Law Firms NewsNews

   

DEAL DETAILS

Epack Durable Private Limited | Investment by Affirma Capital

NO

HEADINGS

DETAILS

1.

 

Sector

Electrical / Electronic Manufacturing

2.

 

Announcement Date

13 September 2022

3.

 

Completion Date

7 September 2022

4.

 

Name of Client

Epack Durable Private Limited

5.

 

Issuer Details

Epack Durable Private Limited | India

6.

 

Subscriber Details

Affirma Capital | Singapore

7.

 

Deal Description

Advised Epack Durable Private Limited in raising funds through primary investment from Affirma Capital.

8.

 

Total Consideration

Confidential

9.

 

Team Members

The core team consisted of Mayank Singh (Partner), Kairavi Shah (Senior Associate), Hitakshi Mahendru (Associate) and Suchita Vyas (Associate) with assistance with Palak Kumar (Associate) on execution aspects.

10.

 

Role of Firm

Khaitan & Co. represented Epack Durable Private Limited in raising funds through primary investment from Affirma Capital.

11.

 

Financial Advisors

Deloitte / KPMG

12.

 

Other legal advisors if any with names of Lead Lawyers

AZB & Partners

13.

 

Press Coverage

Epack Durable raises $40 mn in round led by Affirma (vccircle.com)

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and Subramonium Prasad, JJ. dismissed an application filed by Jamia Milia Islamia University (Respondent’) seeking issuance of direction to University Grants Commission (hereinafter ‘UGC’) for release of grants to pay outstanding due to a professor finding it just an attempt to delay the process of court.

The present case emanates from a case where the appellant Prof Sabiha Hussain was working in a sanctioned/ approved post of Professor (Director) in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women’s Studies. She appealed for release of outstanding dues, to which the respondent-University, ‘Jamia Milia Islamia’ agreed along with assurance of regular monthly payment. Thus, the present application was filed by University seeking issuance of direction to the UGC for release of grants.

The Court asked whether the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and other faculty members of the University are receiving salary or not which was answered in affirmative that the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and other faculty members are regularly receiving salary in the University.

This Court thus noted that the aforesaid application is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the earlier order passed by this Court which was a consent order and, therefore, held “this Court does not find any reason to entertain the present application and the same is rejected.”

[Prof Sabiha Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia, LPA 310 of 2021, decided on 06-07-2022]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief


Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha with Mr. Srijan Sinha, Ms. Parul Dhurvey and Mr. Naveen Soni, Advocates, for the Petitioner;

Mr. Pritish Sabharwal and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent;

Mr. B.K. Singh with Ms. Urvi Kashiwal and Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocates, for the R-5.

Calcutta High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. heard a petition and issued directions relating to a matter of non- payment of victim compensation pursuant to an order made by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority fixing the compensation amount as Rs.1,50,000/-.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal from the said order in 2021 for enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 18 lacs and the said appeal was pending from date and is due to be considered by the appellate body on 24-06-2022.

Counsel appearing for the State Legal Service Authority (‘SLSA’) submitted that they did not have any fund at its disposal and was therefore unable to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner till date.

The Court stressed on the fact that Section 357-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is a special provision for Victim Compensation Scheme according to which it is the duty of the State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government to prepare a Scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his/her dependent who has suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who requires rehabilitation.

The Court noted that in other matters of similar nature, the SLSA has not been provided with the funds for disbursement towards victim compensation. Reminding of a similar matter in 2021 where the SLSA had submitted that it had funds only of an amount of Rs.5,000/- and was hence not in a position to disburse the victim compensation, the Court remarked that it is a sorry state of affairs. The Court stated that it is mandatory on the State Government not only to make a separate budget for victim compensation but also to constitute a fund with the specific nomenclature of “Victim Compensation Fund” for disbursing amount to the victims who need rehabilitation.

The State or the SLSA cannot take the position that it does not have funds to compensate the victims.

The SLSA and the State were directed to file a report within six weeks from date as to the steps which are proposed to be taken for ensuring that adequate amount of funds reach the State Legal Services Authority within six weeks from date indicating the funds which are proposed to be put in with SLSA within the time directed for dealing with the pending cases of victim compensation.

The prayer for immediate disbursement of Rs.1,50,000/- was declined in view of the practical compulsions namely that SLSA was not in a position to inform the court as to the quantum of funds at its disposal.

[Maleka Khatun v. State of West Bengal, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1755, decided on 20-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr Kaushik gupta, Mr Anirban Tarafder and Ms Munmun Gangopadhyay, Advocates, for the Petitioner;

Mr Arindam Sen and Mr Sagnik Bhattacharya, Advocates, for the respondent 3.


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2020

The Central Government makes the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2020, to amend the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019.

In the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, in rule 6, in clause (a), after the third proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

Provided also that a Multilateral Bank or Fund, of which India is a member, shall not be treated as an entity of a particular country nor shall any country be treated as the beneficial owner of the investments of such Bank or Fund in India

In Schedule 1 of the rules,  for the Defence sector, Centre notifies that the Defence Industry subject to Industrial license under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and Manufacturing of small arms and ammunition under the Arms Act, 1959, the Sectoral Cap will be 100% and Entry Route in case of Automatic up to 74% and Government route beyond 74% wherever it is likely to result in access to modern technology or for other reasons to be recorded.

Read the detailed notification, here: NOTIFICATION


Ministry of Finance

[Notification dt. 08-12-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

The stand taken and the statements made by Amnesty International are unfortunate, exaggerated and far from the truth.

The facts of the matter are as follows:

Amnesty International had received permission under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) only once and that too twenty years ago (19.12.2000). Since then Amnesty International, despite its repeated applications, has been denied FCRA approval by successive governments since as per law it is not eligible to get such an approval.

However, in order to circumvent the FCRA regulations, Amnesty UK remitted large amounts of money to four entities registered in India, by classifying it as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). A significant amount of foreign money was also remitted to Amnesty (India) without MHA’s approval under FCRA. This mala fide rerouting of money was in contravention of extant legal provisions.

Owing to these illegal practices of Amnesty, the previous government had also rejected the repeated applications of Amnesty to receive funds from overseas. This had led Amnesty to suspend its India operations once during that period as well. This bipartisan and purely legal approach towards Amnesty, under different governments, makes it clear that the entire fault lies in the dubious processes adopted by Amnesty to secure funds for its operations.

All the glossy statements about humanitarian work and speaking truth to power are nothing but a ploy to divert attention from their activities which were in clear contravention of laid down Indian laws. Such statements are also an attempt to extraneously influence the course of investigations by multiple agencies into the irregularities and illegalities carried out over the last few years.

Amnesty is free to continue humanitarian work in India, as is being done by many other organizations. However, India, by settled law, does not allow interference in domestic political debates by entities funded by foreign donations. This law applies equally to all and it shall apply to Amnesty International as well.

India has a rich and pluralistic democratic culture with a free press, independent judiciary and tradition of vibrant domestic debate. The people of India have placed unprecedented trust in the current government. Amnesty’s failure to comply with local regulations does not entitle them to make comments on the democratic and plural character of India.


Ministry of Home Affairs

[Press Release dt. 29-09-2020]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Gita Mittal, CJ and Tashi Rabstan, J. directed the respondents to submit the status report on the education provisions that were to be provided to the students of the State.

It was stated that this Court granted time to the respondents to file a status report with regard to the status of infrastructure in the schools situated in rural and urban areas for which on request even the time was extended but still there was a failure to comply with the directions. It has been directed by way of PIL to only dispense funds for “100% saturation of toilets in all schools”. Additionally, provision has been introduced for the provision of drinking water and electricity supply further the Education Department wants to achieve construction of boundary walls in all schools. Plus furniture and other amenities were to be given but in a ‘time-bound manner’.

The Court stated that respondents never gave a time frame regarding till when the infrastructure in schools would be arranged nor any audit of the deficiencies in the infrastructure were submitted. It has been pressed upon that deficiencies in Right to Education cannot be tolerated where it can be clearly seen that Education Department was not concerned about even assessing deficiencies let alone proceeding to supply the same in any planned manner. Accordingly, the Court has demanded the appearance of the respondent where the complete details of deficiencies and time frame of the work to be done to be submitted. [All J&K Ladakh Teacher Federation v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 1015, Order dated 26-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Disposing of a petition which sought freezing of the symbol “elephant” as the reserved symbol of  Bahujan Samaj Party, the Court held that there is no power in the Election Commission of India under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 to withdraw/freeze an election symbol once allotted and/or reserved for a recognised political party and the only manner in which the symbol once allotted/reserved is lost, is on loss of recognition.

The petitioner had sought to draw the attention of the EC to the practice of erecting at public places and at State expense, statutes of political functionaries and symbols of the the ruling party, especially in Uttar Pradesh and to freeze the symbol “elephant” under Clauses 6 and 6-A of the Symbols Order.

Observing that recognition as a political party carries a right to a reserved symbol, the Court held that it appears that a symbol once reserved for a recognised political party under the prevalent laws, cannot be taken away. This is certainly a lacuna and which, if the averments of the petitioner are correct, has indeed been exploited by BSP. The Court held that a political party in power cannot use development activities carried out by it and which the government in any case is expected to perform, to propagate its symbol or its leaders so as to come in the way of a free and fair election. The performance of a political party in governance should be allowed to speak for itself.

The Bench of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.  issued the following directions to the EC:

  • within a period of three months, consider issuing appropriate direction/guideline within the meaning of Clause 16-A(b) of the Symbols Order preventing recognised political party in power from using public places and public funds for propagating its reserve symbol and/or its leaders, so as to come in the way of conducting of free, fair and peaceful election and to safeguard the interest of the general public and the electorate in future; and,
  • after issuing the said direction/guideline, within a further period of three months therefrom, consider whether the actions already done by the respondent BSP and as complained of by the petitioner are in violation of the said guideline and if finds so, to give an opportunity to the respondent BSP to undo the same, so as to in future not obstruct free and fair election and if the respondent BSP does not avail of the said opportunity, to initiate proceedings under Clause 16-A of the Symbols Order for withdrawal of recognition thereof.

[Common  Cause v. Bahujan Samaj Party, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3787, decided on July 7, 2016]