Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 MAY 2022

Cracking The Code (Part 3): Interpreting The Term "Dispute"

Agama Law Associates
Explore more from Agama Law Associates

Further to our Part II, in this Part we have dealt with the interpretation of the term "Dispute" under the Code.

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Archana Balasubramanian
Archana Balasubramanian
Author LinkedIn connections

Further to our  Part II, in this Part we have dealt with the interpretation of the term “Dispute” under the Code.

The Code being a new legislation is going through several judicial tests and every test is leading to a new interpretation of the provisions of the Code resulting in inconsistency between them. Several judgements have been pronounced by National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) which are inconsistent with each other and the point of focus and interpretation of these judgements has been on the term “Dispute” which is a core of remedy available to a debtor under the Code.

Disputes

Section5(6)

The term dispute has been defined under section 5(6) of the Code which speaks as follows:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act: What The Supreme Court’s New Procedural Guidelines Mean For Cheque-Bounce Cases

A cheque is supposed to offer something close to certainty in a commercial transaction. When a cheque is issued, the recipient ordinarily expects that it will be honoured when presented. A dishonoured cheque, therefore, is not merely a failed payment; it can have wider consequences for the credibility and discipline of commercial dealings.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Use Of IPO Proceeds: Why SEBI Questions “General Corporate Purpose” More Closely Today?

SEBI's intensified scrutiny of "General Corporate Purposes" in IPO offer documents reflects a fundamental shift in how regulators view the deployment of public capital. What began as a modest catch-all for operational flexibility has evolved into allocations reaching 25-35% of issue proceeds, prompting questions about transparency, investor protection, and the true intentions behind these vague funding categories.
IndiaFinance and Banking
Agama Law Associates
Agama Law Associates
Article

Corporate Governance Before IPO: Why “Founder-Led” Cannot Mean “Founder-Controlled?”

Indian companies transitioning from founder-driven private enterprises to publicly listed entities face a fundamental governance challenge: distinguishing between founder-led vision and founder-controlled power structures. As SEBI's regulatory framework demands transparency in board composition, related party transactions, and decision-making processes, pre-IPO companies must dismantle informal governance practices and build institutional counterweights that protect minority shareholders while preserving st
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
Agama Law Associates
Agama Law Associates