbitration under the contract.

V The Delhi High Court in Venus Recruiters Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.7 has held that an application for avoidance of transactions cannot be adjudicated by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) upon conclusion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Peri-od (‘CIRP’). Once the CIRP has concluded, the NCLT has no further jurisdiction over the matter, except on issues pertaining to the resolution plan itself. The role of a resolution professional (‘RP’) is finite and it cannot continue to act on behalf of the corporate debtor once the new management takes over, unless otherwise provided for in the resolution plan. The Delhi High Court clarified that an application for avoidance of any preferential transaction should be for the benefit of the creditors and is not intended to be utilised by the corporate debtor in its new avatar.

V The Madras High Court in Mahasemam Trust v. Union of India and Ors.8 has held that credit rating agencies do not fall within the ambit of term ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Consti-tution of India, as they do not discharge any public function. Therefore, they are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Courts of India.

V The Delhi High Court in Dr. Bina Modi v. Lalit Kumar Modi,9 relied on Vimal Kishor Shah v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah10 and held that the disputes relating to trust, trustees and beneficiaries arising out of a trust deed and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are not capable of being decided by an arbitrator despite the existence of an arbitration agreement to that effect between the parties. It was further held that the Court would have jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction where the party seeking the injunction can demonstrate that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

V In Future Retail Limited v. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC,11 the Delhi High inter alia held that an interim award issued by an emergency arbitrator (restraining the Future Group from going forward with the deal with Reliance Retail) was prima facie not coram non judice. It further held that the order passed by an emergency arbitrator under the Arbitration Rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2016 cannot be said to be contrary to the Act as the Act does not prohibit parties from obtaining emergency relief before an emergency arbitrator.

V In Bishal Jaiswal v. Asset Reconstruction Company12, the National Company Law Appel-late Tribunal, held that entries in the balance sheet / annual return of a corporate debtor cannot be treated as an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Insolvency ju-risdiction being distinct from recovery mechanism, an acknowledgement cannot shift forward the date of default for the purposes of computing limitation for an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

6 2020 SCC Online Del 1476 7 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1479 8 2020 SCC Online Mad 3133 9 2020 SCC Online Del 1678 10 (2016) 8 SCC 788 11 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1636 12 2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 681

V Avoidance Applications Cannot Survive after Conclusion of CIRP

V Madras HC Holds that Credit Rating Agencies are not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction

V Disputes under the Trust Act Cannot be Subject Matter of Arbitration

V Emergency Arbitrations are Per Se Not Contrary to Public Policy or Arbitration Act

V Acknowledgement of Liability Cannot be Used to Extend Limitation Period under the Insolvency Jurisdiction

另外，德里高等法院针对 Dholi Spintex Pvt. Ltd 诉 Louis Dreyfus Company India

Pvt. Ltd. 案 6 认为，仲裁协议 / 条款独立于基础合同。因此，当事方可以为仲裁条款选择与基础

合同的实体法不同的管辖法律。德里高等法院还澄清，印度的两个当事方可以选择外国法律作为

该合同下的仲裁法律。

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

在 Venus Recruiters Private Limited 诉印度联邦和 Ors. 案 7 中的德里高等法院裁定，

在公司破产解决期结束后，国家公司法法庭（'NCLT'）无法裁定避免交易的申请（'CIRP'）。一

旦 CIRP 结束，NCLT 就不再对此问题拥有进一步的管辖权，除非涉及与解决计划本身有关的问题。

解决方案专业人员（'RP'）的作用是有限的，一旦新管理层接任，它就不能继续代表公司债务人行事，

除非解决方案中另有规定。德里高等法院澄清说，避免任何优惠交易的申请应有利于债权人的利益，

并且不打算由公司债务人在新的代理身份中使用。

在 Mahasemam Trust 诉印度联盟和 Ors. 案 8 中，马德拉斯高等法院裁定，信用评级机

构不属于印度《宪法》第 12 条中“国家”一词的范围，因为它们不履行任何公共职能 。 因此，

他们不受印度法院的书面管辖。

德里高等法院在 Bina Modi 诉 Lalit Kumar Modi 博士案 9 中援引 Vimal Kishor Shah

诉 Jayesh Dinesh Shah 案 10，裁定由信托契约和《印度信托法》引起的与信托，受托人和受

益人有关的纠纷， 尽管当事双方之间存在仲裁协议，但仲裁员无法确定 1882。 进一步认为，如

果寻求禁令的当事方可以证明该协议无效，无效或无法执行，法院将有权授予反仲裁禁令。

在 Future Retail Limited 诉 Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC 案 11 中，

Delhi High 裁定，由紧急仲裁员签发的临时裁决（限制 Future Group 继续与 Reliance Retail 进

行交易）只是表面上的事实，而不是事实。非审判。它进一步认为，紧急仲裁员根据 2016 年新加

坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则通过的命令不能说是与该法相抵触的，因为该法并不禁止当事方在紧急

仲裁员面前获得紧急救济。

在 Bishal Jaiswal 诉资产重建公司案 12 中，国家公司法上诉法庭裁定，根据 1963 年《时效法》

第 18 条，资产负债表 / 公司债务人的年收益表中的条目不能被视为是承认。从恢复机制来看，出

于计算《破产与破产法》第 7 条规定的申请限制的目的，确认书不能将违约日期提前。

CIRP 结束后，避免申请无法

幸存

Madras HC 认为信用评级机

构不服从书面管辖权

《信托法》下的争议不能作为

仲裁标的

紧急仲裁本身与公共政策或仲

裁法不冲突

破产管辖下不能使用责任确认

书来延长时效期限

2020 年 12月

v‘Outstanding Firm’ for Corporate/M&A and Private Equity

Asialaw Profiles, 2021 v

‘Band 1 Firm’ for Corporate/M&A and Private EquityChambers Asia–Pacific Awards, 2021

v ‘Tier 1 Firm’ for Corporate/M&A and Private Equity

Legal 500, 2021v

‘Tier 1 Firm’ for M&A and Private Equity IFLR1000, 2021

vLaw Firm of the Year

VC Circle, 2020v

Best Overall Law Firm of the YearIndia Business Law Journal, 2020

v‘Band 1 Firm’ for Corporate/M&A

Chambers Global Awards, 2020v

Corporate Law Firm of the YearChambers Forum India Awards, 2019

vRanked No.1

RSG Top 50 Indian Law Firms Ranking, 2019 RSG Top 40 Indian Law Firms Ranking, 2017

vRanked No. 1 by Deal Value

and No.2 Deal Count in Any Indian Involvement Announced League TableRefinitiv Emerging Markets M&A Review - Legal Rankings, 2020

vRanked No. 2

by Deal Count and by Deal Volume in India Announced League TableBloomberg’s Global M&A Market Review- Legal Rankings, 2020

vRanked No. 2

by Deal Value in the India League TableMergermarket Global & Regional M&A Report –League Tables of Legal Advisors, (2020)

vRanked No. 1 for PE by Deal Value

Venture Intelligence League Tables of Legal Advisors, 2020

12 december 2020

1234I

Disclaimer For private circulation to the addressees only and not for re-circulation. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited. This Newsletter is not intended to be an advertisement or solicitation. The contents of this Newsletter are solely meant to inform and is not a substitute for professional advice. Legal advice should be obtained based on the specific circumstances of each case, before relying on the contents of this Newsletter or prior to taking any decision based on the information contained in this Newsletter. AZB & Partners disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information.If you have received this Newsletter in error, please notify us immediately by telephone +91 22 4072 9999.Copyright © AZB & Partners. All rights reserved. Replication or redistribution of content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of AZB & Partners. Any queries on this Newsletter may be addressed to: editor.interalia@azbpartners.com

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND LEGAL UPDATES, PLEASE VISIT:https://www.azbpartners.com/knowledge-bank

公司 / 并购和私募股权的“杰出公司” 《亚洲法律概况》（Asialaw Profiles），2021 年

公司 / 并购和私募股权的“ 第一梯队”2021 年钱伯斯亚太奖

公司 / 并购和私募股权的“一级公司”2021 年《法律 500 强》

并购和私募股权的“一级公司”IFLR1000，2021 年

年度最佳律师事务所2020 年的 VC Circle 评选

年度最佳整体律师事务所印度商法杂志，2020 年

公司 / 并购的“ Band 1 Firm”钱伯斯全球大奖，2020 年

年度公司律师事务所《钱伯斯论坛印度大奖》，2019 年

排名第一2019 年 RSG 印度律师事务所 50 强排名2017 年 RSG 印度律师事务所 40 强排名

交易价值排名第一印度参与度排名榜中的交易数和排名第二

Refinitiv 新兴市场并购评论 -2020 年法律领域排名

交易价值排名第一印度参与度排名榜中的交易数和排名第二

Refinitiv 新兴市场并购评论 -2020 年法律领域排名

排名第二印度联盟名录中交易量排名

Mergermarket 全球和区域并购报告 – 法律顾问联盟名录，（2020 年）

交易价值排名第一2020 年《风险情报联盟法律顾问》名录

更多信息和法律更新，请参考：

免责声明：该文件仅限于此处的私人传阅，请不要再次传阅。严格禁止对本文任何形式的再现、传播、复制、披露、修改、分发。本时事通讯并非广

告或者官方文告。本新闻稿的内容仅供参考，不能代替专业建议。法律建议应当依托事实依据而非依靠本时事通讯内容或者本时事通讯包含的信息。

AZB & Partners 不承担任何责任，并且不接受任何个人基于该信息的行为或者不作为的责任后果。

如果您误收了本时事通讯，请立即通过电话 +91 22 4072 9999 通知我们。

Copyright AZB & Partners。 All rights reserved。内容的复制或者分发，包括缓存、结构或者类似方式，在未经 AZB & Partners 事先书面同意

的情况下都被明确的禁止。如果您对本时事通讯有任何疑问，可以发送邮件到我们的邮箱：editor.interalia@azbpartners.com。

vvc Circle, 2018, 2017, 2016 & 2015 において

Law Firm of the Year を受賞

vIndia Business Law Journal, 2018 & 2017 において

Law Firm of the Year | Best Overall Law Firm of the Year を受賞

vCorporate usa Today – Law Awards 2018 において

Best Law Firm of the Year – India を受賞

v

alb se Asia Law Awards, 2018 において India Deal Firm of the Year を受賞

vAsiaLaw Profiles, 2018 の

Outstanding Law Firm of the Year, India | Corporate and Mergers & Acquisitions においてHighly Recommended Law Firm of the Year を受賞

vThomson Reuters’ Emerging Markets m&a Legal Rankings, q1 2018 の

Indian m&a Announced Deals League Table by Value and Volume において１位を受賞

Indian m&a Completed Deals League Table by Value and Volume において１位を受賞

vBloomberg’s Global m&a, Legal Rankings, q1 2018 の

Indian m&a Announced Deals League Table by Deal Value and Deal Count において１位を受賞

vMergermarket’s Global and Regional m&a, League Tables of Legal Advisors, q1 2018 の

Indian in the m&a Rankings by Deal Value and Deal Count において１位を受賞

v Mergermarket’s Global and Regional m&a, Legal Rankings, q1 2018 の

India and Asia (excl. Australasia & Japan) in the m&a Announced Deals League Table by Deal Value and Deal Count において

１位を受賞 v

Venture Intelligence League Tables of Legal Advisors, 2017 の pe and m&a Rankings by Deal Count and Deal Value において

１位を受賞 v

Chambers Asia-Pacific Awards, 2017 においてClient Service Law Firm of the Year を受賞

vInternational Legal Alliance Summit Awards, 2017 において

Best Indian Law Firm を受賞

vrsg Top 40 Indian Law Firms Ranking, 2017 において

１位を受賞賞v

Legal Era Awards, 2016 において Best National Corporate Law Firm | Best Overall National Law Firm of the Year を受賞

vCorporate intl, 2016 において

m&a Law Firm of the Year を受賞

より詳しい情報や法律に関する最新情報については下記をご覧ください：........................................................https://www.azbpartners.com/knowledge-bank

免責事項：このニュースレターは、特定の方へのみ配付するものですので、再配付はお控えください。このニュースレターを複製、頒布、複写、公開、修正、配布、および／または公表することは固く禁じられています。このニュースレターは、広告または勧誘を目的に発行するものでは ありません。このニュースレターの内容は、情報提供のみを目的とするものであり、専門家の助言に代わるものではありません。このニュース レターの内容を信頼したり、このニュースレターに含まれている情報を元に何らかの決定を下したりする前には、必ず専門家へ相談して、各事件に固有の状況を踏まえて提示される法的な助言を得てください。AZB & Partnersは、皆様がこのニュースレターに含まれている情報を元に活動したこと、または活動を控えたことにより生じた結果について、いかなる責任も負いません。また、このニュースレターに心当たりのない場合には、お電話（+912266396880）にてお知らせください。Copyright©AZB & Partners. All rights reserved. AZB & Partnersから書面による事前承認を得ることなくこのニュースレターの内容をキャッシング、 委託、または他の方法で、複製および再配布することは明示的に禁止されています。なおこのニュースレターに関するご質問は、電子メールにて <editor. interalia@azbpartners.com>までお寄せください。

12 december 2018

AZB & PARTNERS ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS

2020 年 12月