Do you need more information?
Fill out the details below and we shall get in touch with you at the earliest.
This section provides an overview on certain aspects of Indian corporate and commercial laws that we deal with regularly. These cover strategies for investment into India, incorporation of a company and commercializing one’s intellectual property. We have a section on the current data protection and privacy regime in India as well as a checklist for publishing houses that seek to do business in India.
Fill out the details below and we shall get in touch with you at the earliest.
Limits of Vicarious Liability in Case of Defamation: An Analysis of the Google India Private Limited v. Nayana Krishna Judgment
Recently, in the case of Google India Private Limited v. Nayana Krishna[1], the Karnataka High Court (“Court“) examined whether a subsidiary company can be retained as a defendant in a defamation suit where the cause of action is based solely on the alleged acts of its parent company, and there are no specific allegations against the subsidiary. The Court’s ruling provides clarity on the application of the doctrine of separate legal personality in the context of multinational corporate groups and highlights the need for detailed and substantiated pleadings in defamation suits.
The plaintiff, Nayana Krishna (“Plaintiff“), filed the present case seeking a permanent injunction against twenty-one defendants, including Google India Private Limited (“Google India“). The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants had published, posted, web-hosted and broadcast defamatory photos, videos, and statements through various digital and print platforms, which had harmed the Plaintiff’s reputation.
In response, Google India filed a written statement denying any involvement in the alleged defamatory activity. Google India submitted that it did not post, web-host, broadcast, or publish any material concerning the Plaintiff. Further, it stated that it was merely a subsidiary of Google LLC (“Google LLC“), a foreign corporation, and provided technical support and advertising services to Google LLC, which were unrelated to the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, Google India moved an application seeking deletion from the array of parties, arguing that there were no specific allegations or cause of action arising from any actions of Google India. At the outset, the trial court rejected the application by Google India without assigning detailed reasons, which resulted in the present writ petition being filed before the Court.
The issues for consideration before the Court were: (i) whether Google India was a necessary and proper party to the defamation suit in the absence of specific allegations against it; and (ii) whether the trial court’s refusal to delete Google India from the array of parties was legally sustainable.
Firstly, on the issue of the requirement of specific pleadings in defamation suits, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in M.J. Zakharia Sait v. T.M. Mohammed[2], which reiterated the settled legal principle that in an action for defamation, the plaintiff must submit pleadings which specifically describe the defamatory content, the context, and the parties responsible for publication of the alleged defamatory content. The Court noted that in the absence of these necessary submissions, the plaint would be liable to be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. Upon perusing the plaint, the Court found no submission specifying the details of the defamatory material being published or hosted by Google India, nor was there any material accompanying the plaint showing the involvement of Google India in such publication. Thus, the Court held that the basic elements of a defamation claim against the petitioner were not satisfied by the Plaintiff.
Secondly, on the doctrine of separate legal entity, the Court observed that Google India, despite being a wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC, is a distinct legal entity registered under the laws of India, and it cannot be held liable for acts allegedly committed by Google LLC through its platforms, Google and YouTube. Relying on corporate documents and terms of service placed on record, the Court reaffirmed the principle of separate legal personality, holding that a subsidiary cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of its parent company in the absence of any evidence of direct involvement or control.
Lastly, the Court took note of similar orders passed in analogous cases where trial courts had struck off Google India as a defendant in the past. It was noted that despite this consistent judicial approach, the trial court had, in the present case, failed to provide any reasons for rejecting a similar application, indicating a non-application of mind.
In the absence of specific pleadings or material to demonstrate that Google India participated in or facilitated the alleged defamatory content, and having observed that Google India is a distinct legal entity separate from Google LLC, the Court held that it was impermissible to continue proceedings against Google India. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and Google India was deleted from the array of parties.
This judgment reiterates the strict standards for pleading in defamation claims and upholds the doctrine of separate legal personality. The decision will aid in safeguarding subsidiary corporations from unwarranted litigation where their role is peripheral or non-existent, especially in cases involving digital content and internet intermediaries. By setting aside the trial court’s order and directing the deletion of Google India from the suit, the Court set a precedent against vague and speculative litigation.
[1] W.P. No. 22125/2019.
[2] (1990) 3 SCC 396.
Loss of Profit Must Be Proven, Not Presumed: Delhi High Court Sets Clear Benchmark
In the matter of Union of India v. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd[1], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court“) addressed the evidentiary standards required for claiming loss of profits in arbitral proceedings. In the present case, Ahluwalia Contracts Ltd. (“Contractor“) sought compensation for alleged loss of profits due to delays and non-performance by the Union of India The case serves as a timely reminder that while contractors may be entitled to damages for the prolongation of contracts, claims for loss of profits cannot be ‘hypothetical and unreal’ and must be substantiated by convincing and grounded evidence.
Background of the Dispute
The present matter arose out of a contract awarded to the Contractor for electrical services at AIIMS Patna under the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana. The contract was awarded to the Contractor in August 2011 and was to be completed within 16 (sixteen) months. However, the project experienced substantial delays due to the Union of India’s failure to provide necessary site access and infrastructure, particularly the substation buildings where electrical installations were to be carried out. Consequently, the Contractor was required to provide services beyond the original timeline anticipated thereby incurring additional costs. The Contractor invoked arbitration claiming amongst other things for costs incurred during this extended period and for loss of profits as well.
Contractor’s Claim for Loss of Profits
Among the many claims submitted by the Contractor, the Contractor also prayed for loss of profits equivalent to a sum of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Eighty Lakhs) for the 20 (twenty) month period during which the work was prolonged beyond the stipulated contract period. This figure was arrived at basis the average monthly profit of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Only) earned by the Contractor. The assumption underlying the claim was that the Contractor, if not tied up with the delayed AIIMS project, could have deployed its manpower and resources elsewhere and earned the anticipated profits.
Arbitral Tribunal and Court Proceedings
The arbitral tribunal, while accepting several claims of the Contractor pertaining to actual expenses incurred during the extension period, rejected the claim for loss of profits. The tribunal reasoned that the contract already included a 15% (fifteen percent) markup on the cost of materials and labour, which was intended to cover all overheads and profits. It found that permitting a separate claim under the head of ‘loss of profits’ would amount to double dipping. This would be unfair particularly in the absence of any contractual commitment guaranteeing the claimed profit or documentary evidence establishing the actual loss suffered.
The Contractor challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act“), before a single judge of the High Court. The single judge set aside the rejection of several claims, including that for loss of profits, holding that the tribunal’s reasoning was perverse and patently illegal. However, in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the division bench reversed this finding and reinstated the original finding of the award, thereby rejecting of the Contractor’s claim for loss of profits.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The division bench’s reasoning focused on the speculative nature of the Contractor’s calculation. The Court found that the entire claim was premised on a notional figure; i.e. the average monthly profit of Rs 24,00,000 (Twenty Four Lakhs) per month, without any documentary evidence showing that such profit was earned historically or could have been earned on alternative projects during the extension period. The Court referred to multiple decisions of the Supreme Court, including Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja[2], Unibros v. All India Radio[3] and Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.[4], to reiterate that claims for loss of profits cannot be based on mere extrapolation or theoretical formulas. The claimant must establish that the delay prevented it from undertaking other profitable work, and this must be substantiated with invitations to tender, past turnover records, or similar financial documentation. It emphasised that the burden lies on the claimant to establish that profits were lost due to the delay and that such loss is not merely theoretical. The Court emphasized that claims for loss of profit must be substantiated with concrete evidence. Merely presenting hypothetical or speculative figures is insufficient.
The Court also addressed the legal principles surrounding the Hudson and Eichleay formulas, commonly used in construction disputes to compute loss of profits or overheads due to delay. The court said that the use of these formulas must be supported by a factual foundation. In the present case, the assumptions required to apply such formulas, such as the availability of alternate work, the ability to deploy idle resources, and the loss of specific economic opportunities, were not demonstrated. The Court rejected the notion that loss of profit could be presumed based on industry standards or past performance.
The division bench emphasized that in arbitral proceedings, the tribunal is the final fact-finder, and its conclusions cannot be interfered with unless they are wholly irrational or violate basic principles of justice. The Court found that the tribunal’s view, that the loss of profits claim was hypothetical and unsupported, was entirely reasonable and did not suffer from patent illegality. On that basis, it concluded that the single judge had erred in overturning the award on this point.
Conclusion
This judgment is significant for multiple reasons. It reinforces that for claims for loss of profits or missed opportunities, the claimant needs to present credible evidence to prove the loss of profits and opportunities it suffered.
In conclusion, this case upholds that claims for loss of profits cannot be presumed on hypothetical and unreal calculations. They must be grounded in contract, backed by evidence, and attributable to the delay. The judgment carefully balances the contractor’s right to be compensated for prolongation with the principle that damages must reflect real, not imagined, loss.
[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4066
[2] (2004) 5 SCC 109
[3] (2023) INSC 931
[4] (2023) INSC 850
MIB Issues Latest Advisory for OTT Platforms Amid Content Regulation Debate
On February 19, 2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB“) issued an advisory to Over-The-Top (“OTT“) platforms and self-regulatory bodies of OTT platforms (“Advisory“), emphasizing the need to strictly adhere to the Indian laws and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Guidelines“). This Advisory follows the growing public concerns regarding the proliferation of obscene, pornographic and vulgar content on various OTT platforms and on social media.
The rapid increase of OTT platforms in India has revolutionized content consumption, offering audiences access to a diverse range of programming. The publication of media directly to online platforms bypasses the traditional methods by which the government seeks to regulate content broadcast in India, leading to concerns about the nature of the content being made available, with particular emphasis on material deemed inappropriate or offensive. The Advisory outlines specific instructions for OTT platforms and their self-regulatory bodies. The key directives of the Advisory include:
These measures are meant to ensure that the OTT platforms uphold a sense of responsibility in the content they distribute, not only to their viewers but also the country’s broader social values.
The MIB on November 26, 2024, had issued another advisory to OTT platforms, calling for the responsible depiction of drug use (“2024 Advisory“). The 2024 Advisory was aimed at addressing the impact of the glamorization and glorification of drug use by protagonists and other actors, and its repercussions and influence on young and impressionable viewers. Through the 2024 Advisory, the MIB drew attention to the Intermediary Guidelines and the Code of Ethics, stating that the OTT platforms shall not transmit, publish or exhibit any content which is prohibited under any law or court. Furthermore, any content that would portray (a) misuse of psychotropic substances, liquor, smoking and tobacco; and (b) potentially dangerous behaviours that would likely incite the commission of any offence, shall receive a higher classification.
In light of the aforementioned advisories, it is important to note that, through the introduction of the Intermediary Guidelines, the government has expanded its authority over digital platforms, allowing oversight of online content and digital news media. In consequence to this, several petitions were filed before various high courts across the country challenging the constitutionality of the Intermediary Guidelines. The central argument against the Intermediary Guidelines includes the fact that they give excessive power to the government to regulate content which can lead to overreach and censorship. Furthermore, the lack of clear standards would place an undue burden on content creators, who may face legal consequences for content deemed to be offensive or controversial. These petitions challenging the provisions of the Intermediary Guidelines are currently pending before the Delhi High Court.
The Advisory, along with the 2024 Advisory, underscores the government’s determination to ensure that OTT platforms operate within the framework of Indian laws and societal norms. While this Advisory is issued in response to recent controversies regarding inappropriate content being streamed on digital platforms, the Advisory further highlights the debate surrounding the regulation of digital content and government oversight. While the government has failed to acknowledge the challenge to the Intermediary Guidelines in the issuance of the Advisory, it would be important to monitor the proceedings before the Delhi High Court to understand the implications and effect of the Advisory.
India Entry Strategy: The FAQs provide an overview of the different legal structures under which foreign investment is permitted in India
Based on the type of entity one proposes to incorporate, other legislations such as the Foreign Exchange Management(Establishment in India of a branch office or a liaison office or a project office or any other place of business) Regulations, 2016 (“Regulations”) or the Companies Act, 2013 etc will also have to be complied with.
Capital instruments can contain an optionality clause subject to a minimum lock-in period of one (1) year or as prescribed for the specific sector, whichever is higher, but without any option or right to exit at an assured price.
Apart from the aforementioned entry conditions, the investors are required to comply with all relevant sectoral laws, regulations, rules, security conditions, and state/local laws/regulations.
An Indian company may, subject to the prescribed FDI caps, sectoral regulations and licensing requirements applicable for various sectors / activities (if any), issue capital instruments to persons resident outside India under the automatic route. In terms of the said sectoral regulations, there are certain sectors in which foreign investment is not permitted under the automatic route and requires specific approval, such as, the domestic airlines, broadcasting, print and news media, atomic minerals, defense etc.
Approval Route
If the proposed investment does not qualify for the “automatic route”, the company in which such foreign investment is sought to be made would have to make an application on the Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal(FIFP) for approval. The approval is granted on a case to case basis at the discretion of the concerned ministry/department, and in approving an investment proposal, the concerned department/ministry ordinarily considers factors such as inflow and outflow of foreign exchange, general benefit to the Indian economy, induction of technology, export potential, potential for large-scale employment, etc.
Branch office,in relation to a company, means any establishment described as such by the company.
Project office means a place of business in India, which represents the interests of the foreign company executing a project in India but excludes a liaison office.
For branch office, the foreign entity must demonstrate a profit-making track record during the immediately preceding three(3)financial years in the home country and net worth of not less than USD 1,00,000 or its equivalent.
For project office, the foreign entity must have secured a contract to execute a project in India from an Indian company and the project should be funded either directly by inward remittance from abroad, or by multilateral or bilateral International Financing Agency or been granted term loan by a bank in India.
Prior RBI approval is required for setting up of liaison office.
The above approval is valid for a period of three (3) years. Such period may be extended for a period of three (3)years from the date of expiry of the original approval / extension granted, subject to such directions issued by the RBI in this regard.
Application to set up a liaison office has to be made to the RBI through an AD Category – I Bank identified by the applicant with whom they intend to pursue banking relations (“Authorized Dealer”), in the prescribed Form FNC along with the relevant documentation. The documents required to be attached along with Form FNC are:
Upon expiry of the validity period of the approvals, such liaison offices are required to either (i) close down; or (ii) be converted into a Joint Venture (JV) /Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS), in conformity with the FDI Policy.
A liaison office in India is permitted to undertake the following activities:
A foreign entity will need RBI approval to carry on any other activity other than those mentioned above.
Yes, the Regulations have prescribed a set of compliances that each liaison office is permitted to make:
Yes, prior RBI approval is required for setting up of branch office.
Permission to set up a branch office has to be made to the RBI, through an Authorized Dealer, inthe prescribed Form FNC along with the relevant documentation. The documents required to be attached are the following:
The following activities are permitted to be undertaken by a branch office in India under the Regulations:
Prior RBI approval is not required in case if a project has been awarded in India to such foreign company.
The validity for the project office is granted for the duration of the project.
The project office can be set up for the sole purpose of executing the project and cannot undertake any other activities.
An Indian Company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 or under any previous company law. A foreign entity may, subject to the sectoral cap, set up/invest in a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 through either a:
FDI can be brought into an Indian company either through one of the following options:
Transfer of shares/ convertible debentures of an Indian company, by way of sale, from residents to non-residents of an Indian company, does not require prior Government approval provided the following conditions are satisfied:
LLP combines the flexibility of a partnership and the advantages of limited liability of a company at a low compliance cost. In other words, it is an alternative corporate business vehicle that provides the benefits of limited liability of a company, but allows its members the flexibility of organising their internal management on the basis of a mutually arrived agreement, as is the case in a partnership firm. An LLP is governed by the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.
FDI is permitted under the automatic route, only in LLPs operating in sectors/activities where one hundred percent FDI is allowed, through the automatic route and there are no FDI-linked performance conditions. Further, an LLP is permitted to convert into a company. Similarly, conversion of a company into an LLP is also now permitted under the automatic route.
A partnership is defined as a relation between two or more persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all of them or any of them acting for all. The owners of a partnership business are individually known as the “partners” and collectively as a “firm”. A partnership is formed by an agreement, which may be either written or oral. When the written agreement is duly stamped and registered, it is known as “Partnership Deed”. Ordinarily, the rights, duties and liabilities of partners are laid down in the Partnership Deed. But in the case where the Partnership Deed does not specify the rights and obligations, the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 will apply.
A partnership firm may be registered at any time (not merely at the time of its formation but subsequently also) by filing an application with the Registrar of Firms of the area in which any place of business of the firm is situated or proposed to be situated. The application shall contain:
FDI is allowed to be made in partnership firms, subject to the following conditions:
As a foreign investor looking to invest and set up business in India, your India entry strategy needs to be well-planned and thought out. Discussing the objectives with your legal counsel can India, can help them identify the legal structure that would be best suited for your requirements and business objectives. This helps not only in focusing upon the India entry strategy but also ensures that the same is successfully executed.
We have set out a checklist that publishing houses operating in India need to keep in mind prior to publishing non-fiction works taking into account the existing Publishing Laws in India
(a) Owner/Author of the reference;
(b) Title of the reference;
(c) Publisher;
(d) Place and year of publication; and
(e) Any other information that may be relevant to identifying the source of the reference.
Publishers and writers of non-scientific works ought to ensure that a thorough legal read of their work is undertaken prior to publication. A legal read should ideally be undertaken by a team of lawyers who are familiar with the nuances of publishing laws in India. The significance of a due diligent legal read lies in the fact that the writer or the publisher has a lot to lose if there is a dispute post-publication.
Defamation, sedition, confidentiality breach, copyrighted or Intellectual Property Rights infringement, outraging religious faith, promoting communal disharmony and unrest amongst sections of the community based on religion, language, birthplace, residence, etc. and obscenity – are just some issues that come within the purview of Publishing Laws in India, but there could be other issues. Therefore, prior to publication of a work of non-fiction, a thorough legal read in India by a reputed legal firm is recommended, even though the same is not legally mandatory.
This section provides an overview of the existing privacy as well as Data Protection Laws in India with a mention of the applicability of the EU GDPR
In recent years and specially in the context of the COVID pandemic, digitization, leaps in technological capabilities, and rise in e-commerce platforms has become the norm. As a consumer, we share personal information and data with each online platform we visit, register on and order from. However, collection, use, and disclosure of this data is largely unregulated due to the absence of specific Data Protection Laws in India..
The Personal Data Protection Bill is before the Indian Parliament and we understand the same may come in the 2021 winter session. Till such time as the aforesaid Bill becomes law, our personal data and privacy continue to be governed by a gamut of Data Protection Laws in India, some of which are summarized below.
The Data Protection Bill, 2021 has been withdrawn with effect from August 3, 2022 and is proposed to be replaced with a new legislation. The Data Protection Bill, 2021 earlier replaced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019.
The FAQs cover the process involved in incorporating a private limited company in India
The dos and don’ts of licensing intellectual property in India
Sign up to get notified about latest articles and delivered to your inbox.