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.
The article in this issue of Corporate Amicus discusses workplace investigations in India. It notes that due to subjective nature of the investigations under consideration, there is no set mechanism or strict procedure which needs to be adhered to, for conducting such investigations. The authors however discuss the broad guidelines related to requisition, review and questionnaire, investigation interviews, transcripts, and preparing the investigation report, which aid the investigation team and are to be read along with the internal policies of the concerned organization. They also note that organisations now prefer engagement of external lawyers for such investigations, which besides providing credibility would also be well-equipped with similar exercises and prepared to discuss and advise concerned officials of the organization on the future course of action, as recommendation measures. According to the authors, proper policies need to be put in place and it be also ensured, that the stake holders are made aware of the same, including any amendments thereto, as this may not only assist in creating a better work environment but also in investigating allegations later…
Notifications and Circulars
Foreign Investment in Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) – Conditions specified
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Seventh Amendment) Regulations, 2022 notified
Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Amendment Rules, 2022 notified
NBFC – Account Aggregator (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 amended to include GSTN as Financial Information Provider
Securities And Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Board Meetings) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022 notified
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022 notified
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 notified
Regulatory Framework for Urban Co-operative Banks (‘UCBs’) relating to Net Worth and Capital Adequacy revised
Categorization of Urban Co-operative Banks revised
Norms for classification of Urban Co-operative Banks (UCBs) as ‘Financially Sound and Well Managed’ revised
Ratio decidendi
Dispute regarding novation cannot be a ground to dismiss a petition under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Supreme Court
IBC does not provide any look-back period for fraudulent transactions under Section 66 – NCLAT Chennai
Contractual clause enabling recovery of ‘charges’ does not automatically include the right to recover charges incurred towards demurrages – Supreme Court
News Nuggets
NCLT does not possess the power to declare the provisions of IBC as illegal or ultra vires
Jurisdiction to determine matter relating to title of shares issued fraudulently vests with the Civil Courts
Suit challenging actions taken by secured creditor under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act cannot bar arbitration proceedings
Indemnity of obligations when cannot be considered as financial debt
Insolvency – No stay for any future liability or obligation under Section 96(1)(b)
Insolvency – No bar for a trust to become a resolution applicant
Insolvency – Assignee not prohibited from continuing a pending Section 7 application
Arbitration Section 9 cannot be used to claim final relief
