privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com Open in urlscan Pro
104.198.164.198  Public Scan

Form analysis
4 forms found in the DOM

POST https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/#lxb_mct-form-1

<form class="lxb_mct_subscribe_widget_form  " action="https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/#lxb_mct-form-1" method="post">
  <label class="" for="lxb_mct-form-1"><i class="icon-envelope"></i> Subscribe to this blog</label>
  <input type="email" required="" class="" id="lxb_mct-form-1" name="mc_email" placeholder="Enter Your Email Address...">
  <label for="mc_website-lxb_mct-form-1" class="mc_website_label screen-reader-text ">Your website url</label>
  <input type="text" id="mc_website-lxb_mct-form-1" class="mc_website " tabindex="-1" aria-hidden="true" name="mc_website" value="Website">
  <input type="submit" class="" id="mc_submit-lxb_mct-form-1" name="mc_submit" value="Subscribe">
  <input type="hidden" name="mc_input_id" value="lxb_mct-form-1">
  <input type="hidden" name="mc_list_id" value="cd5323ee9d">
  <input type="hidden" name="mc_redirect_to" value="">
  <input type="hidden" id="mc_load_time-lxb_mct-form-1" name="mc_load_time" value="0">
  <input type="hidden" name="profile_link_classes" value="">
</form>

GET https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com

<form action="https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com" method="get"><label class="screen-reader-text" for="cat">Topics</label><select name="cat" id="cat" class="postform">
    <option value="-1">Select Category</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="360">Art Law</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="447">Charity</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="231">Constitutional Law</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="255">Corporate Governance</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="380">Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="307">Estate Planning</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="207">Family Businesses</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="191">Family Law</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="254">Family Offices</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="312">Financial Planning</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="647">Funds and Investments</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="381">HNIs</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="337">Income Tax</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="486">Inheritance</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="311">Personal Finance</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="275">Personal Laws</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="460">Property</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="225">Succession Planning</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="202">Tax</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="440">Trusts</option>
    <option class="level-0" value="301">Will making</option>
  </select>
</form>

POST https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/#lxb_mct-form-2

<form class="lxb_mct_subscribe_widget_form  " action="https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/#lxb_mct-form-2" method="post">
  <label class="" for="lxb_mct-form-2">Subscribe to our latest articles</label>
  <input type="email" required="" class="" id="lxb_mct-form-2" name="mc_email" placeholder="Your Email Address">
  <label for="mc_website-lxb_mct-form-2" class="mc_website_label screen-reader-text ">Your website url</label>
  <input type="text" id="mc_website-lxb_mct-form-2" class="mc_website " tabindex="-1" aria-hidden="true" name="mc_website" value="Website">
  <input type="submit" class="" id="mc_submit-lxb_mct-form-2" name="mc_submit" value="Subscribe">
  <input type="hidden" name="mc_input_id" value="lxb_mct-form-2">
  <input type="hidden" name="mc_list_id" value="1683abf951">
  <input type="hidden" name="mc_redirect_to" value="">
  <input type="hidden" id="mc_load_time-lxb_mct-form-2" name="mc_load_time" value="0">
  <input type="hidden" name="profile_link_classes" value="">
</form>

GET https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com

<form method="get" class="lxb_af-skinny_search overlay" data-controller="lxb_af-skinny_search-controller" data-closer="lxb_af-skinny_search-closer" action="https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com" role="search" style="display: none;">
  <a href="#" class="lxb_af-skinny_search-closer"><span class="icon-close"></span> <span class="screen-reader-text">Close</span></a>
  <div class="lxb_af-skinny_search-inner inner">
    <div class="lxb_af-skinny_search-fieldset">
      <span class="icon-search"></span>
      <label class="screen-reader-text" for="lxb_af-s-984136">Enter Search Terms</label>
      <!--[if IE 9]>
				<input class='lxb_af-template_tags-get_search_form-search' type='search' id='lxb_af-s-984136' value='Enter Search Terms' name='s'>
			<![endif]-->
      <!--[if !(IE 9)]><!-->
      <input class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_search_form-search" type="search" placeholder="Enter Search Terms" id="lxb_af-s-984136" name="s">
      <!--<![endif]-->
    </div>
    <div class="lxb_af-skinny_search-fieldset">
      <button class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_search_form-submit lxb_af-button" value="Search">Search </button>
    </div>
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

Skip to content


MENU


Current Page:homeabout usexpertisepeoplecontact

RSS LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Spotify
Search



PRIVATE CLIENT


REVOKING GIFT DEEDS DUE TO ABUSE: LEGAL OPTIONS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

By Shaishavi Kadakia & Radhika Parthasarathy on July 11, 2024
Posted in Estate Planning, Property
Listen to this post




The following article was first published in the Mint newspaper on 11th July,
2024. The same was written by our Private Client team at Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas, who frequently publish their comments and opinions in the Mint.

Continue Reading Revoking gift deeds due to abuse: Legal options for senior
citizens


HEIRS NOT LIABLE FOR PERSONAL CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS: SUPREME COURT OPINES

By Shaishavi Kadakia & Radhika Parthasarathy on July 4, 2024
Posted in Personal Laws, Succession Planning
Listen to this post




When entering into contracts, individuals rarely consider whether their
contractual obligations would bind or impose liabilities on their heirs in the
event of their demise. Therefore, upon the passing of the contracting party, it
is, at times, not straightforward to ascertain whether the heirs are liable to
honour the deceased’s obligations. The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) was
recently called upon to opine on this issue in the matter of Vinayak Purshottam
Dube (Deceased) v. Jayashree Padmakar Bhat and Ors.[1].

Continue Reading Heirs not liable for personal contractual obligations: Supreme
Court opines


PRIVATE CLIENT YEAR BOOK 2024: Q&A INDIA

By Rishabh Shroff, Kunal Savani & Chirag Shah on March 11, 2024
Posted in Estate Planning
Listen to this post




The following Q&A was first published in the Legal 500 and Legal Business
Magazine on 8th March, 2024. The same was written by our Private Client team at
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. The online version of the Q&A can be found here.

Continue Reading Private Client Year Book 2024: Q&A India


DOES UNREGISTERED CODICIL ALTER THE TERMS OF A REGISTERED WILL?

By Rishabh Shroff & Chirag Shah on March 6, 2024
Posted in Estate Planning, Property
Listen to this post




The following article was first published in the Mint newspaper on 5th March,
2024. The same was written by our Private Client team at Cyril Amarchand
Mangaldas, who frequently publish their comments and opinions in the Mint. The
online version of the article can be found here.

Continue Reading Does unregistered codicil alter the terms of a registered will?


HOW TO ENSURE FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS IN AN ESTATE PLAN?

By Rishabh Shroff & Chirag Shah on February 29, 2024
Posted in Estate Planning, Property
Listen to this post




The following article was first published in the Mint newspaper on 28th
February, 2024. The same was written by our Private Client team at Cyril
Amarchand Mangaldas, who frequently publish their comments and opinions in the
Mint. The online version of the article can be found here.

Continue Reading How to ensure fair distribution of assets in an estate plan?


NOMINATION V. SUCCESSION – SC FINALLY SETTLES THE DEBATE

By Bharat Vasani & Alena Jamal on February 6, 2024
Posted in Family Businesses, Family Law, Succession Planning
Listen to this post





HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The longstanding debate on the conflict between the rights of nominees and legal
heirs over the devolution of shares has always been the cause of much
controversy and confusion despite the settled legal position holding the legal
heir as the ultimate rightful owner of the property. A nominee can act only as a
trustee on behalf of the legal heir and hold such property until a conclusive
decision on the matter of succession is reached.[1] However, the introduction of
Section 109A by the Companies (Amendments) Act, 1999, dealing with nomination
(and the language used therein) fueled a revival of the debate.

An amendment[2] under Section 109A and 109B of the Companies Act, 1956 (“1956
Act”) first inserted the provisions for nomination by a shareholder, which was
eventually re-enacted as Section 72 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). The
Notes on Clauses appended to the Companies Bill, 2011, explains:

“This clause corresponds to Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956, and seeks
to provide that every share holder or debenture holder may appoint a nominee or
a joint nominee who shall be the owner of the instrument in the event of death
of the holder or the joint holder unless the nomination is varied or cancelled.”

Controversy arose after the Bombay High Court in Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The
Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited[3](“Kokate”) held the nominee as the
beneficial owner after the death of the original owner of the shares—a
nomination effectively overriding succession. In Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar v.
Jayshree Jayant Salgaonkar[4](“Salgaonkar”), however, the Bombay High
Courtdeclared the Kokate judgment per incuriam and held that legal heirs and not
nominees would have ownership rights over the shares. An appeal was preferred to
the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which ruled in favour of the view
held in Salgaonkaras opposed to the one held in Kokate.[5]

The issue was raised in the Supreme Court in Shakti Yezdani & Anr. v. Jayanand
Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors.[6] The dispute in this case centered on the
distribution of certain assets of Jayant Salgaonkar (“Testator”). The Testator
had executed a will making provisions for the devolution of his estates by
nominating successors. The Respondent filed a suit and sought a permanent
injunction, restraining all other respondents and appellants from taking any
action in respect of the properties.

The Supreme Court judgment has finally put the debate to rest by holding that
being a nominee in a share/securities does not entitle the person to inherit it
by default. The Court also held that provisions relating to the nomination for
shares of the company under Section 109A of the 1956 Act, Section 72 of the 2013
Act, and the relevant provisions in the Depositories Act, 1996 (“Depositories
Act”), cannot override the rules of succession under the Indian Succession Act,
1925, or the personal laws of succession applicable to the deceased shareholder.


ISSUES

The Court framed the following four key issues:

 1. The scheme, intent, and object behind the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1999
 2. The implication of the scheme of “nomination” under the 1956 Act and other
    comparable legislations
 3. The use of the term “vest” and the presence of the non-obstante clause
    within the provisions of the 1956 Act
 4. Nomination under the 1956 Act vis-à-vis law of succession


THE DECISION

ON THE SCHEME OF THE COMPANIES ACT

The Apex Court held that the objective of introducing a nomination facility was
to provide the corporate sector with an incentive to boost investments by
encouraging investors’ confidence while ensuring that the law aligned with the
economic policies of liberalisation. While the Statement of Objects & Reasons of
the 1956 Act does not mention nomination and/or succession, the provisions do
not indicate any intent to confer absolute ownership to the nominee either.

ON NOMINATION UNDER VARIOUS LEGISLATIONS

The Apex Court observed that the Courts were consistent while interpreting
provisions relating to nominations. A nomination did not guarantee the nominee
absolute ownership of the subject property, meaning that a nomination did not
imply the exclusion of the legal heirs. Neither is any uniform definition of the
rights of the nominees available nor does anything imply that such a nomination
bestows absolute ownership to nominees. Hence, the terms in relevant
legislations must be considered as ordinarily understood by a reasonable person
making nominations.

ON THE EFFECT OF “VEST” IN RELEVANT PROVISIONS

The Appellants argued that the term “vest” in Section 109A of the 1956 Act and
Byelaw 9.11.1 under the Depositories Act indicates the intent to bestow
ownership of securities upon the nominee after the shareholder’s death.

The Court referred to several precedents and concluded that the terms “vest” and
“vesting” had variable meaning. The mere use of the term in a statute did not
confer absolute title over the subject matter; hence, it was essential to
interpret the term “vest” in Section 109A of the 1956 Act along logical lines.
The vesting of the assets in the nominee under the 1956 Act/2013 Act and the
Depositories Act serves only a limited purpose—to enable the Company to deal
with securities in the immediate aftermath of the shareholder’s death and to
avoid uncertainty regarding the holder of the securities.

ON THE EFFECT OF NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE

The Appellants argued that the “non-obstante clause” in Section 109A of the 1956
Act provided overriding effect to the nomination over any other law and granted
absolute rights to the nominee.

The Court referred to the judgment in Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. v. Devender
Kumar Talwar & Ors.,[7]where it had rejected the argument that the non-obstante
clause granted the nominee absolute ownership of the subject matter to the
exclusion of legal heirs. Interpretation of the general words and phrases used
in a statute must be according to the objects of the statute and not read in
isolation. Application of the non-obstante clause must be in accordance with the
scheme of the legislation.[8] The Court observed that the non-obstante clause in
this case served the singular purpose of allowing the company to vest the shares
upon the nominee to the exclusion of any other person to discharge its liability
against diverse claims by the legal heirs of the deceased shareholders. This
arrangement would be temporary, until the legal heirs have settled the affairs
of the testator and are ready to register the transmission of shares, by due
process of succession law. Hence, the interpretation of Section 109A,while
keeping in mind the scheme and intent of the Act, clarified that the
non-obstante clause did not exclude legal heirs from their claim over the
securities against the nominee.

ON THIRD LINE OF SUCCESSION CONTEMPLATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT

The Appellants argued that a valid nomination made under Section 109A of the
1956 Act/ Section 72 of the 2013 Act and the Depositories Act constituted the
third category of a statutory testament overriding intestate succession. The
Court rejected this argument referring to the judgment in Sarbati Devi & Anr. v.
Usha Devi[9]that held that a nomination under the Life Insurance Act, 1938, did
not contemplate a statutory testament and the amount paid to a nominee on the
death of the policy holder would form part of the estate of the deceased. This
would eventually devolve upon the heirs in accordance with the personal law of
succession applicable to the deceased.

The Court held that the 1956 Act/2013 Act did not contemplate a “statutory
testament” that stood over and above the laws of succession. A perusal of the
statement of objects elucidated that the Act was concerned with regulating the
affairs of corporates and not with the laws of succession. Moreover, a
“statutory testament” through nomination was not bound by the same stringent
requirements as those applied to the creation and validity of a will under the
laws of succession.


CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND OBSERVATIONS

The Indian Companies Act is largely based on the English Companies Act. However,
the English Companies Act has no parallel provision except that the English
Legislation provides for nomination by shareholders under Section 145, if the
Articles of the Company allow for the same.[10] This nomination does not confer
absolute ownership. The intent behind the provision was to facilitate indirect
investors to exercise governance rights.[11] The intent behind introducing the
section was to remove any doubts about the companies’ ability to make provisions
in their Articles of Association for others to enjoy and exercise membership
rights. It also enables indirect investors to enjoy information rights via the
registered member. The legislation also clarifies that the nomination, with
respect to information rights as provided under Section 146,[12] will terminate
on the death of the shareholder under Section 148 of the Act.[13] This is in
clear contrast with the Indian position prior to the decision.

In Salgaonkar, the Court was of the view that “The nature of corporate
instruments and securities has, however, undergone a massive change… The
fundamental focus of Section 109A and Section 109B of the Companies Act and
Bye-Law 9.11 of the Depositories Act is not the law of succession, nor is it
intended to trammel that in any way. The sole intention is, quite clearly, to
afford the company or depository in question a legally valid quittance so that
it does not remain forever answerable to a raft of succession litigations and an
endless slew of claimants under succession law. It allows that liability to move
from the company or the depository to the nominee.”

The Supreme Court decision has cleared the confusion regarding a nominee’s
status as a holder of assets versus an absolute owner. The general understanding
is that the nominee cannot be equated with an heir upon the death of the holder
of the instrument, considering the nomination does not confer any beneficial
interest in the nominee. Following an analysis of the intent behind the
provision, the Court concluded that the vesting of assets in the nominee under
the 1956 Act was only for a limited purpose and the interpretation of the
non-obstante clause should be according to the objects of the statute. In
effect, the provision had not excluded legal heirs from their claim over the
securities against the nominee.

Further, the subjects of wills, intestacy, and succession fall under Entry 5 of
List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Both the State
Legislature and the Parliament can legislate on subjects under List III.
However, the Parliament has enacted the Companies Act pursuant to Legislative
Entries 43 and 44 of List I of Schedule VII and gives only the Parliament the
power to legislate. The State Legislature cannot make any changes to the same.
Therefore, the Companies Act could not have governed matters relating to
intestacy and succession as it takes away the power of the State legislature to
legislate over those subjects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Rishabh Shroff, Aditya Karekatte, Court Re-Confirms That Legal Heirs Are
Preferred Over Nominees.

Court Re-Confirms That Legal Heirs Are Preferred Over Nominees | Private Client
(cyrilamarchandblogs.com).

[2] Companies (Amendment) Act, 1999.

[3] 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 615.

[4] 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 1221.

[5] Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9834.

[6] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1679.

[7] (2010) 10 SCC 671.

[8] Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr. v. Vidya L. Khanchandani, (2000) 6 SCC 724.

[9] (1984) 1 SCC 424.

[10] Section 148, English Companies Act, 2006.

[11] Usually when an investor buys shares in a listed company, they are more
likely to hold their shares through an intermediary. As the name on the
company’s register of members is that of the intermediary’s, investors have to
rely on contractual arrangements with the intermediaries to obtain information
and give instructions on how shares should be voted.

[12] Section 146, English Companies Act, 2006.

[13] Section 148, English Companies Act, 2006.


REGULATORY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING ‘FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS’: AMBIGUITY LEADING TO
EXCESSIVE STRINGENCY

By Sindhushri Badarinath, Digvijay Singh & Abhishek Jain on January 16, 2024
Posted in Constitutional Law
Listen to this post




The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, and the rules framed thereunder
regulate ‘foreign contribution’. This post examines how heightened policing
calls for stringent compliance by entities receiving ‘foreign contribution’.

Continue Reading Regulatory framework governing ‘foreign contributions’:
Ambiguity leading to excessive stringency


PERSONALLY GUARANTEEING THE CREDITORS’ GAIN

By Vikash Kumar Jha & Shivansh Vishwakarma on December 18, 2023
Posted in Personal Laws
Listen to this post





INTRODUCTION

One of the principle aims of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”)
is resolution of insolvency of corporate persons, firms, and individuals in an
effective, efficient and time bound manner. Chapter III of Part III of the Code
deals with insolvency resolution and bankruptcy for individuals and partnership
firms, including personal guarantors. Section 5(22) of the Code defines the term
‘personal guarantor’ as an individual who is the surety in a contract of
guarantee to a corporate debtor. Rule 3 (1) (f) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for
Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (“Rules”) also defines a
guarantor as a debtor who is a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor and in
respect of whom guarantee has been invoked by the creditor and remains unpaid in
full or part.  


CAN A DIVORCED DAUGHTER CLAIM MAINTENANCE FROM HER FAMILY MEMBERS UNDER HINDU
ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956?

By Kapil Arora, Palak Nagar & anant mishra on October 9, 2023
Posted in Family Law, Personal Finance, Personal Laws
Listen to this post




Litigation centred around ‘maintenance’ remains an abrasive subject for
litigants. For the courts, it is usually a mixed question of law and facts.
However, at times, the issues involve an exercise in statutory interpretation.
Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court[1] ruled that a ‘divorced daughter’
cannot claim maintenance from her brother or her mother. The rationale being
that a divorced daughter does not qualify as a ‘Dependent’ under Section 21 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA” or the “Act”). The Hon’ble
Delhi High Court, in this case, was sitting in appeal over a judgement of the
Ld. Judge, Family Court, South-East Saket, New Delhi (“Saket Family Court”),
which had dismissed the appellant’s plaint. As the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
refused to set aside the judgement of the Saket Family Court, in the process, it
clarified the law on maintenance to divorced daughters in India. An overview of
the law in respect of maintenance under the HAMA may provide a useful background
to the issues involved in this lis.

Continue Reading Can a Divorced Daughter Claim Maintenance from her Family
Members under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956?


IS IT POSSIBLE TO SELL ANY PROPERTY AFTER REGISTERING IT AS GIFT DEED?

By Rishabh Shroff & Chirag Shah on September 13, 2023
Posted in Financial Planning, Property
Listen to this post


The following article was first published in the Mint newspaper on 12th
September, 2023. The same was written by our Private Client team at Cyril
Amarchand Mangaldas, who frequently publish their comments and opinions in the
Mint. The online version of the article can be found here.

Continue Reading Is it possible to sell any property after registering it as
gift deed?


POST NAVIGATION

Older Posts 


ABOUT

A thought leadership initiative dealing with multidisciplinary aspects of family
business and governance (intra family as well as vis-à-vis corporate entities),
estate and succession planning (including non-resident legal and tax
considerations), philanthropy and family disputes, amongst various other
aspects.


BLOG AUTHORS SHOW/HIDE

 * Cyril Shroff
 * Abhilash Pillai
 * Abhishek Jain
 * Aditya Karekatte
 * Aditya Mehta
 * Akshara Shukla
 * Alena Jamal
 * Anand Yadav
 * anant mishra
 * Ankoosh Mehta
 * Arinjoy Chaudhury
 * Ashlesha Mittal
 * Aviral Chauhan
 * Ayush Gumdelwar
 * Bharat Vasani
 * CAM Private Client Team
 * Chirag Shah
 * Dhawal Nirash
 * Digvijay Singh
 * Divya Laxman
 * Guest Authors
 * Gurkaran Arora
 * Harsha Sudhindra
 * Harshita Fatesaria
 * Hita Agarwal
 * Kapil Arora
 * Kartik Dhir
 * Khushi Maheshwari
 * Kunal Gopal
 * Kunal Savani
 * LexBlog Success Team
 * Madhumita Paul
 * Manasvi Nandu
 * Manisha Kumar
 * Medha Kagali
 * Mehtab Khan
 * Namrata Kolar
 * Nikhil Agarwal
 * Nikhil Aradhe
 * Nilomi Doshi
 * Palak Nagar
 * Pragya Chandak
 * Pratyush Khanna
 * Preyanka Prabhakar
 * Pritha Taraphder
 * Priya Gupta
 * Radhika Parthasarathy
 * Raj Chheda
 * Radhika Gaggar
 * Rinkel Singh
 * Rohit Tiwari
 * Rishabh Shroff
 * Sagar Gaba
 * Samiksha Pednekar
 * Sanjana Rao
 * Shaishavi Kadakia
 * Shivansh Vishwakarma
 * Siddhant Sharma
 * Sindhushri Badarinath
 * Smruti Shah
 * S.R. Patnaik
 * Sruthi Murali
 * Shishir Vayttaden
 * Tanya Singh
 * Vikash Kumar Jha
 * Vikram Bidvai
 * Vishal Ladhani
 * Vivaik Sharma
 * Yash J. Ashar


FIRM BLOGS

 * Competition Law
 * India Corporate Law
 * India Tax Law


STAY CONNECTED

RSS LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Spotify
Subscribe to this blog Your website url


TOPICS

Topics Select Category Art Law Charity Constitutional Law Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Estate Planning Family Businesses Family
Law Family Offices Financial Planning Funds and Investments HNIs Income Tax
Inheritance Personal Finance Personal Laws Property Succession Planning Tax
Trusts Will making


ARCHIVES

Archives Select Month July 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December
2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 March
2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August
2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January
2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July
2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021
December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020
June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December
2019 May 2019 March 2019 April 2018 March 2018 October 2017 September 2017 July
2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 May 2016
April 2016


RECENT UPDATES

 * Revoking gift deeds due to abuse: Legal options for senior citizens
 * Heirs not liable for personal contractual obligations: Supreme Court opines
 * Private Client Year Book 2024: Q&A India
 * Does unregistered codicil alter the terms of a registered will?
 * How to ensure fair distribution of assets in an estate plan?

 * home
 * about us
 * expertise
 * people
 * contact
 * disclaimer
 * privacy policy


FOLLOW US

RSS LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Spotify
Subscribe to our latest articles Your website url
Copyright ©2024, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. All Rights Reserved.

Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo
Close
Enter Search Terms
Search