We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
While the inclusion of interest amounts in ‘financial debt’, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is clearly provided for, the interest component in the case of ‘operational debt’ has always been a point of contention. Pointing out that there appears to be a deliberate difference in the language used for both terms - ‘financial debt’ and ‘operational debt’, the article also discusses many specific judgments of NCLT and NCLAT, delivered on the aforesaid quandary. It points out that the lack of an agreement amongst the parties for the liability of interest is an important reason for not awarding the interest amount as claimed by the operational creditor under a Section 9 application. Observing that an application only for recovery of an interest amount shall negate the intention of the lawmakers of the IBC and so it is not desired, the author notes that hence the interest amount alone cannot be claimed as a right, even when the documentation/ agreement between the parties with respect to liability of interest is proper and clear. According to her, this also seems to be so even when statutory interest is imposable, such as under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Notifications and Circulars
Authorised Dealers Category II - Online submission of Form A2
Framework for acceptance of Green Deposits notified
Services engaged in the Iron Ore Mining to be public utility services
Norms for Scheme of Arrangement by unlisted Stock Exchanges, Clearing Corporations and Depositories notified
Extension in compliance period of fund raising by large corporates through issuance of debt securities notified
Guidelines with respect to excusing or excluding an investor from an investment of AIF notified
Framework for contribution by eligible issuers of debt securities to the Settlement Guarantee Fund of the Limited Purpose Clearing Corporation for repo transactions in debt securities notified
Ratio decidendi
No bar under IBC against continuation of Section 138 proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 parallel to CIRP proceedings - Supreme Court
Once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors, no modifications are permissible - Supreme Court
MSMED Act being a special legislation would have precedence over general law, but it would not eclipse and nullify the jurisdiction clause agreed upon between the parties - Delhi High Court
News Nuggets
Insolvency - Minimum threshold limit of default - Date of filing and not date of registration of petition is important
Insolvency - No scope of condonation of delay beyond 15 days under Section 61 of IBC
Arbitration - Limitation period starts once there is failure in amicable settlement of the dispute
Arbitration - Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of a party is not an ‘interim award’ and cannot be challenged u/s. 34 of the Act
