Skip to main content

Legal Capsule by Veyrah Law


CONSIDERING LITIGATION IN INDIA | PART VII – ALWAYS KEEP YOUR OPTIONS OPEN!

A recurring point that we have emphasized in each discussion around commercial litigation is to always keep the end commercial objective in mind. Litigation should always be a means to achieve the desired end objective. In an Indian context, the end objective for most commercial disputes should be to achieve a favorable settlement. In this final article to the ‘considering litigation in India’ series, we will touch upon the general approach that litigants should have for any material commercial litigation. A litigant who intends to approach a court, has multiple options to achieve the desired result. Having the luxury of choice is one thing but choosing wisely from the available options is another. A litigant’s options could be generally categorized as litigious and non-litigious. In this context, choosing one over the other or simultaneously exploring both options is a matter of strategy and should be tactfully planned. 

Tactical implementation

Strategy and implementation go hand in hand. The strategy to achieve the end objective should be to set out a timeline with various options that could be availed, depending on the evolving situation. Obviously, there can never be a ‘one size fits all’ approach or strategy in litigations. Any high stakes commercial litigation will have its own unique set of nuances and facts that determine the approach for its resolution. A litigant must also account for ongoing developments and counter proceedings that may be initiated by the other side. The best time to develop any strategy is when one anticipates a material disagreement that could escalate into a dispute. The earlier one develops a strategy, the better they are able to control the path that a dispute may take. 

Multiple proceedings

For a successful litigation, a satisfactory outcome is paramount. Outcomes could theoretically be a grant of final relief or in most cases a ‘favorable’ settlement. There is no sure shot formula to litigation; but a critical aspect in the litigant’s control is choosing the correct judicial forum for the fight as described in an earlier article in this series. When a litigant diversifies the approach and creates pressure on an opponent from all possible quarters – the scope for a settlement is higher. Complex high stake commercial disputes could often have civil and criminal implications. A litigant must assess each of these aspects carefully and accordingly prepare to either initiate or defend such proceedings.

When a litigant explores one avenue, it must not rule out other options for litigation. During a litigation, there will always be multiple options to initiate alternate litigations, file additional pleadings etc., to add that extra pressure on the opponent. Each of these options should be constantly monitored and explored for possible impact.

Every battle need not be fought

There could be many instances where the other side raises a minor claim or process related issue. A default mindset for most people is to counter and defend everything during a litigation. This usually stems from a position that ‘one should not concede an inch’. This approach can sometimes turn out to be counterproductive. A litigant should always assess the facts and determine if an issue is worth spending time and resources to fight over. Conceding on an issue may have little or no real impact on the end commercial objective. In such situations, it could also be a matter of option and strategy to concede or allow the other side to prevail on the particular point. This approach could have many benefits; the concerned judge would view the litigant’s conduct favorably, the other side would avoid raising such frivolous issues since it served no purpose, and the litigant would also conserve resources by avoiding multiple rounds of hearings over non-essential issues. 

Non-litigious methods

As discussed earlier, a litigant must explore all avenues of escalation or engagement, as needed. Many of these methods exist outside the realm of conventional dispute forums. In commercial disputes between stakeholders of an organization, focusing on the ongoing corporate governance could have substantial benefits. Merely because the stakeholders are engaged in litigation does not mean that the functions of the organization have to be halted. The concerned litigants can initiate processes of corporate governance to maintain pressure on the other side. If the counterparty does not adhere to the statutory requirements, this could offer new grounds to explore alternate proceedings. The correspondence and submissions during corporate meetings or negotiation discussions might come of use as supporting material to assist in ongoing, alternate or potential proceedings. 

There are several other mediums through which useful information can be obtained. Using the public media to create an adverse impact on a counterparty’s brand could also be a strategy. Brand value for most businesses is sacrosanct, since a large part of a business relies on goodwill earned through years of hard work. Announcements, press releases or news flashes in any public media interface can compel a counterparty to react. The negative publicity associated with an acrimonious litigation may cause discomfort to such parties and they may wish to avoid the dispute from escalating further. However, while indulging in such campaigns, litigants should ensure that they do not publish any defamatory content or violate existing orders of a court.

Another alternative is to team up with competitors, as needed. Every business usually has competitors that would like to get ahead of their opponents. Teaming up with a competitor would probably provide the desired leverage to push an opponent towards a settlement.

Despite the above options, a healthy communication between principals during an ongoing litigation can be fruitful. Open communication can help mitigate disputes arising out of miscommunication between parties. Amicable and non-controversial behavior could help with a healthy settlement process. Principals should always instruct their litigation counsels to encourage discussions for settlement if the opportunity presents itself. They should also stay updated on any proposals received from the counterparty.

Open to settlement only on right terms

The end objective should always be to settle a dispute rather than have it prolonged for years. But that does not mean that one should settle for just about anything. A litigant should only be open to a settlement on the right terms that meet its commercial objectives.

The approach towards settlement is a balancing act; there should neither be a display of excessive eagerness to settle nor should there be a manifest reluctance. It should be escalated slowly and strategically. Any eagerness to settle can drive down the terms of settlement, leaving the litigant exposed. However, in certain circumstances, compromise is the key. The appropriate time and terms will depend on the progress of the dispute and the leverage that a party has gained or lost. To that extent, a litigant should never eliminate any back-end communication or options for negotiations. 

Conclusion

Unfortunately, there are no set guidelines that litigants can rely on to amicably settle a dispute. In the entire series of our articles on this subject, we have attempted to shed light on certain aspects that litigants engaging in any commercial litigation should keep in mind. The recurring theme that we would recommend to all, is to always approach commercial disputes with the objective to achieve a fair settlement. One can use an array of methods to direct a dispute towards a fair settlement. What is fair for one dispute may not be fair for another. Hence, it is essential for any litigant to conduct a realistic assessment to determine their desired settlement positions. This would become the starting point to determine any strategy for a potential dispute. Every strategy itself should have multiple options set out that can be deployed as the situation develops in a litigation. 

To conclude; in an Indian context, litigation must be explored only as a last resort in commercial disputes. One should not be hasty to jump into a litigation but at the same time should always be prepared for one. Even if one does venture into a litigation, it should only be a means to push towards a favorable settlement of the dispute. 

Authors: Ajay Joseph, Partner; Anshu Bhanot, Of Counsel and Priyanka Zaveri, Senior Associate | Veyrah Law.

The authors can be reached at ajay.joseph@veyrahlaw.com; anshu.bhanot@veyrahlaw.com and priyanka.zaveri@veyrahlaw.com, respectively.

Views expressed above are for information purposes only and should not be considered as a formal legal opinion or advice on any subject matter therein.

Popular posts from this blog

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry. Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back? Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms

ChrysCapital, Motilal Oswal PE & Sequoia named PE-VC Firms of the Decade

Press Release ChrysCapital, Motilal Oswal Private Equity and Sequoia Capital India have been named the top Private Equity & Venture Capital investors in India during the last decade, as part of Venture Intelligence’s APEX Awards. The Venture Intelligence “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX) is dedicated to celebrating the best that the Indian Private Equity & Venture Capital industry has to offer.  While ChrysCapital won the “Private Equity Investor of the Decade” award, Motilal Oswal Private Equity was feted as India’s “Growth Capital Investor of the Decade”. The Indian arm of the storied Silicon Valley VC firm, Sequoia Capital, was named the country’s “Venture Capital Investor of the Decade”. The APEX Awardees are selected based on both Self Nomination by the participating PE-VC firms as well as "crowd sourced" nominations and voting from the Limited Partner, PE-VC and advisory communities. (The main criteria were Exit Track Record, New Fund Raises & Fo

Ambit tops League Table for Transaction Advisors to Private Equity deals in 2019

Ambit Corporate Finance topped the Venture Intelligence League Table for Transaction Advisor to Private Equity Transactions for the year 2019. Ambit advised PE deals worth $2.4 Billion (across 4 qualifying transactions) during the period. Citi ($1.1 Billion across 2 deals) and  Avendus  ($969 million across 12 deals) took the second and third spot. Edelweiss Financial Services ($758 million across 9 deals) and  PwC  ($708 million across 15 deals) completed the top five in 2019.  The  Venture Intelligence League Tables , the first such initiative exclusively tracking transactions involving India-based companies, are based on value of PE and M&A transactions advised by Financial and Legal Advisory firms. Ambit Corporate Finance advised the $1.9 Billion buyout of Pipeline Infrastructure from Reliance Industries   by Brookfield Asset Management  and the IFC and I Squared Capital-backed   Cube Highways' acquisition of Delhi-Agra Toll Road from Reliance Infrastructu

Jio deals help PE investments climb 12% in H1'20 to $18.8 B

Press Release With Reliance Industries' communications unit Jio Platforms attracting 51% of the investment value, Private Equity-Venture Capital (PE-VC) investments in India rose 12% during the first 6 months of 2020 to $18.8 Billion (across 341 deals), shows data from  Venture Intelligence , a research service focused on private company financials, transactions and their valuations. Investments totaling over $9.5 Billion in Jio by a troop of global private equity firms, following social media giant Facebook's $5.7 Billion mid April investment in the company, helped overall PE-VC investments better the $16.8 Billion (across 503 transactions) invested during the same period in 2019. (Note: These figures include Venture Capital investments, but exclude PE investments in Real Estate).   Jio Platforms' $9.5 Billion Private Equity haul (excluding Facebook’s strategic investment) was led by Middle Eastern and American investors with KKR, Saudi Arabia's Public Invest

Inventus, Sixth Sense, Blume & Norwest win Apex'20 Venture Capital Awards

Inventus Capital Partners, Sixth Sense Ventures, Blume Ventures and Norwest Venture Partners were voted the top Venture Capital investors in India during 2019. The Venture Intelligence “Awards for Private Equity Excellence” (APEX) is dedicated to celebrating the best that the Indian Private Equity & Venture Capital industry has to offer. Other 2019 winners in the VC segment included  Axilor Ventures which was voted   the  Accelerator of the Year for the second year running, 3one4 Capital (VC Fund Raise of the Year) and Innoven Capital (Venture Debt firm of the Year). The APEX Awardees are selected based on both Self Nomination by the participating PE-VC firms as well as "crowd sourced" nominations and voting from the Limited Partner, PE-VC and advisory communities. (The main criteria are Exit Track Record, New Fund Raises & Follow-on Funding Rounds for Portfolio Companies).    " It is an honour to be recognised by entrepreneurs and investors as