Photo of Pravar Misra

Pravar Misra

Subscribe to Pravar Misra's Posts

Senior Associate Designate in the Dispute Resolution practice at the Noida office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Pravar specializes in matters in the realm of arbitration, insolvency, white collar and other corporate and commercial litigation, and advises a wide range of domestic and international clients. He can be reached at pravar.misra@cyrilshroff.com

 

When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible

OVERVIEW

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

Out on bail: Do not disturb?

OVERVIEW

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?

Summoning additional accused in criminal trial: When, why and how

OVERVIEW

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

Tarsem Lal v Directorate of Enforcement: Supreme Court further clarifies PMLA framework

OVERVIEW:

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

Preliminary Chargesheet And Grant Of Default Bail: Untangling The Web

OVERVIEW

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

Arrests under PMLA: Arrest first, reasons to follow?

INTRODUCTION

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?

Devas v Antrix: fraud as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award: unique outlier or a sign of things to come?

INTRODUCTION

‘Fraud vitiates all’ is a legal principle firmly embedded in the Indian jurisprudence. An iteration of this principle also finds place in the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), in Section 34(2)(b)(ii), whereunder an arbitral award can be challenged for being in ‘conflict with public policy of Indian Law’, inter alia if “the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud”.Continue Reading Devas v Antrix: fraud as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award: unique outlier or a sign of things to come?

Till Death Do Us Part? Abatement of Criminal Revision, Appeals on Death of Accused.

INTRODUCTION

It is trite law that while criminal proceedings operate in rem, the consequence of such proceedings (viz. imprisonment) impacts the liberties of individual person(s). It is equally well settled that legal heirs of an accused/ convict cannot be made to serve imprisonment on the death of the accused/ convict. This begs the question whether the demise of the individual also sounds the death knell on the connected criminal proceedings against him. In the present article, we explore whether the criminal appellate/ revisional proceedings would abate ipso facto on the death of the accused/ convict.Continue Reading Till Death Do Us Part? Abatement of Criminal Revision, Appeals on Death of Accused