• The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice PS Narasimha, in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of UP (CrA 990 of 2021), held that the powers under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (“CrPC”) should be exercised sparingly in cases where there are strong and cogent evidences against a person (other than the accused person) appearing to be guilty of an offence. Explaining the test to invoke powers under Section 319, the Bench observed that “The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court for invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charges”. Subsequently,allowing the appeal and directing the Trial Court to reconsider the matter afresh, the Court also held that power under the said Section is a discretionary and extraordinary power of the Court.
  • The Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Hima Kohli, in the case of Anjali Rathi vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (SLP (C) 12150 of 2019), held that the moratorium imposed on the Corporate Debtor (“CD”) under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”) does not affect the directors and management of the Corporate Debtor. In this case during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court, a settlement was reached between some of the homebuyers and the managing director of the CD. One of the Operational Creditors of the CD instituted insolvency proceedings against the CD, and subsequently moratorium under Section 14 of IBC was imposed. It was claimed before the Supreme Court that since there was a moratorium already imposed by NCLT, no proceedings could be initiated or continued against the CD and its management. Overruling this contention, the Supreme Court relied on the case of P. Mohanraj vs. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd (2021 SCC OnLine SC 152) and held that moratorium under Section 14 of IBC applies to the CD and the assets of the CD. It does not affect any proceedings or assets of its management/promoters. Therefore, the ongoing moratorium would not prevent the homebuyers from initiating proceedings against the promoters of the CD in relation to honouring their respective settlements.
  • The Supreme Court on 07.09.2021 held that consumer complaints alleging deficiency in service due to failure in transferring of title of the immovable property from one person to another are not maintainable. The decision was delivered by the Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice AS Bopanna where they were considering an appeal against the finding of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) holding complainants as consumers and the amount paid for conversion of a property from leasehold to freehold being the consideration paid for service within Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Supreme Court overruling the decision of NCDRC held,“…deficiency in service does not include failure to transfer title in favour of the allottee as the appellant were not providing any services within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Act. The expression ‘service’ includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot”. The decision was passed in the case of Estate Officer vs. Charanjit Kaur (CA 4964 of 2021).
  • The Apex Court in the case of Northern Western Railway and Another vs. Sanjay Shukla (SLP (C) 13288 of 2021) upheld the decision of NCDRC and decided that Railways are liable to pay compensation if there is an unexplained or unjustified delay in the running of the trains. The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal from the decision of NCDRC wherein the NCDRC had granted compensation for deficiency in service arising from a delay of 4 (Four) hours in train arrival which subsequently led to the consumer missing a flight and incurring additional expenditure to reach the final destination. The Bench explained that “no evidence at all was led by the railways explaining the delay and/or late arrival of train at Jammu. The railways were required to lead the evidence and explain the late arrival of train to establish and prove that delay occurred because of the reasons beyond their control. At least the railways were required to explain the delay which the railways failed”. Upholding the decision of NCDRC the Supreme Court held that “…unless and until the evidence is laid explaining the delay and it is established and proved that delay occurred which was beyond their control and/or even there was some justification for delay, the railway is liable to pay the compensation for delay and late arrival of trains”.
  • The Apex Court in the case of Sadique vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (CrA 963 of 2021) held that magistrates do not have the authority to extend the time to complete investigations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The Supreme Court held that such authority lies with the “Court” defined in the proviso in Section 43D (2)(b) of the UAPA. In this case the Bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi were dealing with an appeal arising from High Court of Madhya Pradesh upholding the decision of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal who had granted extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA and also dismissed the accused’s application seeking bail on the ground that no charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency within 90 (Ninety) days. The Supreme Court in its decision, relied on the case of Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab ((2020) 10 SCC 616) and held that “…so far as all offences under the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to extend time under the first proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b) is non-existent.  Consequently, in so far as "Extension of time to complete investigation" is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA.”
  • The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP(C) 13146/2021) observed that mutation entry in the revenue records does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person. The Supreme Court in this case was dealing with a Special Leave Petition against decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which overturned the order of the Additional Commissioner of Rewa Division directing to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, on the basis of a will. The Supreme Court in its decision referred to the case of Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh (D) ((1997) 7 SCC 137) and reiterated that “…the mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue." The Supreme Court upholding the decision of the High Court also observed  that “…if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystallised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.”
  • In the case of Supertech Ltd vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11959 of 2014)) Supreme Court’s Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah upheld the decision of Allahabad High Court directing the demolition of twin 40 (Fourty) storied towers Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17) respectively in the Emerald Court Project of Supertech Ltd. in Noida. The Court relied upon the Allahabad High Court’s finding that the buildings were constructed in violation of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010, and in connivance with the NOIDA authorities. In furtherance to the same the Supreme Court directed that the two buildings shall be demolished in an environmentally safe manner within 3 (Three) months from the order and costs for the same shall be borne by Supertech Ltd. The Supreme Court also directed Supertech Ltd. to refund all the existing flat purchasers their respective amounts invested for the allotted flats in the aforesaid buildings along with 12% interest per annum.
  • In the case of Rajasthan High Court vs. Akashdeep Morya (CA 5733 of 2021) the Apex Courtupheld the rejection of a candidate from a judicial post, citing absence of ‘Honourable Acquittal’ in a criminal case. The Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal filed by the administrative section of the Rajasthan High Court, against the order of Rajasthan High Court allowing a writ against order of rejection of candidature on the ground of candidate’s involvement in serious crime and lack of clean acquittal from the same. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision of the High Court and upheld the original rejection of the candidature. The Supreme Court observed that a judicial appointment must be such that it upholds and builds people’s confidence in the judicial system. The Court further observed that the meaning of character for appointment of a judicial post is not limited to merely certifying of character by the competent authority, and that the person must actually be of a good character. In upholding the rejection for lack of honourable acquittal, the Supreme Court explained that “a common man’s perception about credentials of judicial officer is vital and the lack of honourable acquittal will undermine public faith.”
  • The Karnataka High Court in the case of B. V. Byre Gowda vs. Nisar Ahmed (Criminal Petition No.3171/2018) held that registration of a second FIR by the same complainant on the same incident is impermissible. The Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashing the second FIR observed that “the complainant cannot be permitted to improve on the earlier complaint and as an afterthought bring in other offences in the second complaint, becoming a second FIR on sameness. It would amount to permitting multiple FIRs on the very same – incident, time of the incident, date of the incident and by the very same complainant.” The Bench further relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court to hold that second FIR by the same complainant on the same incident would be impermissible and would be hit by the “doctrine of sameness”. As per the said doctrine, the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
  • The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.Nos.9641 and 12908 of 2021) held that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is inapplicable to mutts and temples. In this case the Bench comprising of Justice DVSS Somayajulu was dealing with a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the memos issued under A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, directing it to pay minimum wages. The High Court observed that the Act of 1987 only permits state to pass an order to ensure that the institution is properly administered and the income is spent for the purpose for which they were found. Further the Court relied on the decision of Shree Satya Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir vs. Workman Compensation Commissioner (2006 SCC Online All 1270) which held that“The Minimum Wages Act does not apply to all industries which are covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It applies only to certain ‘sweated’ industries mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. A temple is not one of them." Quashing the direction issued, Justice DVSS Somayajulu held that “The Math has its own area of operation and the respondents cannot interfere in its secular activity. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not applicable to the Math. The judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the definitions in the Minimum Wages Act, also support this conclusion. The autonomy given to a Math to maintain and administer its activities also supports the view that the respondents cannot interfere in every activity. If the respondents have such a power to interfere every activity it would run contrary to the constitutional and other guarantees given to the religious denominations to carry on their own activities."
  • A Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice N. J. Jamadar clarified that an accused has no statutory or fundamental right to appeal against an order of conviction at the instance it is passed. The right to appeal is available only after passing of both the order of conviction and order of sentence respectively. In this case of Pankaj Arjunbhai Koli vs. The State of Maharashtra (CrWP 3214 of 2021) the Bombay High Court was dealing with the issue of whether an accused has a right to have the copy of the judgment and right to appeal the moment the judgment of conviction is pronounced. Deciding that the appeal will arise only after both order of conviction and sentence orders are passed, the High Court explained that Section 386 of the Cr.P.C provides that the finding and sentence form an inseparable part of the judgment of conviction, thus an appeal under Section 374 of the said Code is an appeal against the complete judgment of conviction and sentence and not merely against holding an accused guilty of a particular offence. The Court further observed that holding the two orders to be distinct could risk destroying the integrity of the trial process.
  • The Calcutta High Court in the case of Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd  vs. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (IA. No. G.A.6 of 2021) clarified that non filing of ‘statement of truth’ in a written statement is directory under Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the court has the discretionary power to decide whether to strike out a pleading which is not verified by the said statement. The Bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that as per Order VI Rule 15A of Civil Procedure Code 1908 (“CPC”) every pleading in a commercial dispute shall be verified by an affidavit, and that Rule 15A was introduced to expedite the disposal of commercial dispute by minimizing evidence at trial stage and circumventing procedural barriers. The Bench further observed that there is nothing under Rule 15A that provides that ‘statement of truth’ is mandatory, but on the other hand the provision gives discretion to the Court to decide whether to strike out a pleading that is not verified by a ‘statement of truth’. Dismissing the petitioner’s plea to strike out the defense pleadings for non-filing of the said statement the High Court explained that the defect of such non-filing can be cured subsequently and such a procedural lapse cannot be the reason to defeat substantive rights of the parties to dispute unless clearly provided for in the statute.
  • A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.K. Chandravanshi observed that there is no need of existence of a serious dispute between a husband and a wife to claim divorce by mutual consent under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In this case of Smt. Sandhya Sen vs. Sanjay Sen (FAM No. 153 of 2019), the High Court was dealing with an appeal against the order of Trial Court whereby the said Court passed an order of judicial separation instead of divorce by mutual consent as claimed by the parties. The High Court observed that the Trial Court has erred by denying the application of divorce by mutual consent on the ground that there was no serious dispute between the parties. The High Court allowed the application of divorce by mutual consent and held that There need not be a serious dispute between a married couple for seeking a divorce by mutual consent. It may happen in a given case that there is no quarrel or dispute between the couple but yet their actions and behaviour are not compatible with each other for living a happy and peaceful married life, therefore, they may seek divorce by mutual consent. If an application is otherwise duly constituted and properly presented before the Court, it is not for the Court to search for a ground or a reason, which has compelled the parties to seek divorce by mutual consent.”
  • A Single Judge Bench of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Md. Mofidul Haque vs. State of Assam (Bail Application No 1894/2021) held that the conditions for bail under Section 37 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”) are conjunctive and have to be fulfilled simultaneously. In this case the Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted that the applicant had earlier also made an application for bail and the same was rejected. Upholding the decision of the earlier Bench, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi rejected the application and clarified that even if one of the conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act is not fulfilled, bail cannot be granted to the accused.
  • A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Airports Authority Employees Union Regd No. 3515 vs. Union of India (WP 2065 of 2021) rejected petition filed by the Airports Authority Employees Union, against the decision of the Central Government and the Airports Authority of India of handing over the contract for operation and management of Mangalore International Airport to Adani Enterprises Limited. The petitioners had claimed that the decision of privatisation of airport and giving contract to Adani Group was illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Airport Authority Act, 1994 as nothing in the Act permitted the complete handing over of control to a private company. The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the petition holding that the handing over was a policy decision and that the Court could not interfere in the same.
  • A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Vijaykumar Bhima Dighe vs. Union of India (PIL No. 11/2021) has struck down few provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. The Bench comprising of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Anil Kilor struck down Rules 3(2)(b), 6(9) and 4(2)(c) of the 2020 Rules. Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the 2020 Rules provided that a minimum experience of not less than 20 (Twenty) years would be needed for appointment as President and Members of the State Commission, whereas the experience needed for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Forums should not be less than 15 (Fifteen) years. The Bench struck down this Rule as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bench further observed that “Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has repeatedly held that to have 10 years of experience in law and in other specialized fields as prescribed and stipulated under the statute, is sufficient for appointment as a judicial member in the Tribunal”, and Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) to that extent are an attempt to circumvent the decisions of the Supreme Court. The High Court further struck down Rule 6(9) which gave powers to each state’s selection committee to determine its own procedure for recommending names for appointment. The High Court observed that Rule 6(9) was contrary to the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association (Civil Appeal No. 2740 of 2007), where the Supreme Court had emphasised the need to maintain uniformity across the country in standards, selection and appointment of President and Members of the forum.
  • A Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice T R Ravi, in the case of Gamescraft Pvt. Ltd. Technologies vs. State of Kerala (WP(C) No. 7785 of 2021), struck down the amendment to a government notification dated 30.09.1976 issued under Section 14A of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The amendment was made by notification dated 23.02.2021 which clarified that online rummy is not covered under exemption from the general prohibition of gaming and gambling granted under Section 14A of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The High Court held that the amendment was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as online rummy played for stakes is a recognized game of skill and any sort of ban on a game of skill will violate the fundamental right to trade and commerce. The Court further ruled that the amendment was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it only banned online rummy while physical rummy was still permitted.


  • Vide a circular no. SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-I/DOF5/P/CIR/2021/629 dated 20.09.2021, the Securities & Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has issued clarifications on alignment of interest of Key Employees (“Designated Employees”) of Asset Management Companies (“AMCs”) with the Unit holders of the Mutual Fund Schemes. SEBI had earlier issued circular no. SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-I/DOF5/P/CIR/2021/553 on 28.04.2021, regarding alignment of interest of Key Employees of Asset Management Companies with the Unitholders of the Mutual Fund Schemes. The said circular has been clarified by the subsequent circular dated 20.09.2021. Some of the key clarifications made are ‘key employees’ shall be read as ‘designated employees’, ‘paid in the form of units’ shall be read as ‘mandatorily invested in units’ and units allotted to the designated employees shall be subject to claw back in the event of gross violation of code of conduct/fraud/gross negligence by them, as determined by SEBI.
  • Vide circular no. SEBI/HO/MRD/DSA/CIR/P/2021/623 dated 01.09.2021, SEBI issued revised guidelines for liquidity enhancement scheme in the equity cash and equity derivatives segments. This circular has amended circular no. CIR/MRD/DP/14/2014 dated 23.04.2014 which permitted stock exchanges to introduce liquidity enhancement schemes (“Scheme”) in the equity cash and equity derivatives segments to enhance liquidity in illiquid securities. The present circular directs that all the stock exchanges must take steps to ensure that the Scheme has prior approval of the governing board of the stock exchange which will be valid for one year. The scheme will get yearly approval from the governing board of the Stock Exchange till the time the scheme is in operation. The stock exchange will also have to introduce liquidity enhancement schemes on any security and once the scheme is discontinued, it can be re-introduced on the same security.
  • Vide circular no. SEBI/HO/MRD1/ICC1/CIR/P/2021/625 dated 02.09.2021, SEBI has amended Circular SEBI/HO/DMS/CIR/P/2017/15 dated 23.02.2017, on ‘Amendment pursuant to comprehensive review of Investor Grievance Redressal Mechanism’. Post this amendment, the circular now provides a clause dealing with the place of arbitration/appellate arbitration and as per the same, in case the award amount is more than INR 50 (Fifty) Lakhs, the next level of proceedings may take place at the nearest metro city, if desired by any of the party involved. Further the circular also provides for speeding up grievance redressal mechanism, determination of legitimate claims from Investor Protection Fund (“IPF”) for clients of the defaulter members, and threshold limit for interim relief paid out of IPF in stock exchanges.
  • Vide a notification no. RBI/2021-22/100 dated 20.09.2021, RBI has issued a revised and consolidated Master Circular on Investments by Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks (“Master Circular”). The Master Circular prescribes certain guidelines to be followed by the Urban Co-operative Banks (“UCB”) in terms of investment policy, statutory investments, categorisation and valuation of investments, among others. According to the Master Circular, no co-operative bank can own shares in any other co-operative society except as specified by the RBI. On a principal-to-principal basis, UCBs are prohibited from engaging in any purchase/sale transactions with broking firms or other middlemen. Further, the UCBs must also follow the Ghosh Committee’s recommendations for conducting a concurrent audit of treasury functions, an internal audit of the acquisition and sale of government securities, and a half-yearly assessment of their investment portfolio.
  • Vide circular no. SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-IDOF5/P/CIR/2021/624 dated 02.09.2021, SEBI has ordered alignment of interest of Asset Management Companies with the unit holders of the mutual fund schemes. Through this circular SEBI has provided that AMCs shall invest minimum amount as a percentage of assets under management (“AUM”) in their scheme(s) as prescribed under the circular. The investment must be maintained at all times until the scheme’s duration is completed or the scheme is closed down. Additionally, the circular also held that noncompliance with this requirement shall be recorded in the Quarterly CTR and the half-yearly Trustee Report.
  • Vide circular no. SEBI/HO/IMD/IMD-1 DOF2/P/CIR/2021/630 dated 27.09.2021, SEBI has issued Risk Management Framework (“RMF”) for Mutual Funds. SEBI vide Circular No. MFD/CIR/15/19133/2002 dated 30.09.2002 had prescribed certain systems, procedures and practices to be followed by all mutual funds with regards to risk management. However, with the developments in the mutual fund industry and in the financial markets as a whole, including in the area of product innovation and increase in risk elements, etc., the need was felt by the Mutual Funds Advisory Committee (“MFAC”) to introduce the present notification. The recommendations of MFAC have been suitably incorporated in the Risk Management Framework for mutual funds.
  • Vide Notification No.45/2021–Customs dated 29.09.2021 and as per the powers conferred U/s 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Board of Indirect Taxes has extended the exemption of COVID-19 Vaccine from the basic custom duty. This Notification shall stay in effect till 31.12.2021.


  • Wow! Momo chain recently raised Series C funding from Singapore based Tree Line Investment Management. Wow! Momo is a quick-service restaurant chain with its head offices in Kolkata, and was founded by Sagar Daryani and Binod Homagai in the year 2008. The Company is looking to boost its presence into fast-moving consumer good (“FMCG”) space and will use the funding to increase its new FMCG businesses and expand the cloud kitchen brands.
  • OneAssist Consumer Solutions has entered into a merger with TechGuard. Pursuant to the merger, TechGuard will be a subsidiary of OneAssist. TechGuard is a Mumbai-based company that was founded in the year 2016 and offers technical enterprise solutions like extended warranty, mobile protection, value-added services and gadget protection. OneAssist is also engaged in providing similar services as TechGuard. OneAssist provides online consumer assistance and protection platform which provides assistance services on loss of wallets, credit cards, offers extended warranty, repair and delivery services of home appliances and mobile phone protection.
  • Sony Pictures Networks India, a unit of Sony Group Corporation, bought Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Pursuant to the aforesaid deal, Sony Pictures Networks India will be India’s   second biggest entertainment network by revenue and spawn an entity with 75 (Seventy-Five) TV channels, 2 (Two) video streaming services (ZEE5 and Sony LIV), 2 (Two) film studios (Zee Studios and Sony Pictures Films India) and a digital content studio (Studio NXT). The transaction will make Sony one of the largest broadcasters in the country and enable it to compete with companies like Netflix and Disney.
  • India’s Edtech unicorn BYJU recently acquired Gradeup in its latest  eighth round of acquisition. Gradeup is an online test preparation platform which will be rebranded as Byju’s Exam Prep. Gradeup which already had a presence in preparatory Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) will be going deeper into the exam preparation space and expanding its offering across 150 (One hundred Fifty) exams in 25 (Twenty-Five) categories. Notably, BYJU has already shelled out $2.2 billion in all its acquisitions this year.
  • Realty developer Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. (“TRIL”) acquired all shares of Actis TREIT Holdings in Intellion Square in its Goregaon suburb project in an all-cash deal. In addition to the aforesaid equity stake, TRIL has also acquired 416 (Four hundred and Sixteen) listed non-convertible debentures held by Actis TREIT Holdings in the said project that was earlier known as TRIL IT4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, TRIL now owns complete stake in TRIL IT4 Private Limited. TRIL IT4 Private Limited owns and operates an I.T. building located in Mumbai. TRIL is a subsidiary of Tata Group and the transaction will help the company to invest and develop new generation offices in established commercial markets across India’s major cities.

Related Posts