Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has always been the most talked about state of India and due to article 370 of the constitution of India it has always enjoyed a special autonomy. Article 370 of the constitution came into the limelight again after state of Jammu and Kashmir agreed for the implementation of GST bill just after a week when GST bill came into existence. Even though everyone had doubt over review of Article 370,It has been ensured by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh that the BJP led Centre would not do anything against the wishes of Kashmiris.

What is Article 370? 

Article 370 is basically a 'temporary provision' that gives special rights and autonomous status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Part XXI of the Constitution of India deals with "Temporary, Transitional and Special provisions of the Constitution", according to this part the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been given special status under Article 370. All those provisions of the Constitution which are applicable to other states of India are not applicable and relevant to state of J&K. For instance, till 1965, state of Jammu and Kashmir had a Sadr-e-Riyasat for governor and prime minister in place of chief minister. 

What is the History of Article 370?

The provision of article 370 was drafted in 1947 by Sheikh Abdullah and Sheikh Abdullahwas appointed as prime minister of Jammu & Kashmir by Maharaja Hari Singh and JawaharLal Nehru. He stated that Article 370 must not be placed under temporary provisions of the Constitution. He asked for 'iron clad autonomy' for the state, which was not acceptable for the centre. 

Merits and Demerits of Article 370

1. Power

Merit: State has the ultimate veto power

State of Jammu and Kashmir has its own sets of Fundamental rights and without taking permission of the state of J&K no law can be enforced by the Central Government. This means that the state enjoys a complete autonomy.

Demerit: The Indian government can interfere only in limited areas

 The government cannot interfere in anything any matter any issue excluding the areas of defence, communication and foreign affairs. The government cannot declare a national or financial emergency in the state unless there is internal disturbance.

2. Constitution and Flag

Merit: Kashmir has its own constitution and flag

Among all the states in India, Jammu and Kashmir is the only state to have its own constitution. Till 2002, Minimum of 29 amendments has been made to the constitution of J&K. In J&K the residual powers stays with the State government, not the Centre which is not the case in other states.

State of Jammu and Kashmir has its own red colour flag which has a story to it.21 people were martyred during the protest against the Dogra rulers in 1931. So the protestors raised the blood stained t-shirt of one of the victims as the new flag of Kashmir. The current flag of Kashmir is red in colour in memory of the martyrs and has 3 lines to represent Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. It also has a plough representing farmers.

Demerit: No Indian law or Supreme Court verdict is applicable in J&K

The biggest drawback is that even important and relevant laws are not applicable in the state of J&K. For example, Fundamental Duties and Fundamental Rights, Indian Penal Code and Right to Information do not apply to Jammu and Kashmir.

Due to the lack of Fundamental Rights, when something as basic as Right to Education is not available, it poses a grave threat to the quality of life in Jammu and Kashmir. Also, even though 20 % of the population belongs to the SC and ST category, the constitutional provisions that protect their interests haven’t reached them.

3. Citizenship

Merit: Permanent residents of Kashmir enjoy dual citizenship.

The residents of state of J&K are citizens of India as well as Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, the permanent residents of J&K enjoy citizenship of J&K and India, but Indians can never be citizens of J&K.

Demerit: They can lose their citizenship by marrying a non-Kashmiris

According to the provision of Article 370, if a woman marries a man outside of J&K, she will lose her citizenship of J&K. But if she will get married to a Pakistani, she can retain her citizenship of Jammu & Kashmir. According to Article 370 if a Pakistan’s male citizen will marry a Kashmiri girl, he can have an Indian citizenship.

In the end, quite a lot of what’s happening in Kashmir can be ascribed to Article 370. However, since the state’s consensus is with Article 370, there seems to be no immediate threat to it

4. Privileges

Merit: Only permanent residents of J&K can buy land and immovable property

The laws relating to land is not emerge recently. Rather they existed until the Dogra reign when the sole purpose of enactment of laws was to keep the Britishers prevented from taking away their land. After having a great legal history, it was made compulsory for the temporary residents of the State to be banned from acquiring any immovable property in Jammu and Kashmir.

Demerit: Less infrastructural investment is acting as a hurdle to Kashmir’s development

The businessmen were not allowed to set up and make investments in industries as there were no opportunities for growth. This was the main reason for thousands of people sitting unemployed at that time. Due to unemployment, the economic situation of Kashmir almost became stagnant. The youth of Kashmir unwillingly indulge in unethical practices to earn bread. This truly is a threat to the future of Kashmir. Even, there are no proper health care facilities as the medical practitioners are forced not to set up any hospitals, clinics, etc there.

5. Anti-national

Merit: Insulting or burning the national flag is not a cognizable crime in Kashmir.

The State flag was adopted on June 7, 1952. The J&K Prevention of Insult to State Flag Act, 1979 prevents any disrespect to the State flag. Under the Act, it is an offence to “bring into contempt” the State flag.

Demerit: This probably makes Kashmir a safe haven for all the anti-national elements under this article

There is lack of checking mechanisms which would ensure respect for the nation. This is the reason why it has been isolated. The valuable (to the State) youth are being taken up into insurgency and militancy. They are there made subject to being brainwashed into stone pelting. The consideration they are offered is payment of money. They are paid for carrying out the immoral acts.

On January 2, 2018, the Finance Minister proposed The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill before the Lok Sabha. The president of India agreed to this amendment and was notified in the Official Gazette on 02.08.2018 to become an Act called the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (No. 20 of 2018).

The Amendment was done to meet the following aim:

1. Reducing the undue delay in the cheque dishonor cases and,
2. Provision for payment of interim compensation to the complainants.

 The main object of amendment was to ease the dealings of the business.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill is produced herein below:

"The Central Government has been receiving several representations from the  public including trading community relating to pendency of cheque dishonour cases. This is because of delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on   proceedings"

AMENDMENTS:

 143A and 148, 2 new sections have been proposed to be included under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 via the Amendment Act:

SECTION 143A

It gives the Court power to order the drawer of the cheque to pay Interim Compensation to the complainant:

1. In case of a summary trial or a summons case, where the drawer pleads not guilty to the allegations made in the complaint, and
2. In any other case, upon framing of the charges.

Quantum of Compensation

The amount of compensation which can be awarded shall not exceed 20 percent of the total cheque amount.

On Acquittal

There may arise certain situations in which the drawer is acquitted and payee is directed to refund the entire amount of interim compensation. Such refund will be in addition to the RBI's Prevailing interest rate.

Time Frame

The intermediate compensation will have to be paid within 60 days from the date of the order by the court. This period is extendable to 30 days. Extension will be granted only when the applicant is successful in satisfying the Court that he had genuine reasons for the delay.

SECTION 148

Section 148 was inserted in the Negotiable Instrument Act to give power to the Appellate Court for ordering payment pending the appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Another power conferred upon the Appellate Court is that it may order the appellant to deposit an amount which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. This amount shall be in addition to the amount already paid by the appellant under Section 143A. This deposit may be released by an order for payment to the complainant at anytime during the pendency of the appeal.

On Acquittal

In situation where the appellate is acquitted, the complainant will be directed by the Court to refund the entire deposit amount along with the RBI's prevailing interest rate to the appellant.

Time Frame

The deposit will have to be made within 60 days from the date of the order by the court. . Extension will be granted only when the applicant is successful in satisfying the Court that he had genuine reasons for the delay.

CONCLUSION:

The Amendment Act comes as a relief for the Payee of the Cheque, who has to spend a significant amount of time and energy in the court to recover the money due to him in a Cheque bounce case. Of late the recovery provisions have been strengthened so that business community is relieved and safeguarded from undue hardship.

Radha Chemicals v. Union of India

The Court contained itself to Section 34 of the 1993 Act, section 34 lays down the parameters and procedure on the basis of which an award passed by the arbitrator can be set aside. Sub-section (4) of Section 34, gives the arbitral tribunal time to restart the proceedings and remove the grounds, as such, for setting aside the arbitral award and that such an application should be made within three (3) months from the date of a party receiving arbitral awards, unless otherwise in the opinion of the Court.

In this case the award was made and published almost ten 10 years ago from the date of the appeal, and the grounds on which the award was questioned was the limitation period, which was basically never raised until the Appeal in 2017.And, while the interference of the Court is expected to be kept minimal therefore, the remedy to set aside arbitral award and the discretion exercised by the Court is limited. Further, as observed by the Court in the Kinnari Mullick's supra, the Court stick to same view that it has no jurisdiction to send the matter for fresh decision. The present order of the Supreme Court has further clarified the stand of jurisdiction and discretion which the Court needs to exercise while remitting a matter for arbitration in lieu of Section 34 in its entirety and not in isolation.

The State of Bihar &Ors. Vs. Bihar RajyaBhumiVikas Bank Samiti

A bench of 2 judges including Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra,  gave a judgment that deals with the nature of Sections 34(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.These clauses were added to the Act of 1996 by Amending Act 3 of 2016 (w.e.f. October 23, 2015). The aforementioned judgment stands as a landmark precedent for every lawyer and court to follow when an issue arises as to whether the amended Sections 34(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are to be treated as mandatory or directory in nature.

For the sake of convenience, the inserted Sections 34 (5) and (6) of the amended provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are reproduced herein:

“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—

(5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement. 

(6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party.” 

M/s Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. GirdharSondhi

The Supreme Court recently ruled in this case that unless absolutely necessary, the courts should not go beyond the record before the arbitrator in deciding an application for setting aside an award. The court also reiterated that “seat” in the context of arbitration proceedings is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause and would vest the seat courts with exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings.

K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company

(Civil Appeal No. 21824 of 2017, decided on August 14, 2018)

This case related to a dispute in which claims arose when a project was referred to an arbitral tribunal. Even as the arbitral tribunal passed an award in favor of the creditor, the award was challenged by the debtor under Section 34 of the Act. The IBC gave him time period of ten days for doing so. But, he filed an application with the NCLT which ruled that under Section 34 o the Act of 1996, the claim being admitted was completely irrelevant. The NCLAT was approached which again ruled that Section 238 of the IBC would override the Arbitration Act.

The matter then came up to Supreme Court. The Court was to decide whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be invoked in respect of an operational debt where an arbitral award has been passed against the operational debtor, which has not yet been finally adjudicated upon. The holding of the Apex Court was that when an petition under Section 34 is filed against the arbitral award, it implies that there is an existing dispute culminating at the very 1^st stage of the proceedings. It continues even after the Award has reached final stage under Sections 34 and 37.

BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd.

(2018) 6 SCC 287

The question before Supreme Court was that what will happen to the petitions filed under Section 34 of the Act that had been filed before the commencement of the Amendment Act, which were governed by Section 36 of the old Act? Would Section 36, as substituted, apply to such petitions?

The Supreme Court inter alia held:

1.      Section 36 will apply to pending Section 34 applications on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.

2.      The context of Section 36 would refer to Section 34 petitions filed before the commencement of the Amendment Act and it would be apply , in its substituted form, even to such petitions. 

3.      Looking at the practical aspect and the nature of rights presently involved, and the sheer unfairness of the unamended provision, which granted an automatic stay to execution of an award before the enforcement process of Section 34 was over (and which stay could last for a number of years) without having to look at the facts of each case, it is clear that Section 36 as amended should apply to petitions filed under Section 34 before the commencement of the Amendment Act also for the aforesaid reasons.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian constitution define the powers of the High Court of India.

Article 226, give High Courts the power to issue any person or authority, including the government in some cases, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.

What are these Writs?

Habeas Corpus - A simple dictionary meaning of the writ of Habeas Corpus is "a writ requiring a person under arrest of illegal detention to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention".

Mandamus- A writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty.

Prohibition- A writ of prohibition is issued primarily to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction in cases pending before it or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Quo warranto - This simply means "by what warrant?” This writ is issued to enquire into the legality of the claim of a person or public office. It restrains the person or authority to act in an office which he / she is not entitled to; and thus, stops usurpation of public office by anyone. This writ is applicable to the public offices only and not to private offices.

Certiorari- Literally, Certiorari means "to be certified". The writ of certiorari can be issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the order already passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority.

The High Court is conferred with this power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose.

Article 227 gives every High Court power to have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories regarding which high court exercises its jurisdiction (except a court formed under a law related to armed forces).

Under article 227 of Indian constitution, every high court of India has following powers –

• High court can call for returns from such courts,
• High court has an authority to make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts.
• Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts be kept by the officers of any such courts.
• Settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts.

Scope, Powers and Difference between Article 226 and Article 227

 In the case of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, the Supreme Court of India relied on many previous constitutional Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court, one oof those judgments were Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr, it was this case who laid down scope, power and differences between Article 226 and Article 227.

The most important and particular difference between the two articles is that Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 gives the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, excluding the fact that the superintendence power has been extended by this Article to tribunals as well. Though the power is similar to that of an ordinary court of appeal, but still the power given Article 227 is with an aim that it must be used exceptionally and only in specific cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the limit of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.

It was also observed by the court that power under Article 227 shall be exercised only in cases of grave injustice or failure of justice such as

(i) When the court or tribunal has believed in a jurisdiction which basically it does not have, (ii) The court or tribunal has flunked to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and

(iii) The jurisdiction which is available to the court but it is being used in such wrong manner that it is over stepping the limits of jurisdiction.

In the case of Surya Devi rai vs. Ram Chander Rai,the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there is lack of knowledge of the distinction between the understanding of Article 226 and 227 and hence it is a common custom with the lawyers labeling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncements.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after looking into its previous judgements in case of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai laid down the following differences:

i. Firstly, the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction (Article 226) by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227) is not an original jurisdiction and in this regard, it is akin to appellate revision or corrective jurisdiction.

ii. Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more (Art 226). In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Art 227) the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute the impugned decision with a decision of its own, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.

iii. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved but the power conferred under Article 227 viz the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suomoto as well.

The court further added that under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, basically when a subordinate court is found to have acted in following manner:

(i) When subordinate court assumes jurisdiction where it does not have any

(ii) In excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or

(iii) Acting in wrong disregard of law or the rules of procedure or when subordinate court acts in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law, and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, through this judgment, brought all the subordinate Judicial bodies under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, curtailing the alternate remedy of Appeal available to the aggrieved, which directly or indirectly made no difference in the powers of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The difference between Article 226 and Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was very firstly brought up in the case of Umaji Keshao[1].

The Court has held that

“Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this article to tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.

25. Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions, wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. Without entering into niceties and technicality of the subject, we venture to state the broad general difference between the two jurisdictions. Firstly, the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin to appellate, revisional or corrective jurisdiction. Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, maybe, by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved; the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suo motu as well.

Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors

It was in the year 2015 that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of H.L Dattu. CJI, Sikri.J, and A.K. Goel. J, were to look into the matter of correctness of the law which was promulgated in another case.[2]

The Hon'ble Court observed that:

"This Court unfortunately discerns (with Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai) that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also, in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases, the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals, writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.

We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed, it has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226."

Hence, the Supreme Court noted the difference between Article 226 and Article 227. It also condensed some powers to the High Courts under Article 226. They have to attend petitions which do not touch, in any way, the Fundamental Rights of any person.

The scope of Article 226 and Article 227 is quite vast. The High Court has the power to correct errors of jurisdiction. But it cannot disturb the true findings of the facts because they are within the appellate Court’s jurisdiction only.

Another power of High Court is the power of revision. It enables the revision Court to be sure of the following of a finding

1.      Correctness

2.      Legality

3.      Propriety

4.      Sentence or order recorded/passed

Under Article 226, High Court can’t be regarded as a Revision or Appellate Court because when any subordinate Court rejects the order, the legal remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party to get an answer of the question of violation of fundamental right.

What is Entertainment Law?

Any foreign investor contemplating to do business in India on its own or with an Indian partner must have a well thought out entry strategy in terms of business vehicle. Foreign investors have the option of setting up a company, branch/liaison office or a limited liability partnership (LLP).

The most commonly used vehicle is a private limited company. Indian companies are regulated under the Companies Act, 2013. LLPs, which are a comparatively new phenomenon in India, are governed by the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DIPP), a department under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India issues the country’s foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. For matters seeking urgent attention and intervention by the government, press notes are issued.

Inflow and outflow aspects of foreign exchange are regulated by rules, regulations and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which acts as the Central / Federal Bank of India as well as forex market regulator. RBI sets the financial norms, e.g., the valuation of securities of Indian entities for issue and transfer, eligibility norms for foreign investors, etc.

Most investment sectors are under the automatic route (i.e. no prior approval is required for foreign investment); only a few sectors such as insurance, real estate, non-banking financial corporations are regulated, and prior approval may be required from the concerned Ministry / Department at a Central Government level. FDI into LLPs is also permitted, subject to certain conditions. Indian Government has been liberalising India’s FDI policy from time to time.

PROHIBITED SECTORS

FDI in India is currently not permitted in broadly the following sectors:

Lottery Business including Government /private lottery, online lotteries, etc;

Gambling and Betting including casinos etc.;

Chit funds;

Nidhi company (borrowing from members and lending to members only);

Trading in Transferable Development Rights (TDRs);

Real Estate Business or Construction of Farm Houses;

Manufacturing of Cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes;

Activities / sectors not open to private sector investment e.g. Atomic Energy.

Legal, accounting and architecture services

TAXATION

Personal and corporate Income tax in India is governed by a Central legislation, the Income tax Act, 1961, while most of the indirect taxes have been subsumed in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) introduced in 2017. Apart from these, India also has robust transfer pricing rules which apply to any related party transactions.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

India follows the common law and has a single court system, i.e., the Courts administer both Central and State laws. The court system is three tiered, comprising the District courts, the High Courts (at State level) and the Supreme Court of India (at the Central level). In addition, there are subject specific tribunals too – e.g., National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Considering the slow pace of litigation in India and a huge backlog of cases before Indian courts, parties to commercial relationships are increasingly relying on alternative modes of dispute resolution, such as arbitration.

An investor must be very careful about the choice of dispute resolution mechanism in any commercial transaction involving an Indian part as it can have very significant consequences. The investors must carefully discuss and examine the merits and demerits of different modes of dispute resolution, be it litigation before Indian / foreign courts or arbitration.

EMPLOYMENT LAWS

There are different Central and State laws on labour issues, and these vary at times depending on the Indian State where an investor has its operations. All appropriate registrations should be secured within prescribed deadlines and all HR records must be maintained as per mandated requirements.

The government has been introducing several reforms with respect to labour and employment laws to make these laws industry friendly and minimise the compliance burden for the private sector, particularly entities operating in the medium or small scale segment.

ANTI-TRUST REGULATION

Competition Act, 2002 governs the anti-trust issues in India. This legislation prohibits or regulates (a) anti-competitive agreements (b) abuse of a dominant position and (c) combinations.

Anti-competitive agreements are broadly defined as any agreement in respect of ‘production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India’. For example, certain kinds of tie-in arrangements or bid-rigging are presumed to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition and are subject to the legislation.

MODES OF ENTRY

There are two major entry routes for foreign entities into India: equity and non-equity. Under the equity route, a foreign investor can form a joint venture with an Indian partner or set up a wholly owned subsidiaries (allowed in most industry and service segments).The non-equity route would mean exports and contractual agreements.

Incorporating a private or public company or One Person Company (OPC) as a subsidiary in India involves paperwork for approvals and other formalities. In addition to the basic procedures, depending upon the sector and nature of business activities, companies may need to register with the relevant sector regulators.

For incorporation of an Indian company, a set of applications (name approval, incorporation) have to be filed with concerned Registrar of Companies (ROC) with details of directors, proposed capital, registered office, etc. The most common route is to incorporate a private limited company with 2 shareholders and 2 directors (at least 1 director has to be resident Indian).

Choosing the right market entry strategy for India requires careful consideration of the needs, capacities and format of each particular business. Whether you choose to set up a subsidiary, a liaison office or a joint venture, there are several options available, each with different implications and advantages.

 *******************

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that demands a party must do or must not do certain acts. A party that does not follow an order of injunction and fails to comply with it has to

1.      face both criminal and civil penalties and

2.      damages or accept sanctions for that.

Breach of injunction is considered serious criminal offenses in some cases which can result into arrest and possible prison sentences.

Emergency injunctions that are into effect only for less time and are known as temporary restraining orders. Courts can also grant preliminary injunctions to take effect immediately and effectively until a decision is made on a permanent injunction, which can stay in effect unconditionally or until certain conditions are met.

Every court is established for the purpose of providing justice to people all the courts has all such powers as may be required to do full and complete justices to the parties before it.

A court undoubtedly has the power to grant interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued during the pendency of proceedings.

DEFINITION

An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or is refrained from doing, any particular act. It is a remedy in the form of an order of the Court addressed to a particular person that either prohibits him from doing ‘or continuing to do a particular act (prohibitory injunction); or orders him to carry out a certain act (mandatory injunction).

OBJECT

Until legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated by the grant of the interim relief an individual’s property can be preserved. Basically, the object of making an order regarding interim relief is to evolve a workable formula to the extent called for by the demands of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter and striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, i.e., injury and prejudice, which the plaintiff had to bear if the relief is refused; and same goes for defendant if the relief is granted. The court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion can grant or refuse to grant interim relief.

The main object of granting an individual temporary injunction is to maintain and preserve status quo at the time of proceedings institution and to avoid any change in it until the final determination of the suit. It is in the nature of protective relief granted in favour of a party to prevent future possible injury.

TYPES OF INJUNCTION

Section 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act govern injunction. Injunctions are of three kinds:

·         Temporary

·         Permanent

·         Mandatory

I. Permanent Injunction:

A permanent Injunction, also known by the name perpetual injunction, prohibits a party forever from doing the particular act and it can be granted only on merits at the end of the trial after hearing both parties to the suit.

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act lays down the cases in which perpetual injunction can be granted.

Under Section 38(1),when breach of an obligation is to be prevented, then the Court can pass permanent injunction. Such obligation can exist either expressly or impliedly.

While under Section 38(3), perpetual or permanent injunction can be granted when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases:

I.                   where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;

II.                where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion:

III.             where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;

IV.             where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

II. Temporary or interim injunction:

This type of injunction stops a party for a while from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the suit is not over or until any other further order of the Court. Regulated by the provision of the Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and can be granted at any stage of the suit.

A temporary injunction is a provisional relief. The aim of such type of injunction is to protect the

• subject matter of the suit in the existing condition, without the defendant’s interference or threat.
• plaintiff from getting disposed off, or his property (subject matter) being destroyed or harmed, or from any injury to the plaintiff.

The primary reason behind granting temporary injunction is to protect the interests of an individual or the property of the suit, till the final judgement is passed. Th time period of such injunction is

1. A specified period of time; or
2. till the court deems fit.

A temporary injunction is granted after answers to the following questions are determined

1)      whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?

2)      whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff?

3)      whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable damage, if the injunction is not granted?

III. Mandatory Injunction:

The sole purpose of mandatory injunction is to rectify any wrong done. The acts are restored from their wrongful state to the right ones. The Court directs the defendant to do a certain thing.

The concept of mandatory injunction, though not directly but,  is given under Section 39 of the Act of 1963. the following elements have to be taken into consideration while deciding on whether to grant mandatory injunction or not:[1]

1. What acts are necessary in order to prevent a breach of the obligation
2. The requisite acts must be such as the court is capable of enforcing.

It is well accepted by the Courts that mandatory injunction is not to be granted in the following cases:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the following test to be taken before granting mandatory injunction:[2]

·         The plaintiff has must have a very strong case for trial. It should be of a standard higher than that of a prima facie case;

·         The plaintiff has to lay-bare that the grant of mandatory injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable loss or serious injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money; and

·         The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.

When a suit for Injunction and Declaration would lie?

In the case of Anathema Sudhakar vs. P Buchi Reddy & amp; Ors, The Hon’ble

Supreme court clearly mentioned the general principles as to when just a suit for permanent injunction can proceed and when it is necessary to file a suit for

declaration and or possession with injunction as consequential relief which

reproduced as under:

·         When a Plaintiff has a lawful or peaceful possession of a property and the defendant disturbs or threatens such possession, then an injunction suit can be initiated. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

·         When the Plaintiff’s title is not disputed, but he does not have the possession then his remedy would be to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary an injunction. without claiming the relief for possession, a person who is out of his possession can’t simply seek the remedy of injunction.

·         Where even after being in possession, Plaintiff’s title to the property is still in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also thereat of dispossession from the defendant, the Plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the Plaintiffs is under cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

In view of the above judgment any person can file a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to any legal character or rights as to any property against any person who is denying or interested to deny his title or such character. In a suit for seeking declaration with regard to a right or title in respect of property along with consequential injunction the Plaintiff will have to pray for a declaration as contemplated under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit under order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and a mandatory injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

In the case of Dalpat Kumar Vs Prahlad Singh and Ors[3], the court held that:

In a suit for declaration of rights or character and injunction the Plaintiff will have to substantiate/prove his rights as claimed thereof. Accordingly the Court may in its discretion award the rights so prayed along with permanent injunction if deemed fit and necessary in the facts of the case.

Under section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the declaration made under

section 34 by any court will only be binding on the parties to the suit or any

persons claiming through them respectively as a declaration under section 34

is a right in personam and not a right in Rem. (SNP Shipping Service Pvt

Ltd vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation) AIR 2000 BOM 34.

Legal Provisions and Compliance For A Startup

A startup is a newly formed company or business. It comprises of only a few people who, in the starting, invest in their business/company. The initial stages of a startup require heavy investment. Sometimes, the size of a startup can be limited to only one person.

In the usual practice, the founder of a startup advertises his/her idea of starting a startup and tries to persuade the people to invest in it. Since the startups are very small, the founder seeks involvement of various persons as investors. The main purpose is to feed the growth of his business.

A startup may deal in offering a particular product or service. The founder of the startup chooses that product or service to deal in, which is new to the market and hence, which is non-existent till date.

The term ‘Compliance’ means to comply to: to conform to a particular law, rule, regulation etc. 

The term ‘Regulatory Compliance’ refers to the goals of an organization which it strives to achieve. It also includes the steps which are taken for achieving these goals.

In today’s world, we all strive for transparency in almost every aspect of life. Be it elections, or selection procedures etc. similarly the startups also adopt transparent methods to win over the trust of their probable customers/consumers and maintain their viability. Their object is to maximize transparency in processing and delivering the good/service concerned.

The concept of startups is growing speedily in India as well. The points to be kept in mind while starting a startup are as follows:

1.     The founder and investors must be aware of the existing laws which govern their business. For instance, if they think of making a website and working on it in the near future, then it is important for them to be familiar with the cyber laws.

2.     They also need to follow pre incorporation compliance. This includes

a.     Registration of the firm/company

b.     Name of the designation

c.      Allocation of the designation

d.     Approval of the designation

3.     The post incorporation compliances include

a.     Applying for PAN (Permanent Address Number)

b.     Applying for TAN (Temporary Address Number)

c.      Registering for

·        stock exchange

·        making payments of taxes levied on it

All startups must register themselves within 30 days of the applicability of act and must pay CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) and SGST (State Goods and Services Tax) on goods and services after the applicability of GST ACT from 1^st July, 2017.

The next important question that bothers those who wants to do a startup is

How to comply?

A person must be familiar with the applicable regulations and their business

The most basic thing which a businessman must understand that he must have a knowledge of the legislation and Acts that are applicable to his business. There are many state, national and foreign regulations which will impact the business of a person immediately or in the near future if he/she will not consider these regulations.

Your investment of thought and efforts must be demonstrated into formulating a compliance plan

There must be written procedures and policies that must explain the mechanisms for effective regulation to all your employees and any auditors or regulators and control over these regulations will improve with time. Designate a compliance officer (required in some cases) to create a culture of compliance.

Maintain and document information related to key compliance.

There must be an effective and organised record keeping system in your company either hard or soft copy. These records must include all your written policies and protocols, records of all or any meetings with the authorities and case files if needed.

Your compliance programme should be growth ready

A person must start reviewing the companies that can impact you when your business will start to grow in other cities, states and countries. Your company must have a good legal department to understand the complex foreign regulations. A company has to face various obstacles during cross-border transactions, and those obstacles can come in any form either money, information, goods etc.

Every individual must follow this compliance list if he/she is willing to do a startup`.

·        Must open a bank account

·        Must share their capital deposition in the bank account

·        Must do GST registration

·        Must provide insurance of share certificates to shareholders

·        Must maintain a statutory register

·        The director must disclose the share holdings

·        Must file an income tax return

·        Must do annual return filling

IMPORTANT LEGISLATIONS GOVERNING STARTUPS

In India, if a person wishes to get into startup business, he/she must be familiar with the following legislations as they are the governing legislations.

I.                  Contract Law

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides guidelines as to the various aspects of a contract. These are competency, consideration, what agreements are contracts, void and voidable agreements etc. The person initiating a startup must be acquainted with all these provisions of the Act before entering into any sale agreement so that it is properly enforceable by law.

II.               Accounting and taxing Laws

Another important legislation by which the startup people are governed is Income Tax Act, 1960. This Act has a total of 300 Sections and lays down the rate and methods as to how the tax is to be calculated on the income of a person (resident of India). The main aim of getting into a startup is earn money by helping the society. Hence, the money earned through the startup is the income of the founder(s). so, they should know about the Act of 1960.

III.           Intellectual Property Laws

‘Intellectual’ means relating to intellect i.e. mind. In legal terms, it includes

1.     Copyright

2.     Patent

3.     Trademark

 Persons who wish to enter into startup which will deal in anything related to any of the above three, must know the rights and duties under the following Acts

1.     Indian Copyright Act, 1957

2.     Patents Act, 1970

3.     Trade Marks Act, 1999

HOW TO PROCEED AGAINST THE COMPANY UNDER IBC

(INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE)

What is IBC?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeks to consolidate the existing legal framework concerning insolvency and bankruptcy. Considering the current pace of life of any individual in today’s time bankruptcy takes a long time to process. IBC   tends to resolve insolvencies by minimizing the time taken to resolve such cases.

This Code aims to protect the interests of small investors by taking into consideration their basic requirements. Hence, implementation of the Code will minimize the cost (in terms of both time and money) in attaining liquidation.

How IBC is helpful for Recovery of Debt by following Creditors:

·       Supplier of Goods/ Services:

Under this Act, if any person has supplied Goods or rendered services to any Corporate Debtor; and such corporate debtor makes default as non-payment of debt or any part of a debt, non-payment of installments due, then through NCLT, the creditor can take an action against the corporate debtor by the filing of a petition.

Time Period of Recovery:

If the creditor doesn’t receive payment due within 10 days he can issue a demand notice to the debtor, then it can file an application in NCLT for initiating the recovery (Corporate insolvency resolution) process. Within 14 days of application, NCLT will either accept the application or reject it.

·       Small Businesses:

Due to these following reasons the small business did not use to start a proceeding against the debtor:

1.       Due to lack of time-bound guidelines, it took a long time for the admission of the cases by the adjudicating authorities.

2. Filling a matter in courts in earlier times was not cheap.
3. Earlier the primary onus to initiate a resolution process lies with the debtor

Under this code within 24 days of issue of demand notice creditor will come to know whether his petition admitted or not. It is less costly then the application in the court as the fees for admission of an application by the operational creditor is Rs. 2,000/-.

·        Employee and workmen dues:

Employees and workmen are also considered as part of an operational creditor under IBC. If a Company fails to make salaries payment of employees or workmen and the value of the payment is more than Rs. 1 lac then employees can file the application against the Company with NCLT for initiation of the process of Recovery.

Cost of the application, process, time by the employees and workmen are same as the filing of an application by a creditor of supply of goods/services.

• The debtor of Loan:

If any person has taken a Loan from any Corporate Debtor; and such corporate debtor makes default as non-payment of interest, debt or any part of the debt, non-payment of installments due then the creditor can initiate the proceeding against the corporate debtor by the filing of the petition in NCLT.

Time Period of Recovery:

For initiating the recovery process, a financial creditor can file an application. The NCLT, will either accept the application or reject it within 14 days of filling the application.

The history

In December 2015, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. The President of India gave his assent to the proposed Bill on 28^th May 2016.

The procedure for going against the Company

Under IBC, the employees and workmen are considered a part of the operational creditor. An operational creditor is any person to whom

1.     operational debt is owed

2.     Such debt has been legally assigned or transferred.

The IBC defines an operational debt as:

“A claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or debt in respect of the repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority.”

Thus, the operational debt must fulfill the following pointers

1.     Debt arising out of professional goods; or

2.     Debt arising out of services provided; or

3.     Debt arising out of employment; or

4.     Any dues arising out of any law in force at that time payable to the Central Government, State Government or to any local Authority.

IBC recognizes employees and workmen as part of operational creditors. If a company fails to pay their salaries and the value of such non-payment exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, then the concerned employee or workmen can file an application against the company with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in order to recover their salary or wages, as the case may be.

Under Section 8 of the Code, the operational creditor has to first give notice to the debtor Company demanding a copy of the invoice or payment of the amount involved in the default. The Company has to furnish the thing demanded by the creditor within a period of 10 days.

If the Company fails to do so, then the operational creditor has an option under Section 9 to approach NCLT (adjudicating authority) and file an application for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process.

The application shall be accompanied with

1.     a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational creditor to the corporate debtor;

2.     an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to a dispute of the unpaid operational debt;

3.     a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions maintaining accounts of the operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor; and

4.     such other information as may be specified

The creditor can also propose a resolution professional to who will act as an interim resolution professional.

NCLT has to, by order, either accept or reject the application made by the creditor within a time period of 14 days from the receipt of such application.

Section 9(5)(i) provides for the grounds on which the application can be accepted. These grounds are as follows:

·        if the application is complete

·        if there is no repayment of unpaid operational debt

·        the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the operational creditor

·        no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility

·        there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed

Section 9(5)(ii) provides for the grounds on which the application can be rejected. These grounds are as follows:

·        if the application is incomplete

·        if there is repayment of unpaid operational debt

·        the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has not been delivered by the operational creditor

·        notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record of dispute in the information utility

·        there is a disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed

When NCLT rejects an application if it is incomplete, then a notice is to be given to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of the date of receipt of such notice.

In the case of Punjab National Bank vs Divya Jyoti Sponge Iron Private Limited[1], NCLT, Kolkata Bench approved a resolution plan and took judicial notice of fixation of exaggerated insolvency resolution cost of a dying corporate debtor. The Tribunal has observed that legitimate guidelines and resolutions must be undertaken to guide and ensure the prospects of a revival of a dying corporate debtor not be at the highest cost which cannot be affordable by the corporate debtor.

In M/s Incredible Unique Buildcon Pvt Limited V/s M/s Clutch Auto Limited[2], two petitions were filed, one by the operational creditor under section 9 and the other under section 10.

The Corporate Debtor itself filed the petition for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against it. A list of financial and operation creditors has also been attached. The petitioner has further disclosed the details of property against which the loan of the corporate debtor is fully or partially secured along with details of the date of its creation.

The Hon’ble judge dismissed the operational creditor’s petition stating that  The Operational Creditor may file its claims before the Insolvency Resolution Professional in accordance with the public notice to be issued like all other claimants.

The Chennai bench of NCLT admitted the application filed by three employees for the commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process and has appointed P Sriram as interim insolvency professional (IIP). Employees said that Aruna Hotels failed to pay arrears of salary, gratuity and leave salary of these employees. 

In the case of Aruna Hotels[3], the court referred to the case of an employee D Ramjees, who joined as a junior assistant and rose to the rank of company secretary. He had made a demand of Rs 2.6 crore but the respondent (the company) had denied the liability. What went in favor of the employee was that a day after the petition was filed before the NCLT on April 3, the MD, in a letter, acknowledged the liability of clearing these arrears. The court has directed the insolvency professional to take charge and declared moratorium of any legal action of recovery against the company until the completion of insolvency process. The court has also directed the other two employees N Krishnan and C Ganapathy to approach IIP with their claims. 

Since IBC has come into effect early in the year 2017, a variety of cases would set a precedent for future disputes. Earlier, in a case of Ms. Schweitzer Systemtek India versus Phoenix ARC[4],  M/s Schweitzer Systemtek India Pvt. Ltd. (“Schweitzer”) filed for initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Schweitzer had availed of loans of Rs. 4.5 crores from Dhanlaxmi Bank. The bank, further assigned the debt to M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. (“Phoenix”). In order to avail of the bank loan, the Promoters of Schweitzer had attached their personal properties. Phoenix attempted to recover these personal properties through other recovery proceedings.

Schweitzer objected to these recovery proceedings by bringing them to the notice of the NCLT. Schweitzer contended that the pendency of insolvency proceedings places a moratorium on initiation of other suits against it and hence the recovery proceedings initiated by Phoenix are unmaintainable. The NCLT in the instant case dismissed the contentions raised by Phoenix and clarified that the moratorium applied only to
properties owned by the Corporate Debtor Company. The NCLT also held that any personal property of the Promoters of the Corporate Debtor Company which have been furnished as security in order to avail loans for the Corporate Debtor Company will not be protected by the moratorium and can proceed against separately for recovery.

Recently the Bombay High Court, in Tayal Cotton (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra[5] discussed whether moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) includes criminal proceeding within its ambit. After considering the legislative intent behind introducing the provision for a moratorium in the Code, the Bombay High Court held that Section 14 of the Code, clearly excludes criminal proceedings. The section only prohibits a suit or legal proceedings of like nature including the execution of judgment; decree or order in any court of law, arbitral tribunal or other authority.

Conclusion

Hence, considering the intention of the Law, one can opine that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is Game Changer for the corporate debtors. Powers are vested with the creditors also along with corporate debtors to initiate insolvency process against the corporate debtor. The Code promises to bring about far-reaching reforms with a thrust on creditor has driven insolvency resolution. The aim of the code is the early identification of financial failure and maximizing the asset value of insolvent firms.

[1] W.P.9519(W) of 2014