DSK Legal
Knowledge Center
COMPETITION ................................................................................... 1
CAPITAL MARKET .............................................................................. 5
FEMA ................................................................................................. 7
RBI .................................................................................................... 8
REAL ESTATE……………………………………...……………………....…..…8
TAX .................................................................................................... 9
MEDIA LAW……………………………………………………………………..10
1
NEWSLETTER
September, 2019
COMPETITION
CCI rejects abuse of dominant position charge against Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation
By an order dated August 2, 2019, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) has
rejected a complaint against the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (“ONGC”) which
alleged abuse of its dominant position regarding certain contractual rules for
employing offshore support vessels.
Acting on a complaint which was filed by the Indian National Shipowners' Association
(“INSA”), which is the representative body of various ship owners, the CCI, in June,
2018, ordered an investigation against ONGC after prima-facie finding that the oil
major had violated competition rules. The complaint alleged that to support its
offshore exploration and production activities, ONGC requires offshore support
vessels (“OSV”). In this regard, it issues tenders for OSV suppliers with detailed
technical eligibility requirements and special contract conditions (“SCC”), among
others, collectively referred to as CHA. INSA had complained about the Charter Hire
Agreement (“CHA”) of ONGC, which had a particular clause that gave unilateral right
to the state-owned firm to terminate the agreement.
As per the allegation in the complaint, terminating the aforementioned agreement
unilaterally, would violate Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, which pertains to
abuse of dominant position in the relevant market. For the case, the CCI considered
"market for charter hire of OSVs in the Indian EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone)" as the
relevant one and found that ONGC was dominant in it.
The CCI, in its order, highlighted that the crude oil prices started falling drastically
from mid-2014, from over $100 per barrel to under $30 per barrel by January 2016,
which affected oil companies worldwide, including ONGC. With drastic fall in oil
prices, in April 2016, ONGC issued a de-hiring notice to 27 vessels by invoking the
unilateral termination clause. Thus, the CCI held that there was an objective
necessity to bring down the costs in new market circumstances and the termination
was driven solely by this necessity and obligation.
Besides, the termination clause was invoked by ONGC in an exceptional situation
which was not an ordinary change of circumstance. The CCI finally held that had it
found that ONGC invoked the termination clause frequently in order to make
illegitimate gains at the expense of the other contracting party, it may have had the
occasion to look at this case differently. No such situation seems to exist in the
present case.
CCI orders investigation against Volleyball Federation of India for alleged
abuse of dominance
By an order dated August 7, 2019 (published on August 20, 2019), the CCI has
ordered a probe against Volleyball Federation of India (“VFI”) for alleged abuse of
dominant position. VFI is a national sports federation for volleyball in India and
exercises full control over the players of volleyball registered or associated with it and
their participation in all sporting events.
The allegations in the complaint pertain to 2015, when VFI decided to organise a
volleyball league in India similar to the Indian Premier League, and Pro-Kabaddi
League. The complainants alleged that Baseline Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd.
(“Baseline”) were arbitrarily appointed as the organiser of the volleyball league and
VFI entered into an agreement with Baseline in 2018 granting it exclusive rights for
organizing a volleyball league for men, women and beach volleyball in India for the
next 10 years. Certain clauses in the agreement placed restrictions upon other
persons or enterprises who wish to conduct similar leagues in India and also placed
restrictions on players for participating in other leagues if they are part of Baseline's
volleyball league.
The complainant further alleged that the players are restricted from participating
even in global events like the Asian Games, Olympics or the Volleyball World Cup, if
the dates of these events clash with Baseline's Volleyball League.
2
Besides, VFI being the sole authority for dispute resolution for players, the players
have no recourse or remedy in case the VFI decides to impose punishment on them
for playing in other leagues which amounts to abuse of dominant position.
As per CCI’s order, VFI falls within the definition of an enterprise and considered
'market for organization of professional volleyball tournaments/events in India' and
'market for services of volleyball players in India' as the relevant one. The CCI also
found VFI to be in the dominant position in the relevant market. Regarding the
clauses that restrict players availability, it was held by CCI that "such restrictions
appear to limit the provision of services of participating volleyball players in the
relevant market for services of volleyball players in India and thus appear to be
covered under Section 4 the Act". Section 4 pertains to abuse of dominant position.
Ordering an investigation, the CCI said that the conduct of VFI needs to be examined
through an investigation by the Director General (DG), to determine whether the
same resulted in violation of provisions of the Act including that of Section 4.
DSK Legal’s observation: The CCI has not shied away from dealing with the
National Sports Federation in the past or imposing penalties on them. Past cases
before CCI have been against Board of Control for Cricket in India, Athletics
Federation of India, Hockey India and All India Chess Federation.
CCI orders probe against Intel and its Indian subsidiary
By an order dated August 9, 2019, CCI has ordered a probe against Intel Corporation
for alleged "unfair and discriminatory" provisions in warranty policy for boxed micro-
processors sold in India. The complaint was filed by Matrix Info Systems Pvt Ltd
(“Matrix”), which is engaged in the business of importing and supplying various IT
products, against Intel Corporation and its Indian subsidiary Intel Technology India
Pvt Ltd. Matrix alleged that Intel Technology India had entered into an agreement
with its authorised Indian distributors which gives them exclusive selling rights in
India.
The imposition of the condition to purchase from only certain distributors for claiming
warranty in India and a blanket ban on after-sales warranties, if purchased from
other sources, is resulting in total deprivation of consumer choice. Further, the
complainant alleged that Intel has been behaving in a differential manner with
respect to the Indian market by implementing a warranty policy specifically for India.
As per the new policy of 2016, Intel does not offer warranty services to consumers in
India on products purchased by them from parallel importers even when such parallel
imports have been made from authorised distributors of Intel abroad. The
complainant further alleged that denial of market access to other resellers and
parallel importers due to unreasonable conditions of warranty put forth by Intel is in
contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
The CCI considered the micro-processors market for desktops and laptops in India as
the relevant one for the case and found the IT giant to be 'prima-facie' in a dominant
position. The CCI observed that the amended warranty policy of Intel in India
seems to be aimed at disincentivising the purchase of BMP from distributors other
than its authorised distributors in India even when they can get it at cheaper rates
from Intel's authorised distributors abroad.
Based on this, the CCI said Intel's India specific warranty policy is prima facie unfair
and discriminatory, especially when seen in the light of the fact that such differential
treatment is not meted out by Intel in other jurisdictions and ordered a probe to be
conducted in the matter.
CCI penalizes 51 entities and their officials in Cylinders bid-rigging case
By an order dated August 9, 2019, the CCI has imposed penalties totalling about INR
400 million on 51 entities for bid rigging in supply of cylinders to oil marketing
company Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (“HPCL”). The CCI has also
imposed a total fine of INR 4.5 million on officials of the firms for violating
competition norms. The 51 entities are based in different states of the country.
The rigged tender pertained to the supply of four million cylinders to HPCL to its
bottling plants located in 18 states. After the CCI found prima-facie evidence of
alleged bid rigging in 2014, it directed the Director General (“DG”) to conduct a
detailed examination in the matter. Based on the findings of DG and the CCI’s
examination, it was found that 66-cylinder manufacturers had participated in the
tender process and only 4 firms emerged eligible. As many as 10 bidders did not
meet the criteria, while 51 entities withdrew from the process. Notably, 46 bidders
withdrew their papers on the same day, and of the four qualified bidders, two entities
quoted identical prices. Moreover, the probe revealed that there were six common
agents working for all the cylinder manufacturers and these agents met one another
frequently and were aware of the decisions of other companies.
3
The strategic information pertaining to price bids of the tender "points towards the
fact that the said the parties involved were not acting independently but in concert
with each other to manipulate the process of bidding", which was in contravention of
Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Section 3 pertains to anti-competitive
agreements. In its 131-page order, the CCI held - "any collusion in rigging tenders in
public procurement costs exchequer on account of anti-competitive bids, besides
resulting in higher cost to end-consumers for whom a cylinder is a necessary input for
their daily requirements".
DSK Legal’s observation - The cylinder manufacturers have been absolved in the
past in an earlier case of price-parallelism in bids by the Supreme Court of India.
However, the present case pertains to price-parallelism as well as collective
withdrawal by the parties while rigging the bids.
CCI penalizes members of price-fixing cartel amongst suppliers of EPS
Systems to automobile OEMs
The CCI passed a final order dated August 9, 2019, with respect to cartelization
amongst NSK Limited, Japan (“NSK”) and JTEKT Corporation, Japan (“JTEKT”) and
their Indian subsidiaries namely Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd. (“RNSS”) and
JTEKT Sona Automotive India Limited (‘JSAI’) respectively, in relation to the supply
of Electric Power Steering (“EPS”) Systems to three automotive Original Equipment
Manufacturers (“OEMs”), by means of directly or indirectly determining price,
allocating markets, coordinating bid response and manipulating the bidding process in
Request for Information/ Request for Quotations (“RFIs/ RFQs”) issued by these
three automobile OEMs. The duration of the cartel was found to be from 2005 to July
25, 2011.
The case was initiated on the basis of an application received by the CCI under
Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) read with Competition Commission
of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (“LPR”), from NSK/ RNSS. Thereafter,
during the pendency of investigation, JTEKT/ JSAI also approached the CCI by filing
an application under the Section 46 of the Act read with the LPR. The evidence
collected in the case included instances of meetings and telephonic exchanges in
which commercially sensitive information about prices etc. was discussed. Such
conduct of the parties was found to have caused appreciable adverse effect on
competition in India.
The CCI concluded that NSK and JTEKT, and their Indian subsidiaries RNSS and JSAI
respectively, indulged in anti-competitive practices, in contravention of the provisions
of Section 3(3)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Considering all the relevant
factors, the penalty, in terms of the proviso to Section 27 (b) of the Act, was
computed for each party, from the date of enforcement of the provisions of Section 3
of the Act i.e. May 20, 2009 till July 25, 2011.
The penalty to be imposed upon NSK/ RNSS was computed at the rate of 4% of the
relevant turnover of RNSS and upon JTEKT/ JSAI, at the rate of 1 time of the relevant
profit of JSAI. Also, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,
the penalty, in terms of Section 27 (b) of the Act, to be imposed on the individuals of
NSK and JTEKT, held liable under Section 48 of the Act, was computed at the rate of
10% of the average of their income for the preceding three years. In view of the fact
that NSK/ RNSS was the first to approach the CCI as a Lesser Penalty applicant and
had provided complete, true and full disclosures, 100% reduction in penalty was
granted to NSK/ RNSS and its individuals and the penalty to be paid by them is nil.
Further, in view of the fact that JTEKT/ JSAI was the second to approach the CCI as
a Lesser Penalty applicant and had provided significant value addition in the matter,
50% reduction in penalty was granted to JTEKT/ JSAI and its individuals. Therefore,
the total penalty to be paid by JTEKT/ JSAI is INR 17,07,31,443/-.
DSK Legal’s observation - The CCI's probe covers the period till July 25, 2011.
The Japanese Fair-Trade Commission had also conducted an on-site inspection of
four Japanese companies including NSK and JTEK in connection with cartelization in
other product(s). The probe is a part of series of early Leniency Applications filed
before CCI for alleged cartelization in the automobile spare parts manufactured
outside India (mostly Japan). Only anti-competitive conduct post May 20, 2009 can
be subject to penalty under the Act.
Amendment to Combination Regulations 2019
By a notification dated August 13, 2015, the CCI has amended the Combination
Regulations w.e.f. August 15, 2019. Key features of the amendment are as follows:
1. Green Channel - This mechanism has been introduced and can be optionally
utilised by parties which do not have any horizontal, vertical or complementary
overlaps.
2. The transaction(s) will be deemed as approved upon receipt of an
acknowledgment of a notification filed under the green channel mechanism.
3. A declaration, mandated in Schedule IV of the Combination Regulations, will
accompany the notification filed under the aforementioned automatic approval
channel.
4
4. Where the CCI finds that the combination does not fall under the newly added
Schedule III and/or the declaration filed (as mandated under Schedule IV) is
incorrect, the notice given and the approval granted under this regulation shall be
void ab initio. However, prior to deciding if the notification is void ab initio or not,
the CCI will give the parties an opportunity of being heard.
5. The Amendment Regulations, 2019 have restructured Form I to introduce
requirement of additional details.
6. The parties are now required to submit only one summary below 1,000 words
instead of a long and short summary.
DSK Legal’s observation – The CCI has not defined complementary overlaps/
activities at this stage. Also, the self-assessment process for markets (especially
complementary overlaps/ activities) may be a humongous task for the parties to the
combination and they may choose to go with Form I/ II approval(s) at this stage
rather than risking gun-jumping under the Green Channel Route.
CCI approves Ctrip’s acquisition of 42.5% stake in MakeMytrip
By an order dated August 20, 2019, the CCI has approved the acquisition of 42.5% of
outstanding voting shares in MakeMytrip (“MMT”) by Hong Kong based travel service
provider Ctrip. Ctrip now holds nearly half of the homegrown online travel service
provider post this acquisition.
Ctrip has acquired the additional stake in MMT in a swap deal with South Africa-
based Naspers which received a 5.6% stake in Ctrip in exchange. The transaction
values MMT at over $2.57 billion based on the Ctrip share price early on Tuesday.
Ctrip announced the transaction on April 26, 2019. Ctrip’s earlier stake in MMT came
through a $180 million investment in convertible bonds in January 2016.
CCI clears Canada Pension Plan Investment Board 's stake-buy in logistics
firm Delhivery
By an order dated August 20, 2019, the CCI has approved stake acquisition in
logistics firm Delhivery by Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (“CPPIB”). As per
the notice submitted, the transaction is related to the acquisition of up to 8% equity
stake in Delhivery through a secondary purchase from existing shareholders of the
logistics firm by CPPIB.
CPPIB is a professional investment management organisation. It is governed and
managed independently of the Canada Pension Plan and at arm’s length from the S. Violation Regulation Fine
government, while Delhivery is engaged in the provision of third-party logistics
services in India. No. /Schedule
1. Delay in completion of bonus issue: 295(1) INR 20,000
CCI clears West Coast Paper Mills' majority stake buy in International
Paper APPM
• Within 15 days from the date of per day of
approval of the issue by its non-
By an order dated August 23, 2019, the CCI has approved acquisition of a majority board of directors- in cases compliance
stake in International Paper APPM by West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Bothcompanies are
in the business of manufacturing and selling of paper and paper board. where shareholders’ approval till the date of
for capitalization of profits or compliance.
According to the notice filed with CCI, the acquisition involves - "acquisition of 51-60
reserves for making the bonus
% shares of APPM from IP Investments and IP Holdings and acquisition of up to 25%
of the shares of APPM from public shareholders of APPM pursuant to an open offer issue is not required.
process.”

DSK Legal’s observation: Combinations (mergers, amalgamations, acquisitions

• Within 2 months from the date
and joint ventures) beyond a certain threshold require clearance from the of the meeting of its board of
Competition Commission of India. directors wherein the decision
to announce bonus issue was
CAPITAL MARKET taken subject to shareholders’
approval - in cases where issuer
Non-compliance with certain provisions of SEBI (Issue of Capital and
Disclosure Requirements), Regulations, 2018 (“ICDR Regulations”) is required to seek a
shareholders’ approval for
SEBI issued a circular dated June 15, 2017 specifying the fines to be imposed by the capitalization of profits or
stock exchanges for non-compliance with certain provisions of the SEBI ICDR
Regulations, 2009 (“SEBI June 15 Circular”). On August 19, 2019, SEBI issued a reserves for making the bonus
circular which supersedes the SEBI June 15 Circular. issue.
In pursuance of Regulation 297 and Regulation 298, ICDR Regulations, for non-
compliance of certain provisions of ICDR Regulations, stock exchanges shall impose 2. Listed entities not completing the 162 Same as
fines as under: conversion of convertible securities above
and allotting the shares - within 18
months from the date of allotment
of convertible securities.

5
 S. Violation Regulation Fine SEBI (International Financial Services Centres) Guidelines, 2015 -
Permissible investments by Alternative Investment Funds (“AIFs”)
No. /Schedule operating in International Financial Services Centre (“IFSC”)
3. The Issuer will make an application Schedule
SEBI vide circular dated May 23, 2017, had amended Clause 22 (3) of SEBI
to the exchange/s for listing in case XIX- Listing (International Financial Services Centres) Guidelines, 2015 relating to securities in
of further issue of equity shares of Same as which AIFs operating in IFSC can invest.
from the date of allotment within securities above
Now, SEBI vide its circular dated August 9, 2019, has permitted AIFs incorporated in
20 days (unless otherwise on stock IFSC to make investment as per the provisions of the SEBI (Alternative Investment
specified). exchanges Fund) Regulations, 2012, and the guidelines and circulars issued thereunder,
including the operating guidelines for AIFs in IFSC.
4. Listed entities will make an - Same as
application for trading approval to above. Parking of Funds in Short Term Deposits of Scheduled Commercial Banks
the stock exchange/s within 7 by Mutual Funds – Pending deployment
working days from the date of SEBI has issued a circular dated August 16, 2019 giving clarification on SEBI circular
grant of listing approval by the dated April 16, 2007 bearing number SEBI/IMD/CIR No. 1/91171/07 (“SEBI April
stock exchange/s. 2007 Circular”) relating to parking of funds in short term deposits of scheduled
commercial banks by mutual funds. SEBI April 2007 Circular inter alia provided that
trustees shall ensure that no funds of a scheme may be parked in the short-term
deposit of a bank which has invested in that scheme. Vide the said SEBI circular, it
The amount of fine realized as per the above structure will continue to be credited to
has been clarified that trustees/Asset Management Companies shall also ensure that
the Investor Protection Fund of the concerned stock exchange. The recognized stock
the bank in which a scheme has a short-term deposit do not invest in the said
exchange will (i) disseminate on their website the names of compliant listed entities
scheme until the scheme has a short-term deposit with such bank.
liable to pay penalty for non-compliance, the amount of fine imposed, details of fine
received etc.; (ii) issue notices to the non-compliant listed entities in order to ensure
Disclosure of reasons for encumbrance by promoter of listed companies
compliance and collect fine as per the circular within 15 days from the date of such
notice. Appropriate actions may be initiated by a recognized stock exchange if any
In order to bring greater transparency regarding reasons for encumbrance,
non-compliant entity fails to pay the fine, including prosecution.
particularly when significant shareholding by promoter(s) along with persons acting in
concert (PACs) with him is encumbered, SEBI issued a circular dated August 07, 2019
With respect to bonus issue delays, (i) the approvals for listing and trading of
which prescribes for additional disclosure requirements for encumbrance by promoter
promoters’ bonus shares may be granted by the stock exchange, only after payment
of listed companies under Regulation 31(1) read with Regulation 28(3) of SEBI
of requisite fine by the listed entity; (ii) approvals for the listing and trading of bonus
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.
shares allotted to persons other than the promoter(s) may be granted in the interest
of the investors, subject to compliance with other requirements.
The promoter of every listed company shall specifically disclose detailed reasons for
encumbrance if the combined encumbrance by the promoter along with PACs with
This circular shall be applicable with immediate effect.
him
equals or exceeds:

(i) 50% of their shareholding in the company; or

6
 (ii) 20% of the total share capital of the company,
in the format provided at Annexure II of this circular, within two working days from
the creation of such encumbrance, such disclosures will be warranted on every
occasion, when the extent of encumbrance (having already breached the above
threshold limits) increases further from the prevailing levels.
The disclosure in Annexure II shall be in addition to the disclosure requirements
provided vide SEBI circular bearing number CIR/CFD/POLICYCELL/3/2015 dated
August 05, 2015.
The provisions of this circular shall come into effect from October 01, 2019.
FEMA
Acceptance of Deposits by issue of Commercial Papers
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has on August 16, 2019 issued the Foreign
Exchange Management (Deposit) (Amendment) Regulations, 2019 vide
circular bearing number RBI/2019-20/44 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 06
(“Circular”), notifying that sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 6 of Foreign Exchange
Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016 (“Regulations”) has been deleted.
b) payment for issue of Commercial Paper is received by the issuing company by
inward remittance from outside India through banking channels or out of funds held
in a deposit account maintained by a Non-Resident Indian or a Person of Indian
Origin in accordance with the Regulations made by Reserve Bank in that regard;
c) the amount invested in Commercial Paper shall not be eligible for repatriation
outside India; and
d) the Commercial Paper shall not be transferable.”
The RBI while reviewing Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations vis-à-vis other
statutes/regulations noted that Section 45U(b) of the RBI Act, 1934 describes
commercial papers as one of the ‘money market instruments. Further, Section 2(c) of
Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014 excludes any amount received from
issuance of commercial papers from the definition of deposits. RBI also noted that
Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident
outside India) Regulations, 2017 (“TISPRO Regulations”) already allow
investments in commercial papers issued by Indian companies.
Thus, the RBI has, in order to bring consistency amongst various statues and
regulations advised that Regulation 6(3) be deleted.

The Regulations came into existence vide notification No. FEMA 5(R)/2016-RB dated
April 01, 2016. Rule 6 (3) of the Regulations whilst dealing with the acceptance of
deposits by persons other than authorized dealers/authorized banks states as follows:

“An Indian company may accept deposits by issue of Commercial Paper to a non-
resident Indian or a person of Indian origin or a foreign portfolio investor registered
with the Securities and Exchange Board of India subject to the following conditions,
namely:

a) the issue is in due compliance with the Non-Banking Companies (Acceptance of

Deposits through Commercial Paper) Directions, 1989 issued by the Reserve Bank as
also any other law, rule, directions, orders issued by the Government or any other
regulatory authority, in regard to acceptance of deposits by issue of Commercial
Paper;

7
RBI
Priority Sector Lending – Lending by banks to NBFCs for On-Lending
The RBI pursuant to notification dated August 13, 2019, (“RBI On-Lending
Notification”) notified certain measures to boost credit to registered non-banking
financial company (NBFCs) (other microfinance institutions (MFI)) for on-lending on
the following conditions making such lending eligible for classification as priority
sector under respective categories:
i. Agriculture: on-lending by NBFCs for ‘term lending’ component under
agriculture will be allowed up to INR 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakh) per
borrower.
ii. Micro and small enterprises: on-lending by NBFC will be allowed up to INR
20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakh) per borrower.
iii. Housing: enhancement of the existing limits for on-lending by housing
finance companies vide para 10.5 of the Master Directions on Priority Sector
Lending, from INR 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakh) per borrower to INR
20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakh) per borrower.
The RBI On-Lending Notification further states that under the aforesaid model, banks
can classify only fresh loans sanctioned by NBFCs out of bank borrowings whereas
loans given to housing finance companies under the existing on-lending guidelines
will continue to be classified under priority sector by banks.
Bank credit to NBFCs for on-Lending will be allowed up to a limit of 5% of individual
bank’s total priority sector lending on an ongoing basis. The said instructions will be
valid for the current financial year until March 31, 2020, pursuant to which the same
will be reviewed afresh.
The RBI On-Lending Notification clarifies that loans disbursed under the on-lending
model will continue to be classified under priority sector till the date of
repayment/maturity. The RBI Circular also clarifies that the existing guidelines on
bank loans to MFIs for on-lending will continue to be applicable for NBFC-MFIs.
8
REAL ESTATE
Personal Use of Property does not entail RERA Registration With TNRERA
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“TNRERA”) has clarified that
registration with TNRERA is not required if the housing projects are meant for
developing the properties for personal use of promoters/developers or letting them
out on rent even if such project is developed on an area exceeding 500 square
meters or consists of eight or more flats.
Madhya Pradesh RERA proposes a Modification in Rules
The Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has proposed the appointment
of a district judge level officer as an executing officer with the powers of the civil
court as well as revenue court to ensure that the orders are implemented without any
delay.
The said proposal would require a modification in the state RERA rules 27 and 28 that
deal with the recovery of interest, penalty, and compensation, implementing the
orders, directions, and decisions of the authority.
Delay Possession Charges ordered by Haryana RERA
Exercising the power under Section 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (“Act”), the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(“HRERA”) in Mr. Pankaj Kapoor, Mrs. Ekta Bhasin v. M/s Emmar MGF Lands Limited
(complaint no. 226 of 2019) ordered Emaar MGF Lands to pay the delay possession
charges @10.60% p.a. from the committed date of possession to the actual date of
delivery of the property for its project Palm Hills situated in sector 77, Gurugram.
Maharashtra RERA declares Society as Promoter
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MREAT”) has declared a housing
society in Vidyavihar as a co-promoter of the housing project and has penalised the
society for violating section 15 of the Act. The society has been considered as a co-
promoter here since the society executed an agreement with the builder for the
construction of a new building by demolishing the existing one and sell additional
flats, which comes under the definition of the promoter.
RERA ORDERS
Unregistered Projects Not Exempted From RERA- Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, Punjab
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (“PREAT”) has recently ruled that the
provisions of the RERA are also applicable on promoters of projects that are not
registered with RERA and the RERA remedial measures are available to the
consumers connected with the unregistered projects.
Quashing an order passed by Punjab RERA in Silver City (Main) Resident Welfare
Association (Regd.) Vs. Silver City Housing & Infrastructure Limited, Zirakpur, the
PREAT observed that the interpretation that RERA shall be entitled to have control
only over those projects, which have been registered and not over those, which have
deliberately or otherwise not been registered, will be an interpretation nugatory to
the object sought to be achieved for implementing the Act in letter and spirit.
The PREAT further observed that the Act is a welfare legislation and must be
interpreted in such a manner to further and advance the policy and object of the Act.
Unregistered Projects Not Exempted From RERA- Real Estate Appellate
Tribunal, Punjab
The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (“PREAT”) has recently ruled that the
provisions of the RERA are also applicable on promoters of projects that are not
registered with RERA and the RERA remedial measures are available to the
consumers connected with the unregistered projects.
Quashing an order passed by Punjab RERA in Silver City (Main) Resident Welfare
Association (Regd.) Vs. Silver City Housing & Infrastructure Limited, Zirakpur, the
PREAT observed that the interpretation that RERA shall be entitled to have control
only over those projects, which have been registered and not over those, which have
deliberately or otherwise not been registered, will be an interpretation nugatory to
the object sought to be achieved for implementing the Act in letter and spirit.
The PREAT further observed that the Act is a welfare legislation and must be
interpreted in such a manner to further and advance the policy and object of the Act.
9
RERA can Grant Interest on Delay In Possession- Haryana Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal
The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“HREAT”) in the matter of M/s Selene
Constructions Ltd. v. Mr Tarun Aggarwal and other connected matters has, inter alia,
held that RERA can award interest in case of delay in possession of a dwelling unit.
The issue for consideration before the HREAT was whether RERA has jurisdiction to
entertain the complaints regarding grant of simpliciter interest for the delayed
possession and consequently award interest or not.
The HREAT ruled that RERA is competent to deal with the complaints where the claim
is only for grant of interest simpliciter on account of delay in delivery of possession.
The HREAT observed “There cannot be two separate forums i.e. one for regulating
the development of real estate project and another forum to award interest for
delayed possession, as both these aspects are closely interlinked and interwoven”.
The HREAT also clarified that the adjudicating officer can only intervene in cases
where the claim was for refund and compensation along with interest.
TAX
SERVICE TAX & EXCISE
The Central Government vide the Notification No. 4/ 2019 Central Excise- NT dated
21.08.2019 appointed 01.09.2019 as the date on which the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy
Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 shall come into force.
The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 were notified on
21.08.2019 vide the Notification No. 05/2019- Central Excise NT.
DSK LEGAL delivered a webinar on the topic, “Key Insights on Legacy
Dispute Resolution Scheme” on 31.08.2019. The same is available at:
https://bit.ly/2NHviw2
GOODS & SERVICES TAX MEDIA LAW

The Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs vide Notification No. 37/2019- Central
Tax dated 21.08.2019 has extended the implementation of rule-138E of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 from 21.08.2019 to 21.11.2019.
INCOME TAX
Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes
(CBDT) has enhanced the monetary thresholds for filing of income tax appeals. The
enhanced monetary limit is as follows
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 comes into force
The Parliament has passed the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 which replaces the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”). The Bill seeks to establish a national level
regulator – the Central Consumer Protection Authority – to deal with consumer
complaints on a proactive measure. Further key provisions include dealing with class
actions, product liability, misleading advertisements, liability for celebrity
endorsements etc. The aim of the Act is to strengthen consumer interests with the
establishment of regulatory authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and
provide the timely and effective administration of such disputes.

ASCI advisory for advertisements featuring Military Fatigues

Monetary Limits (INR)
Appeal/ SLPs in The Advertising Standard Council of India (“ASCI”) in a new advisory stated that
Sr advertisements portraying actors in military fatigues will need a prior approval from
Income-tax
No. Earlier limits Revised limits vide the Defense Ministry before release of such an advertisement in public domain. As
matters
Circular 17/2019 per reports, such an advisory came after some consumers complained regarding an
ad released by a pan masala brand which depicted actors in camouflaged uniform of
the army personnel while chewing the brand.
1. Before Tax Tribunal 20,00,000 50,00,000
Pakistan bans advertisements featuring Indian artists
2. Before High Court 50,00,000 1,00,00,000
Pakistan's electronic media watchdog has banned the airing of advertisements
featuring Indian artists as part of the country's protest against India revoking the
3. Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory
Authority (“PEMRA”) circulated a letter dated August 14, 2019 announcing the ban.

Copyright Office: No License Required for Use of Songs in Marriages

The Copyright Office has issued a public notice dated August 27, 2019 clarifying that
the utilization of any sound recording in the course of religious ceremony including a
marriage procession and other social festivities associated with a marriage does not
require a license from the copyright owners. The notice was issued in response to
representations from various stakeholders seeking a clarification on the issue.

The Copyright Office has cited the fair use provisions in Section 52(i)(u)(za) of the
Copyright Act, 1957, which specifically makes an exception for religious ceremonies,
including those related to marriage.

10
Thus, any use of sound recording in course of a religious ceremony in connection
with a marriage or other social festivities surrounding it shall not amount to
infringement of copyright and hence no license would be required for the same.

TRAI to review its new tariff order

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) has issued a consultation paper
which seeks to review the framework of the new tariff order that was issued in
February, 2019 to make television viewing affordable for consumers. The issues
brought out in the paper are, amongst others, whether channel bouquets should be
allowed and should a cap on discounts within bouquets be reintroduced. The concern
amongst broadcasters is that if TRAI disallows broadcasters from assembling the
bouquets, it will impact their business model as many smaller and less popular
channels will not get enough audiences and lose reach and viewership, resulting in a
further drop in advertising revenue.

FDI in digital media at 26%

THANK YOU
The Cabinet on August 28, 2019 approved 26% FDI in digital media. The 26% FDI is
under the government approved route for uploading/ streaming of news and current
affairs through digital media, on the lines of print media.

Reliance Jio’s First Day First Show plans

Reliance Jio plans to offer ‘First Day First Show’ service for premium JioFiber
customers by next year which will allow its subscribers to watch movies releasing in
theatres at home on the very first day.

As per reports, the announcement saw investors begin a sell-off in multiplex stocks.
Multiplexes such as PVR and INOX have responded to the announcement as a highly
disruptive development, with PVR noting that “in India and globally, producers have
respected the release windows and kept a sacrosanct gap between the theatrical
release date & the date of release on all other platforms, i.e. DVD, DTH, TV, OTT
etc.” Inox stated that “producers, distributors and multiplex owners in India have
mutually agreed to an exclusive theatrical window of 8 weeks, between the theatrical
release of a movie, and release on any other platform”.

11
DSK Legal Knowledge Center

Contact Details for any queries: Knowledge.Management@dsklegal.com

MUMBAI OFFICE: MUMBAI OFFICE:

1203, One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2-B,
BENGALURU OFFICE:
C-16, Dhanraj Mahal,
Floor 12-B, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, 206 & 207, 2nd Floor, HM Geneva
Chhatrapati Shivaji Marg,
Elphinstone Road, Building, 14, Cunningham Road
Apollo Bunder,
Mumbai 400 013 Bengaluru 560052
Mumbai 400 001
Tel +91 22 6658 8000 Tel +91 22 6152 6000
Fax +91 22 6658 8001 Fax +91 22 6152 6001

DELHI OFFICE: PUNE OFFICE:

ESC House 155, 1 & 2nd Floor Office Number 301, Third Floor
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3, Power Point, Lane 6, North Main Road
New Delhi 110 020 Koregaon Park
Tel +91 11 46616666 Pune 411 001
Fax +91 11 46616600 Tel +91 20 69000930

DISCLAIMER
This document intends to provide general information on a particular subject/s and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject/s and is intended merely to highlight
issues. It is not intended to be exhaustive or a substitute for legal/professional advice. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the basis for any decision
which may affect you or your business and does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without appropriate legal advice. DSK
Legal shall not be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person relying on this material.

12