Photo of Juvraj Singh

Partner in the Dispute Practice at the Noida office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, specializes in general civil, corporate and commercial litigation, and arbitrations, under ad hoc and institutional rules, seated in India and abroad. He has for a decade advised several Fortune 500 companies in a range of sectors and also represented them in their disputes such as disputes arising from Joint Venture Agreements; Infrastructure and construction projects related to Power, Oil & Gas etc.; disputes arising  from Shareholders’ Agreements, Share Purchase Agreements, claims for oppression and mismanagement of companies etc., that are frequently multi-jurisdictional. Additionally, he has represented and advised several international clients, on trans-national and multi-jurisdictional matters in the realm of anti- corruption, anti-bribery, anti-money laundering, financial crime, serious fraud investigations, complex cyber-crime issues, corporate governance etc. He can be reached at

Tests “Public Servants” must pass to claim protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and is there a silver lining?

The Dilemma:

If an investigating authority intends to investigate a public servant[1], the authority has to mandatorily secure appropriate sanction from a competent authority[2] to even begin the investigation. Particularly, when the allegations pertain to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), the investigating authority must secure the sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), from the competent authority and when the allegations pertain to offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), sanction must be secured under Section 19 of the PC Act. Often, the alleged act under investigation attracts punishment or penalty under both IPC and PC Act.Continue Reading Tests “Public Servants” must pass to claim protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and is there a silver lining?


Dissolution of a Partnership under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, “Partnership Act” can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the erstwhile partners but also related third parties. The process of dissolution involves activities such as settling of accounts, concluding of on-going business matters, discharging the Partnership firm’s liabilities and finally, distributing any remaining assets among the partners basis their respective shares. The Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years from the date of dissolution within which  the parties can agitate their claims arising from the dissolution and winding up of the firm[1]. The period of limitation rests on the notion that the date of dissolution marks the conclusion of the firm’s winding-up process and settling of the rights and liabilities of the affected parties. However, is dissolution synonymous with winding up of the firm? Can erstwhile partners not have a right to agitate their claims post the period of three years if the process of winding-up could not be completed within the timeframe? Pertinently, through this blog, we aim to analyse whether any claims surviving the period of three years, which have been left unadjudicated are deadwood or can be brought under the period of limitation and give rise to a continuing cause of action.Continue Reading Stopping the clock on claims arising from dissolution of partnership firms


NGT’s jurisdictional powers

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (“NGT Act”), established the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) to inter alia adjudicate cases related to environment protection and enforcement of legal rights relating to the environment.

Section 14 of the NGT Act provides the NGT with original and subject matter jurisdiction to deal with all civil cases involving substantial question relating to protection of environment and enforcement of associated legal rights under the statutes enlisted in Schedule 1 of the NGT Act.Continue Reading Assailing composite directions issued by pollution control board under Air Act and Water Act