印度的派生诉讼制度是历史遗迹吗?

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
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

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信