Photo of Monark Gahlot

Monark Gahlot

Subscribe to Monark Gahlot's Posts

Partner in the Disputes Resolution Practice at the Ahmedabad office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Monark focuses on disputes in relation to debt recovery proceedings, corporate & commercial litigation, criminal matters and arbitration proceedings. He can be reached at monark.gahlot@cyrilshroff.com

Gujarat High Court: Upholding the validity of The Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 – Part II

Introduction

To address the issue of land grabbing in Gujarat, the government introduced the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2020, in the State Legislative Assembly. Upon approval, the Bill became the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, (“the Act”), effective August 29, 2020. However, the implementation of the Act was questioned on the grounds of it being overly harsh and its enactment being contrary to law.Continue Reading Gujarat High Court: Upholding the validity of The Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 – Part II

Upholding the validity of The Gujarat Land Grabbing Prohibition Act 2020

Brief Background

In 2020, the Gujarat Government enacted the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (“the Act”), to combat illegal encroachment and land grabbing of public and private land by land mafias in the state of Gujarat. The Act not only declared land grabbing as unlawful, but also brought it within the purview of crime. For trial of this new offence, the Act prescribed creation of Special Courts whose jurisdiction was not only limited to criminal cases of land grabbing, but also extended to providing civil remedies.Continue Reading Gujarat High Court: Upholding the validity of The Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 – Part I

Introduction:

A division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J. B. Pardiwala in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors[1] on September 21, 2023, held that a borrower only has right of mortgage redemption till the publication of auction notice under Section 13(8) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (“SARFAESI Act”). The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed orders passed by various Hon’ble High Courts in interpreting the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFEASI Act, post the amendment in 2016 (“Amendment”) and the intent of the Amendment.Continue Reading Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act: SC settles conundrum on right of redemption of borrower

The Bombay High Court was recently called upon to decide an application filed by Anupam Mittal (“Applicant”), the founder of shaadi.com, seeking to restrain Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings and other directors of People Interactive (India) Private Limited (“Respondents”) from enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore. The anti-suit injunction restrained the Applicant from proceeding with his oppression and mismanagement petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) on the ground that parties had agreed to resolve their disputes via arbitration seated in Singapore and disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement were arbitrable under Singapore law.Continue Reading Party Autonomy Restrained? Dissecting Bombay High Court’s Anti-Enforcement Injunction Order in Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd.