Photo of Satatya Anand

Satatya Anand

Subscribe to Satatya Anand's Posts

Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Satatya focuses on commercial and civil disputes, arbitration, white-collar crimes and environmental matters. He can be reached at satatya.anand@cyrilshroff.com

The Evolving Landscape of Pre-Reference Interest in Indian Arbitration Regime

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India in Pam Developments Private Limited v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.[1] has reignited discussions on awarding pre-reference interest in arbitration proceedings. The case had arisen from a dispute over delays in a road construction project. Marking a significant development in the evolution of the Indian arbitration law, particularly on granting interest, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s authority to award interest on the awarded sum from the date of the cause of action until the date of the award, even when the contract was silent on the matter. While analysing the Pam Developments case, this blog delves into the nuances of pre-reference interest in light of the existing legal framework and relevant jurisprudence.Continue Reading The Evolving Landscape of Pre-Reference Interest in Indian Arbitration Regime

Commercial Purchases: Conundrum under Consumer Protection Laws

Introduction: Commercial Enterprise and Its Commercial Purpose

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Act”), and the amended Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“New Act”), are the go-to sources of reference for consumer disputes and conflicts. The Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and Section 2(7) of the New Act both define who “is” and “is not” a “consumer”. Both Acts state that a customer is any person who purchases goods or avails services for any consideration; however, any person purchasing goods or availing services for resale or any commercial purpose[1] to make profit/gain is not a consumer. An explanation to the provisions clarifies that despite buying goods or availing services a person would still be classified as a consumer (under both the Acts) if these goods or services constitute a source of livelihood by means of self-employment.Continue Reading Commercial Purchases: Conundrum under Consumer Protection Laws

Section 120B of IPC cannot be treated as a standalone offence to attract prosecution under PMLA: Supreme Court

INTRODUCTION

In a recent judgement of Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of Enforcement[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), will be attributed as a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA / Act”), only if the alleged criminal conspiracy is associated with committing of a scheduled offence, i.e. an offence specifically included in the Schedule to the PMLA. The Hon’ble Court held that if the offence of alleged criminal conspiracy is related to any other offence, which does not form a part of the Schedule to the PMLA, then the alleged criminal conspiracy by itself shall not be considered as a “scheduled offence” under the regime of the PMLA and hence, no person can be held liable and be prosecuted for it.[2]Continue Reading Section 120B of IPC cannot be treated as a standalone offence to attract prosecution under PMLA: Supreme Court

SUPREMACY OF THE IBC VIS-A-VIS THE ELECTRICITY ACT[1]

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.Continue Reading Supremacy of the IBC vis-a-vis The Electricity Act [1]