DSK Legal advises Sunteck Lifespace, Sahyadri Group in separate deals

DSK Legal advises Sunteck Lifespace, Sahyadri Group in separate deals

Recent Posts

DSK Legal advises Equirus Capital, Motilal Oswal in IPO

LE Desk 

New Delhi, September 7, 2022: DSK Legal has advised Equirus Capital Private Limited and Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Limited with respect to the initial public offering of 17,242,368 equity shares of Dreamfolks Services Limited.

The IPO was made through an offer for sale by Liberatha Peter Kallat, Mukesh Yadav and Dinesh Nagpal, who are Promoters of the Company, the Law Firm has said. 

The Red Herring Prospectus was filed with the RoC on August 17, 2022; the prospectus was filed on August 30, 2022 and the Company was listed on September 06, 2022 on BSE and NSE.  

DSK Legal assisted in inter alia (i) conducting due diligence; (ii) reviewing the Draft Red Herring Prospectus, Red Herring Prospectus and the final Prospectus for filing with SEBI, Stock exchanges and assistance in finalisation and filing of the same with Registrar of Companies; (iii) drafting responses to queries received from SEBI, Stock Exchanges, Depositories until the completion of all activities relating to the public offering; (iv) drafting of the consent letters and certificates taken from all intermediaries; (v) drafting and review of all agreements relating to the Offer (including Offer Agreement, Syndicate Agreement, Share Escrow Agreement, Cash Escrow and Sponsor Bank Agreement, Underwriting Agreement and agreement with Advertising agency, Registrar etc.); (vi) extending legal opinion for each stage of the public offering and (vii) preparation of deal bible.  

The team representing DSK Legal comprised of Gaurav Mistry (Partner), Avinash Poojari (Associate Partner), Akanksha Dubey (Principal Associate), Rishika Raghuwanshi (Associate), Jigar Sampat (Associate) and Maniya Goyal (Associate). Ajay Shaw acted as the lead engagement partner for the Transaction, the Firm said in a press statement. 

DSK Legal acted as Domestic legal counsel to the BRLMs, Bharucha and Partners acted as a legal counsel to the Company and Duane Morris & Selvam LLP acted as International Legal Counsel for the BRLMs, it said.

Future Group moves Delhi High Court over RIL deal restraining order

By LE Desk

New Delhi, March 21: The Future Group has moved the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court against the order passed by a single-member Bench, which directed to stay its Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance Industries to sell the firm’s retail and wholesale business.

The Kishore Biyani-led group firm, Future Retail (FRL), has now filed an appeal before the higher Bench of the same HC against the orders passed by a single-member Bench of Justice J R Midha, Future Retail said in a regulatory filing.

“The company has filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against the impugned order dated March 18, 2021 passed by single judge…,” said Future Retail.

Earlier, in a statement on Friday, Future Retail had said the order of the single-member Bench would have no impact on the ongoing proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which is presently going through the scheme of arrangement between the Future Group and Reliance Retail.

The NCLT has reserved its order over the scheme of arrangement that entails the consolidation of Future Group’s retail and wholesale business and transferring it to Reliance in a Rs 24,713-crore deal that was announced in August last year.

The Future-Reliance deal, which is contested by global e-commerce major Amazon, has already received clearance from the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Sebi and bourses, and the scheme of arrangement is now awaiting the nod from the NCLT and shareholders. Passing a 134-page long judgement, Justice Midha had on Thursday directed Kishore Biyani-led FRL not to take further action on the deal with Reliance and held that the group willfully violated the EA’s order.

The HC had rejected all the objections raised by Future Group and imposed a cost of Rs 20 lakh on it as well as its directors.

It had directed them to deposit the amount in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within two weeks for being used for providing Covid-19 vaccination to senior citizens of Below Poverty Line (BPL) category of Delhi.

The HC’s judgement came on Amazon’s plea seeking direction to order enforcement of the Award by Singapore’s EA on October 25, 2020, restraining FRL from going ahead with its Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance Retail.

However, Future Retail had said: “We are advised that this order does not come in the way of the continuance of the ongoing NCLT proceedings, being inconsistent with the order dated February 22, 2021, of the Supreme Court”.

It is to be pointed out that the portions of the operative part of this detailed order, already covered by the ad-interim order dated February 2, 2021, have been stayed by the Division Bench of Delhi HC in an appeal filed by Future Retail.

“Amazon has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order passed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, in its order in Amazon’s appeal, has not vacated the stay granted by the Division Bench (which stay is still in operation).”

“The Supreme Court has directed that, in the meantime, the NCLT proceedings will be allowed to go on but will not culminate in any final order of sanction of scheme,” Future Retail had said, as reported by the Business Standard. 

On August 29, 2020, the Future Group had announced that its retail and wholesale business would be sold to Reliance Retail, owned by oil-to-chemical conglomerate RIL in a Rs 24,713-crore deal.

In October 2020, Amazon dragged Future Group to arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), arguing that Future violated the contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance.

Amazon and Future have been locked in a bitter legal tussle after the US e-commerce giant dragged Future Group to arbitration at SIAC, arguing that the latter had violated their contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance.


Supreme Court approves SBI MF plan for Franklin Templeton schemes

By LE Desk

New Delhi, March 19: The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the standard operating procedure (SOP) statement prepared by SBI Funds Management for disposal of assets to unit holders in six Franklin Templeton debt schemes frozen on April 23, 2020.

The SOP was prepared by FT Mutual Fund and market regulator SEBI.

The six schemes have already distributed Rs 9,122 crore to investors and have accrued another Rs 1,370 crore in cash, as on March 15. The assets in the schemes were worth around Rs 26,000 crore on the day they were frozen, the Business Standard reported.

SBI Funds Management (SBI MF) told the court that disposal to unit holders would be done by a team headed by an official not below the rank of Vice President in the company. FT Asset Management would also provide two mid-level officials with a clean track record to assist it in its work.

As part of monetisation plan for the frozen schemes, the securities and money would be transferred to specially designated accounts for the disposal and FT would have to provide SBI MF with all the relevant documentation. It would also have to bear the expenses of the winding-up.

The SOP also says that SBI MF will not bid for assets to avoid conflict of interest. Different methods would be adopted for disposal of liquid and rest of the assets. If even after this process, some assets remain to be liquidated, they would be returned to FT for necessary action.

In case of any defaults in the paper held by the schemes, it would have to initiate proceedings against the defaulting issuer. Any surplus amount would have to be deployed in liquid schemes and whenever additional amount gets collected, it would be distributed to the unit holders.

Interestingly, the current NAV of closed FT schemes is higher than the NAV on the of the winding-up.


Future Retail vs Amazon: Delhi High Court upholds Emergency Arbitrator’s award

By LE Desk

New Delhi, March 18: In a significant win for Amazon.com Inc., the Delhi High Court has upheld the Emergency Arbitrator’s award the U.S. e-commerce giant had won against Future Retail Ltd.

A single judge bench of Justice JR Midha has imposed a Rs 20 lakh penalty on Future Group entities. The court has issued notice to Kishore Biyani and others and have asked them to be present in the court for the next date of hearing on April 20, BloombergQuint reported.

In October last year, the Emergency Arbitrator constituted under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, had passed an interim award in favour of Amazon. The Emergency Arbitrator had directed Future Retail to put on hold its transaction with Reliance Retail.

Subsequently, Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC approached the Delhi High Court and sought the recognition and enforcement of the emergency arbitrator’s order under section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 

The provision allows a party to seek enforcement of an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal in the same manner as it would for a court order.

The high court bench of Justice Midha heard the arguments and reserved its judgment last month. In the interim, it passed a status-quo order which put on hold the transaction between Reliance Retail Ltd. and Future Group.

This interim order was appealed in front of a division bench of the Delhi High Court headed by Chief Justice DN Patel which vacated the interim order of status quo.

The appeal against that order is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Last month, the apex court directed the National Company Law Tribunal to continue hearing the case but not give a final nod till further orders. Future Group had sought NCLT’s nod to hold shareholders’ meeting and seek their approval for consolidation of its entities—the first step in its ultimate sale to Reliance Retail.


GST: Madras High Court allows benefit of TDS credit from VAT regime

By LE Desk

Chennai, March 18: In a judgment that will benefit small and medium businesses, the Madras High Court has allowed transition of input credit arising from tax deducted at source under the value added tax into the GST regime.

Taxpayers can now set off such unutilised credit against their output tax liability. 

More than 23 petitioners, including those engaged in the construction sector, had challenged the Tamil Nadu goods and services tax department’s move to deny transition of VAT TDS credit into the new indirect tax regime.

A bench comprising Justice Anita Sumanth observed that GST allows a taxpayer to transition credit obtained under the VAT regime. As any amount of tax collected or deducted at source is mentioned in the returns filed under the VAT law, all such amounts will also be included for transition purpose into the new regime, the court has observed, BloombergQuint reported.

The decision will be useful especially for taxpayers engaged in providing works contract services, Nand Kishore, partner at DSK Legal, said. The benefit, however, can be availed by only those taxpayers who filed the electronic form TRAN-1 within the prescribed time, he said.

With the introduction of GST, the government allowed taxpayers to carry forward unutilised tax credits under the erstwhile indirect tax regime. Businesses were allowed to carry forward accumulated input tax credits from the pre-GST era by filing form TRAN-1—an electronic form capturing details of the dealer and invoice, amount of unutilised tax credit, etc.

While the government intended an easy transition, disputes arose relating to credits arising from the amount deducted as TDS under the VAT regime, especially in Tamil Nadu.

For works contract services, the state’s VAT law required a person availing works contract service to deduct tax before making payments. Dealers would get a TDS certificate for this and could adjust their final tax liability against it at the end of the financial year. In case, TDS exceeded the total tax liability, a dealer was entitled to refund.

Using this base, the tax department contended that TDS is an “approximate amount”. It assumes the character of a “tax” only after the final adjustment. However, the central and state GST laws only allow transition of “tax” and not an approximate amount. As such, there was no entitlement for transition of such credit, the department argued.

The taxpayers contested this saying TDS is nothing but a tax and hence any credit arising from it can be transitioned, and that deduction of tax is only a method by the tax department to plug revenue leakage. The taxpayers also contended that a person availing services also deducts tax at source due to the requirement under the VAT law, failing which they are deemed to be an “assessee in default.”

Reading into the various statutory requirements, the court noted that it cannot go by the mere description used in the VAT law. A person availing works contract services deducts tax under the authority of law. As such, TDS assumes the character of tax and hence a dealer will be entitled to transition the credit.


Four ways coronavirus may forever change legal tech

June 16: When the novel coronavirus closed down courthouses and law firms, technology allowed attorneys, their clients and judges to move litigation forward without jeopardising public health.

Some of those emergency fixes could stick around even after life returns to normal. Legal experts say embracing remote technology has boosted efficiency, transparency and access to the courts.

Here are some of the top tech fixes that attorneys hope will stick around after the pandemic, according to law360.com: 

(i) Video Hearings

When courthouses shuttered in March, some judges, like the Northern District of California’s Judge James Donato, didn’t want to stop oral arguments. He preferred to hash out questions with attorneys, rather than issuing rulings based solely on the papers.

So he and many of his colleagues took to Zoom, using the webinar format with attorneys presenting as “video panelists”, and audience members watching as they would from a courtroom gallery. At first, Zoom access information was only available via PACER, but in late May, the district made video hearing logins publicly available on its website.

Now, Donato would like to offer video hearings even once the San Francisco courthouse reopens.

“I think this is a real breakthrough moment in access to the courts — public access, client access. It’s a huge revolution for the better, in getting more people to see what we do,” he said.

Video hearings open up the courtroom to people who can’t make it to San Francisco, from young attorneys who want to watch oral arguments in the litigation they’re working on but can’t take the time to commute, to corporate clients who “are writing massive checks, and never watch their lawyers,” Donato said.

A former BigLaw partner himself, Donato thinks the webinars could improve lawyers’ work-life balance. He remembers flying from his home in San Francisco to attend hearings in Boston that rarely took longer than an hour. While the arguments were vital to the case, the cross-country trip took a toll.

“I would fly out there constantly, and it would be a two- or three-day trip for 45 minutes in court. That disrupts your whole week, disrupts your office, disrupts your home,” he said. “I hope the two-day trip for a one-hour hearing is a thing of the past, and we just do it on webinar. I think that’s going to have tremendous value, making being a lawyer less burdensome on families, much more cost efficient, maybe even greener.”

Other courts systems, like New York state court, always required attorneys to attend in person, even for status conferences or calendar check-ins, according to John Magliery, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

He wouldn’t necessarily want to argue motions remotely once courthouses reopen, he said, but New York adopting that technology for other in-court appearances could be a game-changer.

“We’re seeing scheduled Zoom conferences where quick check-ins on things like discovery compliance are being achieved much more expeditiously and at much less expense,” he said.

(ii) Client Dashboards

Another way to boost transparency is through online dashboards, according to Tess Blair, founder of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP’s eData practice.

Dashboards have long allowed clients to look at which attorneys are working on a case and how much they’re billing, but they’re also functioning as a communication tool. Clients can log in and see what evidence and data attorneys have compiled, and how they are analysing it, Blair said.

“They can see all the key factual pieces of their case, and can run reports and do searches and run [an] analysis of the data,” she said. “That’s another way to interact with us, but also with our work.”

Blair said while lawyers have been especially careful during the pandemic to reach out to clients, it’s good to offer an option that allows clients to see what’s happening in real time, without having to make a phone call.

“That’s become really important in this remote working environment, to push information out to clients, to give them insight into their cases, into their data — not just what we’re billing, but what we’re seeing and the analysis that we’re doing,” she said.

Telecommuting has also sparked internal interest in dashboards among the attorneys at Ballard Spahr LLP, according to Jim Boyer, the firm’s director of matter management and efficiency.

Lawyers are using the technology internally now as a case management tool. The technology has existed at Ballard for about a year, he said, but working from home has driven more widespread adoption.

“The tools are infinitely customisable, and we can make quick adaptations to any practice group or legal team,” he said. “We really built a foundation here. But since the pandemic, people have started to really understand the technology and what it can do for them and how easy it is to use.”

(iii) Video Depositions

To keep litigation moving, attorneys have turned to remote depositions via video.

Magliery, a commercial litigator with 18 years of experience, was skeptical the format could work. So much of a deposition is about reading a witness’ body language and facial expressions, and being able to confront them with evidence by sliding a piece of paper across the table, he said.

“Depositions are cross-examinations,” he told Law360. “Sometimes you want to ask buildup questions, and then you want to confront the witness with something contradictory to what they’re saying.”

But the technology worked “remarkably well,” Magliery said. It allowed him to enter exhibits into evidence remotely, and pull up documents on screen to confront the witness, so he wouldn’t lose the element of surprise. He used his home computer’s monitor and his laptop, so he could have two screens — one to look at the document he was referencing and one to keep an eye on the witness’ reactions.

“The technology allowed us to upload the document instantly to both the witness and opposing counsel, so they could then see the entire document. And using screen-share technology, we could also show an excerpt of the document to the witness.”

Magliery wouldn’t want to use video technology for every deposition once the pandemic ebbs. He would ideally be there in person to take the testimony of an adverse party, for example. But he could see remote depositions continuing to work for third-party witnesses; people he wants to subpoena for factual information, not admissions.

“It saved a lot of client money in travel expenses and it saved a lot of time to be able to conduct these remotely,” he said. “I would think there could be circumstances in the future where I would be comfortable using some remote depositions in a case.”

(iv) Automation

Law firms, mindful that their clients’ purse strings are tightening amid the pandemic-fuelled recession, are now turning to technology for the busywork that can eat up a lot of billable hours.

That means the pandemic has forced litigators to consider how automation and machine learning can help write pleadings.

That technology has been around for a while, according to Blair. But in the past, it’s been relegated to contract work.

The firm has long used systems that, through machine learning, can recognise contract terms and conditions. Attorneys can ask the program to spit out an ideal contract.

But now, what was “a very hot trend on the transactional side of the practice” is being applied to court pleadings, Blair said. It’s especially helpful when defending a client that’s facing serial litigation with multiple complaints.

“The machine can read those complaints and can identify the differences between them, the anomalies, so that we can quickly generate responses,” she said.

That can save attorneys time and their clients money.

“We’re looking at ways to innovate, to semiautomate the process where we can, so lawyers can spend their time doing the high-value work, and the machines can do the rest, hopefully,” Blair said. “We’ve doubled down on that during COVID, because we know our clients are under tremendous economic pressure.”


Plea challenges appointment of NCLAT chairperson; Delhi HC seeks govt stand

New Delhi, June 17: The Delhi High Court Tuesday sought the Centre’s response on a plea against appointment of former Jammu and Kashmir High Court judge Justice B L Bhat as officiating chairperson of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the ministries of Corporate Affairs, Finance, Law and Justice and the NCLAT seeking their stand on the petition by a lawyer who has claimed the appointment was in violation of the Companies Act, The Business Standard reported.

Advocate Fozia Rahman, in her plea, has sought setting aside of the March 12 notification of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) appointing Justice Bhat as the officiating chairperson of NCLAT.

Rahman, represented by senior advocate Rajeev K Virmani and advocate M Qayam-ud-din, has claimed that the appointment was in violation of the company law and the provisions of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Condition of Service of Members) Rules, 2020.

She has also sought setting aside of one of the rules which permits the Centre to appoint any member of the tribunal, irrespective of their seniority, as the acting or officiating chairperson of the tribunal when there is a vacancy.

The petition has contended that under the Companies Act, when the post of chairperson of a tribunal is vacant, the senior most member shall act as officiating chairperson till a suitable person is appointed.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on June 30.


E-commerce giants like Amazon, Flipkart yet to respond on use of plastic: CPCB to NGT

New Delhi, June 15: E-commerce giants against whom a petition has been filed in the National Green Tribunal to stop them from allegedly using excessive plastic for packaging have either not submitted complete documents regarding the quantity of plastic consumption or have not responded to the communication of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

While Amazon has not submitted complete documents regarding their responsibility under the Plastic Waste Management Rules and confirmation of quantity of plastic consumption, Flipkart has not responded to CPCB’s email dated March 4, 2020 and no other correspondence has been received from the firm so far, the apex pollution monitoring body told the National Green Tribunal, as reported by The Financial Express.

The CPCB informed the tribunal that Amazon Retail India submitted the application for registration under Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2018 to it on December 5, 2019 having Extended Producer Responsibility of collection and channelisation of 0.5 TPA plastic waste.

“The application is under process, however, complete documents regarding pan-India coverage of Plastic Waste Management and confirmation of quantity of plastic consumption have not been submitted by firm so far,” CPCB said adding that Amazon is required to submit requisite documents regarding pan- India coverage of Plastic Waste Management and confirmation of the quantity of plastic consumption. It further told the tribunal that another firm Flipkart Pvt Ltd has not responded to CPCB’s email dated March 4, 2020 and no other correspondence has been received from the firm so far.

“However, vide letter dated December 6, 2019 Ms Instakart Services Pvt Ltd informed that Flipkart Pvt Ltd is their holding company registered in Singapore and Ms Instakart is engaged in the business of providing logistics and fulfilment services to group companies.

“Flipkart Pvt Ltd is required to submit application for registration directly to CPCB or provide requisite documents supporting its linkage with Instakart Services Pvt Ltd,” it said. The petition has contended excessive use of plastics in packaging have given rise to serious environmental challenges.

The CPCB had earlier told the NGT that the e-commerce giants need to fulfil their extended producer responsibility under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 and need to establish a system for collecting back the plastic waste generated due to the packaging of their products. It had informed the green panel that as per provisions 9(2) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, “Primary responsibility for collection of used multi-layered plastic sachet or pouches or packaging is of Producers, Importers and Brand Owners who introduce the products in the market.

“Amazon Retail India Private Limited and Flipkart Private limited are involved in packaging and selling of other companies’ products and thus introducing plastic packaging in the market. They need to fulfil their extended producer responsibility under PWM Rules and should obtain registration as brand owner after submitting proper documents,” CPCB had said.

The submission came in response to a plea filed by a 16-year-old boy who has approached the tribunal to stop e-commerce giants Amazon and Flipkart from excessive plastic use in their packaging. Aditya Dubey, through his legal guardian, has pleaded the NGT to direct Amazon and Flipkart to stop excessive use of plastic in packaging the goods delivered by the firms.

“The e-commerce companies are covered under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. But due to a lack of monitoring and implementation, the respondents continue to use excessive amounts of plastic in wrapping and packaging their sold items,” said the plea, filed through advocate Divya Prakash Pande.

Dubey’s plea had contended that the companies deliver items in cardboard boxes, which are too large when compared to the size of the items being delivered. The plea has also said that though the home-delivery service of e-commerce companies have been very useful for consumers, they have given rise to serious environmental challenges due to excessive use of plastics in packaging.

Once goods are delivered, the plastic waste is thrown away in garbage and it ends up at landfill sites, leading to a burden on the earth and damaging the environment, it said. Dubey said the two companies have not made any arrangements for either taking back the plastic material or ensuring that it is recycled.


DSK Legal advises Infifresh, its Founder in Series C Round from existing investors

LE Desk

New Delhi, March 11, 2022: DSK Legal has advised Infifresh Foods Private Limited and its Founder Utham Swamygowda in relation to their Series C Round from the Existing Investors of Infifresh, i.e. Tiger Global,Prosus Ventures (Naspers), Accel Partners, Matrix Partners, Ankur Capital Fund, and Incubate Japan, the Law Firm has said. 

The scope of work of DSK Legal included: (i) advising on overall structure for the transaction; (ii) assisting Infifresh in the due diligence process being conducted by the Series C Investors; (iii) drafting, revising, negotiating and finalizing of Transaction Documents executed between Infifresh, the Founder and Series C Investors; and (iv) assisting in completing conditions precedent and closing process of the transaction (including corporate secretarial actions), it said in a press statement.

This is the sixth successful fund-raising exercise completed by DSK Legal for Infifresh since its incorporation in June 2020, it said.

DSK Legal team for the above transaction was led by Associate Partner Jayesh Kothari, and AssociatesHemanshi Gala and Kunal Chopra. Hemang Parekh acted as the Engagement Partner for this assignment and provided crucial inputs on the transaction, the statement said. 

The total deal value is Rs 372 crore (USD 50 million).

Infifresh is engaged in the business of procuring, supplying and processing fresh seafood and various categories of meat on a B2B basis (operating under the brand named Captain Fresh) catering to online retail players, modern trade, general trade retailers, hotels and restaurants catering. Infifresh proposes to use the proceeds from the issue to foray into markets of Africa, Middle East and other parts of Asia. 

Tiger Global & Naspers Ventures were represented by AZB Partners & Gunderson Legal (New York).

Accel India VI (Mauritius) Limited was represented by in-housel legal team.

Matrix Partners India Investments III, LLC and Matrix Partners India III AIF Trust was represented by Rajaram Legal.

Ankur Capital Fund-II was represented by J Sagar & Associates.

Incubate Japan was represented by Pier Counsel.

DSK Legal advises HDFC Capital on investment in Loyalie IT Solutions

LE Desk

New Delhi, March 19, 2022:  DSK Legal has advised HDFC Capital Advisors Limited on their investment in Loyalie IT Solutions Private Limited, which operatesunder the brand name ‘Reloy’, the Law Firm has said.

The scope of work of DSK Legal included assisting HDFC Capital in the due diligence process; drafting, revising, negotiating and finalising of the transaction documents; and reviewing, assisting in completing conditions precedent and Closing of the transaction, it said in a press statement.

DSK Legal team for the transaction was led by Partner Hemang Parekh, Counsel Swati Rout and Associate Sharmishtha Bharde. Associate Partner Jayesh Kothari and Associate Kunal Chopra assisted in the closing process of the transaction.   

The legal due diligence process was led by Associate Partner Jayesh Kothari, Senior Associate Harini Sutaria and Associate Kunal Chopra.

Reloy is a real estate digital amenities and referral solutions provider. It is engaged in the business of offering marketing schemes and loyalty/reward bonuses to its customers and existing customers of the developers by providing real estate brokering services using iOS and Android based mobile applications. 

The Company was represented by Economic Laws Practice.

DSK Legal acts as sole counsel to Corrtech International, Equirus Capital for IPO worth Rs 3500 million

LE Desk

New Delhi, March 21, 2022: DSK Legal has acted as a sole counsel to Corrtech International Limited (Company) and Equirus Capital Private Limited, Book Running Lead Manager (BRLM) with respect to the initial public offering comprising of a fresh issue of equity shares aggregating up to ₹3,500 million and an offer for sale of 4,000,000 equity shares of the Company held by its promoter individually as well as jointly with the members of the promoter group. 

The DRHP has been filed with SEBI on March 17, 2022, the Law firm said in a press statement.

DSK Legal assisted in drafting of the DRHP for filing with SEBI, stock exchanges and assistance in finalisation and filing of the same; drafting of the consent letters taken from all intermediaries; carrying out customary due-diligence; drafting standard certificates and undertakings required from the Company, directors, promoter, promoter group, subsidiaries, group companies, auditors and selling shareholders and additional certificates relating to consents required from various parties for the offer; drafting of comfort letter; drafting of the offer agreement; drafting of other agreements in relation to the offer, including ad agency agreement and the registrar agreement; legal sign-off on announcements regarding events during the offer period; drafting and finalizing the SEBI Cover Letter and ICDR Checklist for submission to SEBI; drafting and reviewing of all board resolutions and shareholder resolutions required to be passed by the Company; and providing advice on the changes required in the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

The team representing DSK Legal comprised of Associate Partner Gaurav Mistry; Principal Associate Avinash Poojari; Senior Associates Akanksha Dubey and Vardhman Mehta; and Associates Rishika Raghuwanshi, Avishek Banerjee and Jigar Sampat as well as Trainee Anupam Verma.

Partner Ajay Shaw acted as the engagement partner for this assignment, the Law firm said.