印度的派生诉讼制度是历史遗迹吗?

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.54648/bula2023022
Abhijnan Jha, Urvashi Misra
{"title":"印度的派生诉讼制度是历史遗迹吗?","authors":"Abhijnan Jha, Urvashi Misra","doi":"10.54648/bula2023022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1843, the Court of Chancery pronounced its landmark judgment in Foss v. Harbottle.((1843) 67 ER 189) The judgment sparked the evolution of a critical common law remedy, in the form of derivative actions, to protect a company’s interests. Soon courts in other countries, including India, adopted this approach, allowing interested parties to initiate suits on behalf of companies. Over time, most countries, including the United Kingdom, proceeded to codify derivative actions into a statutory remedy. India however continued with the common law route.\nIndian civil courts have been entertaining derivative actions, initiated by interested parties on a company’s behalf, for several years now. However, recently an interesting judicial trend has emerged wherein High Courts are restricting the jurisdiction to consider such actions solely to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCPL), a specialized forum established for adjudicating upon company law related matters.\nIn this article, we discuss the reasons leading to this new trend, the position taken by the High Courts on derivative actions in three recent judgments, the shortcomings of this approach and its impact on the future of corrective actions which may be initiated by third parties on the company’s behalf in India.\nBig data, business secret, cybersecurity, data right, e-commerce platform, information processing, legal boundary, market competition, network platform, personal privacy","PeriodicalId":42005,"journal":{"name":"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Derivative Action Regime in India a Historical Relic?\",\"authors\":\"Abhijnan Jha, Urvashi Misra\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/bula2023022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1843, the Court of Chancery pronounced its landmark judgment in Foss v. Harbottle.((1843) 67 ER 189) The judgment sparked the evolution of a critical common law remedy, in the form of derivative actions, to protect a company’s interests. Soon courts in other countries, including India, adopted this approach, allowing interested parties to initiate suits on behalf of companies. Over time, most countries, including the United Kingdom, proceeded to codify derivative actions into a statutory remedy. India however continued with the common law route.\\nIndian civil courts have been entertaining derivative actions, initiated by interested parties on a company’s behalf, for several years now. However, recently an interesting judicial trend has emerged wherein High Courts are restricting the jurisdiction to consider such actions solely to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCPL), a specialized forum established for adjudicating upon company law related matters.\\nIn this article, we discuss the reasons leading to this new trend, the position taken by the High Courts on derivative actions in three recent judgments, the shortcomings of this approach and its impact on the future of corrective actions which may be initiated by third parties on the company’s behalf in India.\\nBig data, business secret, cybersecurity, data right, e-commerce platform, information processing, legal boundary, market competition, network platform, personal privacy\",\"PeriodicalId\":42005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/bula2023022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bula2023022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is the Derivative Action Regime in India a Historical Relic?
In 1843, the Court of Chancery pronounced its landmark judgment in Foss v. Harbottle.((1843) 67 ER 189) The judgment sparked the evolution of a critical common law remedy, in the form of derivative actions, to protect a company’s interests. Soon courts in other countries, including India, adopted this approach, allowing interested parties to initiate suits on behalf of companies. Over time, most countries, including the United Kingdom, proceeded to codify derivative actions into a statutory remedy. India however continued with the common law route. Indian civil courts have been entertaining derivative actions, initiated by interested parties on a company’s behalf, for several years now. However, recently an interesting judicial trend has emerged wherein High Courts are restricting the jurisdiction to consider such actions solely to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCPL), a specialized forum established for adjudicating upon company law related matters. In this article, we discuss the reasons leading to this new trend, the position taken by the High Courts on derivative actions in three recent judgments, the shortcomings of this approach and its impact on the future of corrective actions which may be initiated by third parties on the company’s behalf in India. Big data, business secret, cybersecurity, data right, e-commerce platform, information processing, legal boundary, market competition, network platform, personal privacy
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Good Faith in English Contract Law: Should the Law Retreat? Rethinking Directors’ Statutory Fiduciary Duties in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Should Sequana be Followed? Is the Derivative Action Regime in India a Historical Relic? Cybersecurity in Business: A Case Study of DiDi The EU-US Data Privacy Framework: Doomed Like Its Predecessors?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1