[1]
Afra Afsharipour, The Indian Private Equity Model, NSE
Working Paper WP/8/2013 2 (2013)
[1]
Buyouts are defined as acquisition of more than 50% stake in a company
[1] Growth investments are
defined as minority investments other than investment in start-ups
[1]
A private investment in public equity, often called a PIPE deal, involves the
selling of publicly traded common shares or some form of preferred stock or
convertible security to private investors.
In this context, it would be apt to quote Kofi Annan, ex
Secretary – General of the UN:
“ There is no trust more sacred than the one the world
holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their
rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are
free from fear and want and that they grow up in peace.”
[1]V. R. Krishna Iyer, Jurisprudence of Juvenile Justice : A Preambular Perspective as in Mamta Rao, Law Relating to Women & Children 413 (2nd Ed., Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2011).
[1] Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, Study on Child Abuse: India 2007, (2007 ).
[1] 430 US 651 (1977).
[1] Loenard P. Edwards, Corporal Punishment and the Legal System, 36 Santa Clara Law Review 983 (1996).
[1] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 13, ¶ 41, Art. 13, (1999).
[1] Corporal punishment was condemned in a series of decisions of the European Commission
on Human Rights and judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; see Tyrer v. UK, 1978; Campbell and Cosans v. UK, 1982; Costello-Roberts v. UK, 1993; A v. UK,
1998 available at http://www.echr.coe.int/echr (last visited on March 17, 2022).
[1] Art. 3(1).
[1] S. 92, IPC.
[1] Art. 21 as interpreted in Inderjeet v State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 1867.
[1] Thukral and Abbasi, Ensuring Child Protection, 574 Seminar India, 34, 32 (June, 2007).
[1] Disha Nawani, Corporal Punishment in Schools, Economic & Political Weekly (June 15, 2013) available at http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2013_48/24/Corporal_Punishment_in_Schools.pdf ( last visited on March 29, 2022).
[1] W.P.(C) 5765/2011, Delhi High Court
[1]AIR 2001 Delhi 212
[1] Appeal (civil) 5452-5453 of 2004, SC.
[1] However, the imprisonment of children was abolished in England in 1908.
[1] News of the World, June 23, 1935 as cited in Supra Note 6 at 143.
[1] The Committee commends, as one example, UNESCO’s handbook, Eliminating corporal
punishment: the way forward to constructive child discipline, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, 2005.
This provides a set of principles for constructive discipline, rooted in the Convention. It also
includes Internet references to materials and programmes available worldwide.
Citation
[1] Bratty v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland
1963 AC 386.
[1]Amrit Bhushan v. Union of India 1977 AIR 608.
[1]Sudhakaran v State of Kerala. 2010 (10) SCC 582.
[1] Aniruddha Shrivastava, An Analysis of Anti-Conversion Laws in India, Vol. 2 Iss.
1, International Journal of Integrated Law Review, 93, 94 & 95, 2021
[1]Id.at 3.
[1] The
Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Bill, 2021, 11th
Session, Acts of Parliament,2021 (India)
[1]Id. at 4.
[1]Id. at 4.
[1] Aniruddha Shrivastava, An Analysis of Anti-Conversion Laws in India, Vol. 2 Iss.
1, International Journal of Integrated Law Review, 93, 96 & 97, 2021
[1] Aniruddha Shrivastava, An Analysis of Anti-Conversion Laws in India, Vol. 2 Iss.
1, International Journal of Integrated Law Review, 93, 97 & 98, 2021
[1] Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh
& Ors, AIR 908, 1977 SCR (2) 611
[1]Arumugam
Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu,(2011) 6 SCC 405]
[1]Bhagwan
Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP 1208/2011
[1]Re
vs Indian Woman Says Gang-Raped, 28th March, 1947
[1]Ratilal
Panchand Gandhi vs The State of Bombay, AIR 388, 1954 SCR 1035
[1] Rawls, J (1971) A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press.
[1] Ucaryilmaz, T. (2021) The Principle of
Proportionality in Modern Ius Gentium, Utrecht
Journal of International and European Law, 36(1), Pp. 14-32.
[1] (1875) L.R. O Exch. P. 153 at p. 162.
[1] Barry H. (2001) “The Doctrine of Consideration: Dead or Alive in
English Employment Contracts” (retrieved from; eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk) p.1).
[1]Ibid.
[1]Ibid.
[1]Ibid.
[1] Per Lord Chelrisford L.C. in Earl of Darnley v. London, Chaltam and
Dover Rly. Co
[1].AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT p. 621
[1] . (1877) 2 AC p. 439
[1] ( 1974 ) 1WLR P. 1097.
[1]Central London Property Trust
Ltd v. High TreesHouse Ltd. (1947)
K.B. 130
[1]Supra.
[1] (1975) 3 All E.R. p. 865
[1]Supra.
[1]Supra.
[1]Combe v. Combe (1951) 2 K.B p. 215
[1]Supra.
[1] Crabb v. Arun District Council (1975) 3 All ER. p. 865
[1]Mortgage Mercantile Co. Ltd
v. Twitchings ( 1977 ) AC p.890.
[1] Supra.
[1]
Supra.
[1] Spencer, Bower and Turner, Treatise on The Law relating to Estoppel
by Representation
[1]Supra
[1]Supra.
[1](1854) UKHL p. 50
[1] (1877) 2 AC p.439.
[1] (1951) 2KB p.215.
[1] Holdsworth (1909 – 52) A History of English
law, Methuen, London
[1] Wright, Lord, 49 Harvard Law Review, 1225
[1] . Municipal Corporation of India v.Secretary of State (1934) 36
BOMBAY.LR. p. 568, 152 Ind. Cas. p. 947
[1] That the crown also came within this range of equity.
[1] Collector of Bimbay v. The Municipal
corporation of the state of Bombay (1951) AIR S.crt p.469.
[1] W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd v. El-Nasir Export and Import case (1972) 2
All E.R p. 127 C.A.
[1]Ante.
[1](1875) L.R. 10 Ex.
P. 153.
[1]Barry, op. cit.
[1]Collins, H.
(1997), The Law of Contract, 3rd
edition, Butterworths. Ch. 4.
[1]Smith, J.S.
(1979), “The Law of Contracts, Alive or Dead”, 13. The Law Teacher p.73.
[1] Wright, Lord (1935) “Ought the Doctrine of Consideration to be
Abolished from the Common Law”, 49 Harvard
Law Review p. 12, 25
[1]The Law Teacher p. 73. Barry op. cit.
[1]Collins, H.
(1997),The Law
of Contract, 3rd edition, Butterworths Ch. Pollock, F. (1950) The Principles of Contract, 13th Edition, Stephen &
Sons, London, p. 175
[1]. Pollock, F. (1950) The Principles of Contract, 13th Edition, Stephen &
Sons, London, p. 175.Allen & Overy (2018) “Basic Principle of
English Law of Contract” (retrieved from www.id.org on the 2nd day
of November 2019), 24
[1] Smith R,Sally Ann, S(2016)
“Contractual Amendments –Only in Writing and Signal by Parties” (Retrieved from
https:/www.texology.com on the 1st
day of November 2091).
[1] (2016) EWCA Civ. P. 396
[1] (2018)
UKSC P. 24.
[1] (2003) 2 A.C. p. 9 per (Lord Bingham (51) Lord Walker).
[1]Supra.
[1]Low v. Bouverie (1891)3
Ch. P. 82 ar p. 105,112.
[1]Cartwright J.
(2006), “Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English law”.
Report to the 17th International Congress of Comparative Law. EJ CL.
[1]Cartwright J.Ibid.
[1]Greasley v Cooke [1980] 3
All ER 710.
[1]Sidhu .v. Van Duke (2014)
HCA 19 p.55
[1]Barnett, P.
(2001), Res Judicata, Estoppel and
Foreign Judgments, Oxford University Press, U.K.
[1] Feinman, J.M.; (1992), “The Last Promissory Estoppel Article”,
Fordham Law Review, Vol. 61, issue 2.
[1] Kostritsky, Juliet. P. (1987) A New Theory of Assent-Based
Liability Emerging under the Guise of Promissory Estoppel: An Explanation and
Defense [article]. Wayne Law Review, Vol
[1]Ibid.
[1]Ibid.
[1]Supra.
[1]Steinberg, J.G. (1975) “Promissory Estoppel as a Means of Defeating the
Statute of Frauds,” 44, Fordham Law
Review, p. 114