COMMUNIQUE DECEMBER, 2021

COURTS THIS MONTH 

  • The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian in the case of Nivedita Singh vs. Dr. Asha Bharti & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2021) held that medical services rendered free of cost would not fall within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Act”). The Bench in this case was dealing with an appeal arising from the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) where NCDRC had held that a patient receiving free of cost service from a doctor, will not be a consumer under the Act, despite the doctor being a salaried professional of the hospital. The Supreme Court observed that under the Act “In terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, a consumer is the one who hires or avails of any services for a ‘consideration’ which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised.” Upholding the decision of the NCDRC, the Supreme Court held that “The medical officer who is employed in the hospital renders the service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service, as rendered by the hospital, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o), being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under Section 2(1)(o) for the reason that it has been rendered by a medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for employment in the hospital. There is no direct nexus between the payment of the salary to the medical officer by the hospital administration and the person to whom service is rendered. The salary that is paid by the hospital administration to the employee medical officer cannot be regarded as payment made on behalf of the person availing of the service or for his benefit so as to make the person availing the service a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) in respect of the service rendered to him.”
     
  • The Apex Court’s Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna in the case of Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021) held that the NCDRC can order deposit of the entire or an amount greater than 50% (Fifty percent) of the amount as determined by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“SCDRC”) in cases granting conditional stay. The Supreme Court here was dealing with a case where the interpretation of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was under question. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the same can be said to be the minimum amount to be deposited or whether NCDRC is precluded from directing the deposit of amount higher than 50% (Fifty percent) of the amount determined by the SCDRC. Deciding the issue, the Supreme Court laid down that the requirement of pre-deposit of at least 50% (Fifty percent) under Section 51 of the said Act is a mandatory condition for an appeal before the NCDRC, and the NCDRC in light of this provision can grant conditional stay requiring pre-deposit of an amount more than 50% (Fifty percent) or even the entire amount in certain cases, however the same can be done vide a speaking order providing cogent reasons for ordering the aforesaid deposit of more than the stipulated extent of 50% (Fifty percent).
     
  • The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs. N. Nanjappa and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6996-6997 of 2021) held that the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property raised by the obstructor in execution proceedings have to be adjudicated by the executing court, and not in a separate suit. In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Bangalore Development Authority wherein the decision of the Karnataka High Court was challenged by the Appellants. The Karnataka High Court had dismissed writ petitions filed by the Bangalore Development Authority against the executing court’s order of dismissal of its applications under Order XXI Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in an execution case between a decree holder and the judgment debtor. The Supreme Court held that “As per Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application. For that a separate suit is not required to be filed. Order XXI Rule 97 is with respect to resistance/obstruction to possession of immovable property”. The Bench further observed that the Bangalore Development Authority was the absolute owner of the property and had possession over the said property, thus objections against handing over the possession to the decree holder submitted by the Bangalore Development Authority must be decided by the executing court in the respective execution proceedings.
     
  • The Apex Court’s Bench comprising of Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna in the case of Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6522 of 2021) upheld the measures issued by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) implementing ban on export of Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) kits in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with challenge against Clause 2(iii) of the Revised Guidelines on Merchanting Trade Transactions issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 23.01.2020. It was argued that the ban amounted to restriction and subsequent violation of the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The Apex Court whilst dismissing the petition, upheld that the aforesaid measures fairly satisfied the proportionality test on the grounds of legitimacy, suitability and necessity. The Supreme Court further observed that the ban was implemented to ensure the availability of adequate domestic supplies during the pandemic within the country and that the same was imperative as it favoured state interest.
     
  • The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Surya Kant in the case of Diamond Exports & Anr vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021) clarified that the ruling in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020 (5) SCC 757) shall not apply to applications to condone the delay of more than 45 (Forty Five) days in filing the version of the opposite party in consumer cases, which were pending as of 04.03.2020. The case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited had laid down that consumer forum cannot condone delay of more than 45 (Forty Five) days in filing the version of the opposite party. This decision led to divergent views which were finally clarified by the Supreme Court in the current judgment.
     
  • The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna in the case of E S Krishnamurthy vs. Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 3325 of 2020) held that parties in an insolvency proceeding cannot be compelled by the Adjudicating Authority to settle disputes. In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) wherein the NCLAT had upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority that had rejected a Section 7 application for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, and instead directed the Corporate Debtor to settle the claims within a time period of three months. Reiterating the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”) the Supreme Court observed that the “The Adjudicating Authority is empowered only to verify whether a default has occurred or if a default has not occurred. Based upon its decision, the Adjudicating Authority must then either admit or reject an application respectively. These are the only two courses of action which are open to the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with Section 7(5). The Adjudicating Authority cannot compel a party to the proceedings before it to settle a dispute”. The Supreme Court allowing the appeal further also held that “Settlements have to be encouraged because the ultimate purpose of IBC is to facilitate the continuance and rehabilitation of a corporate debtor, as distinct from allowing it to go into liquidation. As the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the introduction of the Bill indicates, the objective of the IBC is to facilitate insolvency resolution “in a time bound manner” for maximisation of the value of assets, promotion of entrepreneurship, ensuring the availability of credit and balancing the interest of all stakeholders. What the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority, however, have proceeded to do in the present case is to abdicate their jurisdiction to decide a petition under Section 7 by directing the respondent to settle the remaining claims within three months and leaving it open to the original petitioners, who are aggrieved by the settlement process, to move fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Such a course of action is not contemplated by the IBC. The IBC is a complete code in itself. The Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority are creatures of the statute. Their jurisdiction is statutorily conferred. The statute which confers jurisdiction also structures, channelises and circumscribes the ambit of such jurisdiction. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can encourage settlements, they cannot direct them by acting as courts of equity.”
     
  • The Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice LN Rao, Justice BR Gavai and Justice BV Nagarathna in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar vs. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No(s).135/2010) has directed the Union and the State Governments to issue ration cards/voter identity cards immediately to sex workers identified in the list maintained by National Aids Control Organisation (“NACO”). The directions were issued by the Supreme Court recognising that its 2015 decision directing the implementation of 2011 Committee Recommendations was not still not complied with neither by the state nor the Union Government. In light of the aforesaid, the Court observed “As this Court has directed the State Governments and the Union Territories to issue ration cards and identity cards to sex workers almost a decade back, there is no reason as to why such direction has not been implemented till now. Right to dignity is a Fundamental Right that is guaranteed to every citizen of this country irrespective of his/her vocation. There is a bounden duty cast on the government to provide basic amenities to the citizens of this country. The State Governments/Union Territories and other authorities are directed to commence the process of issuance of ration cards/ Voters Identity cards immediately to sex workers from the list that is maintained by NACO.”
     
  • The Supreme Court in the case of Bud Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of India (SLP(Crl) No. 5703 of 2021) clarified that the drugs used for the purposes of sexual enhancement are not covered within the ambit of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against the decision of the Madras High Court cancelling the bail granted by the Special Court under the NDPS Act. The Special Court had granted bail to the accused holding that the test results were awaited and also on the grounds that it was not established that the sexual enhancement tablets would qualify as narcotic or psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. The High Court cancelled the bail observing that the test did not completely contradict or establish that the substances were not narcotic substances. Overturning the decision of the High Court and granting bail, the Supreme Court observed that “In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of the commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.”
     
  • The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through Housing Commissioner & Anr. vs. Noor Mohammad & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8083 of 2011) held that the power of the State Government under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also includes the power to rescind notification issued under the said section. This observation came in an appeal wherein the Supreme Court had to decide whether the notification under Section 48(1) of the said Act is a quasi-judicial order or an administrative order. The Supreme Court held “A notification under S.48(1) confers benefit upon an individual and hence it is not supposed to be preceded by any enquiry. The essence of an order which is quasi-judicial in nature is that it is preceded by an opportunity of hearing to the party affected thereby. A notification under S.48(1) does not warrant any notice or opportunity of hearing to the original landowners because it is administrative in nature and not quasi-judicial. If at all any person will be aggrieved by the Notification under S.48(1), it will be the beneficiary of the acquisition, which is in this case the Parishad and not the land owners. Therefore, we reject the argument that a notification under S.48(1) is a quasi-judicial order.”. Further, the Supreme Court decided that since the initial notification under Section 48(1) was illegal as it did not vest any rights with the landowner and therefore the notification could be rescinded.
     
  • A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas in the case of Ramla vs. Abdul Rahuf (MAT Appeal No. 431 of 2021) observed that the failure to perform marital obligations by a Muslim man towards his first wife after his second marriage, is a ground for divorce for the first wife. The High Court observed that “The refusal to cohabit and perform the marital obligations with the previous wife is tantamount to the violation of the Quranic injunctions which commands equal treatment of the wives if the husband contracts more than one marriage.” The Bench further held that “If there exists a marriage with another lady during the subsistence of the previous marriage, the burden is on the husband to prove that he had treated both the wives equitably in accordance with the injunctions of Quran.”
     
  • The Kerala High Court in the case of Peter Myaliparampil vs. Union of India & Anr. (WP(C) No. 21560 of 2021), dismissed the plea challenging the affixing of photograph of the Prime Minister of India, Shri. Narendra Modi on the COVID-19 vaccination certificates of individual citizens. The petitioner had filed a public interest litigation (“PIL”) challenging the affixation of the photograph of the Prime Minister on his vaccination card. The contention of the petitioner was that the vaccination certificate is a private space of the petitioner and the photo of the Prime Minister is an intrusion of privacy to his private space and that it amounted to ‘compelled viewing’. The High Court dismissing the PIL and imposing costs on the petitioner observed that “This is a frivolous petition filed with ulterior motives and I have a strong doubt that there is political agenda also to the petitioner. According to me, this is a publicity oriented litigation. Therefore, this is a fit case that is to be dismissed with a heavy cost.”
     
  • The Kerala High Court in the case of Syja vs. Dr. Chandramathi & Ors. (Crl.A No. 138 of 2005) held that a private complaint regarding medical negligence has to be supported by an expert in the said field, for it to be a valid complaint. The High Court whilst deciding the appeal referred to the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005 (3) KLT 965) wherein it was held that “…private complaint alleging medical negligence may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor.” Hence the High Court had to dismiss the appeal as the complaint did not provide for any prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion of a competent doctor to support the claims that were put forth by the complainant.
     
  • The Madras High Court in the case of C P Girija vs. Superintendent of Police & Ors. (W.P.No.37089 of 2015) has dismissed a writ filed against frequent police inspections of spas and massage centres. The Bench comprising of Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed that “There are large scale allegations in general in the public domain against such Ayurvedic Spa and Massage centres. On information, the Police authorities are empowered to conduct inspections. If any doubt arises, the Police authorities are bound to conduct inspections in order to verify the business activities and to prevent illegal activities in the premises.” The High Court further ordered that in such places the owners must install CCTV Cameras, which should be functional at all times, as the same will assist the police agencies in actively restraining any illegal activities.
     
  • The Calcutta High Court in the case of Seikh Abdul Majed & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 17375 of 2021) upheld the validity of the West Bengal Duare Ration Scheme, 2021 (“Scheme”) introduced by the West Bengal Government. The Scheme was introduced for doorstep delivery of essential food items. The Bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the Scheme is not in conflict with either the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or the National Food Security Act, 2013. The High Court further observed that “The field covered by both the existing legislations, read with the relevant Orders, is transportation of food grains from the Food Corporation of India go downs to the doorstep of the fair price shops. The Duare Ration Scheme therefore stretches the boundaries of the Central Government Order of 2015 and walks the metaphorical last mile, so to speak,” Dismissing the challenge and upholding the validity of the Scheme, the Court further observed that “The object of the Scheme is to regulate the distribution of ration items under the Targeted Public Distribution System for the beneficiaries for providing ration at the doorstep of the beneficiaries…The Duare Ration Scheme covers the additional, unexplored and exclusive space from the fair price shop to the doorstep of the ration card holder. The Scheme is hence a field yet to be covered as far as the defined end-point of the Central Government Order is concerned”.
     
  • The Bombay High Court on 21.12.2021, in the case of Deepak Kumar Radheshyam Khurana & Ors vs. UOI & Anr. (Writ Petition (L) No.17132 of 2021), upheld the validity of a circular issued by the Mumbai Port Trust (“MPT”) mandating RT-PCR tests in every ten days for those employees who are still unvaccinated. The High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the employees of MPT against the said circular that mandated regular testing of its unvaccinated employees. The High Court observed that the unvaccinated and vaccinated employees do not stand on the same footing and also stated in its Order that “…given that unvaccinated persons pose a greater risk of transmission of Covid-19 than a vaccinated person”. The High Court further also held that the said circular was a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and observed that it is reasonable for a large organization such as the MPT to require a higher degree of checking and monitoring of the COVID-19 status specially with respect to unvaccinated persons.
     
  • The Delhi High Court in the case of Col Ramnesh Pal Singh vs. Sugandhi Aggarwal (CRL Rev.P. 710 of 2018) held that the fact that the wife is an earning individual is not a valid and sufficient ground to deny her interim maintenance. The High Court observed that “The purpose of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) has been laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her for the food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy,”. The observations came while the Court was dealing with criminal revision petition filed by a husband, an Indian Army Colonel, challenging a Family Court order wherein he was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.33,500 to his wife. The Court further observed that “It cannot be said that the Army Order would over-ride the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C and that the Army personnel are covered only by the Army Order and that Section 125 Cr.P.C would not apply to Army Personnel”.
     
  • The Delhi High Court in the case of Madalsa Sood vs. Maunicka Makkar & Anr. (CS(OS) 93 of 2021) clarified that a mother-in-law being the owner of the house is not precluded from evicting the daughter-in-law, despite the residence being a shared household as per Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”). The case came for consideration before the said High Court as a civil dispute arising from civil suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction with regards to the said property. The mother of the deceased son was the absolute owner of the property and had claimed her right over the said property against the daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law sought to restrain the mother based on the house being a shared household as per the DV Act. The High Court after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties observed that “The protection under the DV Act assuring the residence of the aggrieved person in the shared household does not vest any proprietary or indefeasible right on the aggrieved person, nor does the right of residence allowed to aggrieved person extend to her insisting on the right of residence in a particular premises. Section 19 of the DV Act provides for an alternate accommodation being given to the aggrieved person of the same level in certain circumstances. Thus, it is clear that even where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it.” The Court further held that since the daughter-in-law had caused distress to the mother-in-law, the mother-in-law as owner is entitled to evict the daughter-in-law.

 
NOTIFICATIONS/AMENDMENTS INSIGHTS 

  • Vide notification number RBI/2021-2022/142 dated 23.12.2021, the RBI has issued notification regarding Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateways (“Guidelines”). As per the said guidelines, the authorised non-bank payment aggregators and merchants on-boarded by them were prohibited from storing card data from 30.06.2021, which was later made 31.12.2021. The new notification issued by RBI has now extended the aforesaid timeline till 30.06.2022 and has also clarified that in addition to tokenisation, industry stakeholders may devise alternate mechanisms to handle any use case or post-transaction activity involving storage of card data by entities other than card issuers and card networks.
     
  • Vide notification number RBI/2021-2022/139 dated 14.12.2021, the RBI has issued a Prompt Corrective Action (“PCA”) framework for Non-Banking Financial Companies (“NBFCs”). The PCA for NBFC is introduced as the NBFCs have been growing in size and have substantial interconnectedness with other segments of the financial system. The said framework for NBFCs, comes into effect from 01.10.2022, based on the financial position of NBFCs on or after 31.03.2022. In addition to the aforesaid, the governmental NBFCs have been provided time up to 31.03.2022 to adhere to the capital adequacy norms provided for NBFCs, thus a separate circular would be issued with regard to applicability of PCA framework to the governmental NBFCs.
     
  • Vide Notification No. S.O. 5429(E) dated 28.12.2021, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) has issued a new Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021, which shall act in supersession of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India had published the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 in the Official Gazette vide number S.O. 3296(E) dated 25.09.2020 and S.O. 3297(E) dated 25.09.2020. The new Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 will come into force from the day of its release in official gazette. The faceless e-assessment seeks to end the human interface between the taxpayer and the income tax department.
     
  • Vide Notification No. G.S.R. 883(E) dated 27.12.2021, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) has amended the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”). The amendment inserts a new Rule, namely Rule 2DD regarding the computation of exempt income of specified fund for the purposes of Clause (23FF) of Section 10. The said amendment also introduces a new form for statement of exempt income under the said clause (23FF) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
     
  • Vide General Circular No. 20/2021 dated 08.12.2021, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) has issued clarification on passing of ordinary and special resolution by the companies under Companies Act, 2013, read with the rules made there under due to COVID-19. As per the General Circular Companies are allowed to conduct their Extra-Ordinary General Meeting through Video Conferencing or other Audio Visual means or transact through postal ballots in accordance to the framework laid down earlier, till 30.06.2022.
     
  • Vide General Circular No. 19/2021 dated 08.12.2021, MCA has issued clarification regarding holding of Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) through Video Conferencing or other Audio-Visual means. As per the General Circular, companies due to conduct the AGM in 2021, can conduct the Annual General Meeting through Video Conferencing or other Audio-Visual means till 30.06.2022. It has also been clarified that this circular will not act as conferring any extension of any timeline for conducting the said AGMs.
     
  • Vide Circular No. SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-II/DOF1/P/CIR/2021/694 dated 21.12.2021, SEBI has issued clarification on the Investment Advisory (“IA”) Services for Accredited Investors. The Circular observes that in case of accredited investors, the limits and modes of fee payable to the IA shall be governed through bilaterally negotiated contractual terms and consequently the provisions of para 2(iii) of the SEBI Circular No. SEBI/HO/IMD/DF1/CIR/P/2020/182 (“Circular”) shall not be applicable. The Circular had provided the modes and limits of fees that can be charged by an IA from a client. The other provisions of the Circular still remain unchanged.

 
DEALS THIS MONTH 

  • Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd. is expected to buy a minority share in the warehouse robotics company Addverb Technologies Pvt. Ltd for approximately INR 300 crores. Addverb Technologies was formed in the year 2016, and by integrating robotics and warehouse automation, the company enhances space utilization in warehouses and factories. Addverb Technologies comes with numerous high profile clientele, including Amazon, Flipkart, ITC, Coca-Cola etc.
     
  • Sony’s India unit and its rival Zee Entertainment are set to merge their television channels, film assets and streaming platforms. This move comes from increased preference of competitive online streaming platforms like Netflix Inc, Amazon.com Inc’s Prime Video and Walt Disney Co’s Hotstar by the viewers at large. The Sony-Zee alliance will overtake Disney’s Star India as the country’s biggest online entertainment platform, with about 75 (Seventy-Five) news, entertainment, sports and movie channels. The merged entity shall have a 51% ownership by Sony Pictures Networks India. Additionally, Zee’s Punit Goenka will be named as the CEO and managing director of the merged entity. Pursuant to the said merger the merged entity will also be publicly listed in India.
     
  • Piramal Pharma Limited (“PPL”) has invested INR 101.77 crores in a Hyderabad-based company namely Yapan Bio Pvt. Ltd. Through this acquisition, PPL will hold 27.78% equity stake in Yapan Bio, and the acquisition shall be an expansion to the Piramal Pharma Solutions’ (“PPS”) global capabilities in the research and manufacture of pharmaceuticals for human clinical trials. It further permits PPS to broaden its service offerings in biologics to that of a contract development and manufacturing organisation. The investment will also allow to support the capabilities of Yapan Bio’s contract development and manufacturing organisation business.
     
  • In a series of acquisitions, fitness and wellness-based company Cult.fit has acquired at-home cardio-equipment brands RPM fitness, Fitkit, Onefitplus and an outdoor bicycles brand by the name of Urban Terrain. This acquisition will help Cult.fit to enhance its product portfolio of at-home smart exercise equipment, and further expand manufacturing facilities of all these brands, thereby ensuring control over the end-to-end supply chain and greater profitability.
     
  • TA’ZIZ and Reliance Industries have entered into a joint venture agreement to commence a chemical production partnership in Ruwais, Abu Dhabi. The said joint venture will be called TA’ZIZ EDC & PVC, and it will construct and operate a chloro-alkali, ethylene dichloride and polyvinyl chloride production facility. TA’ZIZ was formed last year as a joint venture between Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Abu Dhabi state-owned holding company ADQ, owning 60% and 40% of its shareholding respectively.
     
  • upGrad Education recently entered into an agreement to acquire online higher education business namely Talentedge Education Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Talentedge Education Ventures Pvt. Ltd. is a Gurgaon-based company that offers more than 60 (Sixty) courses in partnership with over 20 (Twenty) universities. This acquisition is one of the many acquisitions for upGrad in the recent years and this adds on to upGrad’s commitment of serving learners and working professionals across the age group of 18 to 50 years.

Related Posts