A scheme of arrangement is an oft used mechanism for company restructuring, which may take the form of a ‘merger’, a ‘demerger’ or even a ‘compromise’ with creditors. Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”), read with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, were the relevant statutory framework governing this. Continue Reading Objections at the first motion stage: Light at the end of the rainbow?
A criminal trial is nearing its conclusion. The evidence has been led, and witnesses examined and cross examined. Only the final arguments remain. Yet, for “the pursuit of truth”, would a “further investigation” be permissible at such a belated stage? In several judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative, subject to there being compelling facts justifying such an extraordinary measure.Continue Reading When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible
The process and outcome of arbitration is largely governed by the following laws: (a) law governing the contract referring to the substantive law that parties choose to govern the main contract and any disputes arising thereunder; (b) law governing the arbitration agreement referring to the law that parties choose to govern arbitration agreement (it governs issues like validity, arbitrability, etc.); (c) law governing conduct of arbitral proceedings and forum for related court proceedings (i.e. law of the seat) and (d) Institutional rules (if chosen), governing the form and procedure of arbitration.Continue Reading Law Governing Arbitration Agreement: Which Way are Indian Courts Headed?
A live location on your mobile phone, gets you a cab and instant food/grocery delivery, among myriad other things. On occasion, a live location could also get you bail!This is seen from several recent judicial orders including some passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well.Continue Reading Out on bail: Do not disturb?
Can a person who is neither named in the first information report (“FIR”) nor mentioned in the chargesheet, be summoned by a trial court later to face trial as an accused in respect of the very same FIR and chargesheet? If so, what would be the threshold and under what circumstances can such power be exercised?Continue Reading Summoning additional accused in criminal trial: When, why and how
Through a series of recent judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined limits to the Directorate of Enforcement’s (“ED”) powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Resultantly, issues that were rather ambiguous are now a lot clearer.Continue Reading Tarsem Lal v Directorate of Enforcement: Supreme Court further clarifies PMLA framework
The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC “),titled “Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours”, provides that an accused shall be entitled to “default bail” if the investigation is not complete within 60 (sixty) or 90 (ninety) days – depending on the prescribed punishment for the offence. However, if a chargesheet is filed in this duration, then default bail cannot be granted.Continue Reading Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web
In matters of arbitration, courts are ordinarily required to adopt a hands-off approach while scrutinizing arbitral awards. This jurisprudence has evolved to a point where minimal interference with awards is seemingly the principle guiding courts in India. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court (“SC”) is going to consider the question whether the powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”), extend to the modification of arbitral awards or are limited only to the setting aside of arbitral awards. Central to this question is the role of the courts as envisaged under the Act. Continue Reading The “modification” conundrum: Sticking to the path of least interference – Part I
Vide order dated March 20, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rejected a petition[1] preferred by the Union of India, seeking a review of the judgement passed in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India[2](“Pankaj Bansal”), wherein it was held that it was mandatory for the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to provide written ‘reasons for arrest’ to a person arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).Continue Reading Arrests under PMLA: Arrest first, reasons to follow?
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), inserted vide theAmending Act of 2015 (w.e.f. 23.10.2015), was meant to introduce time limit for completion of arbitration proceedings. It prescribed a statutory period of 12 (twelve) months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon reference. Thereafter, vide the Amending Act of 2019 (w.e.f. 30.08.2019), the prescribed time limit was modified, and the Act required arbitration proceedings to be completed within 12 (twelve) months from the date of completion of pleadings. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 29A of the Act allows an extension of 6 (six) months by mutual consent of the parties for passing the award. Similarly, sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the Act provides that in the event the award is not passed in terms of Section 29A(1) or within the extended period of Section 29A(3), the parties can make an application to the court for extension of mandate of the arbitral tribunal.Continue Reading Extension of Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A Primer for Practitioners