In the matter of Ashish Bhalla vs. State and Another(“Judgment”), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) has recently ruled that once an investigation by the SFIO under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) has been initiated, a parallel investigation by a separate investigating agency into the affairs of the company is not permissible, considering the bar under Section 212 of the 2013 Act (“Section 212”). While the Madras High Court in the matter of Ravi Parthasarathy and Others vs. State of Another had made similar observations to sub-clause (2) of Section 212, its application had not been sufficiently visible.Continue Reading No more parallel investigations on a company’s ‘misadventures’? – Delhi High Court affirms SFIO’s exclusive jurisdiction
Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Stuti advises on commercial disputes and white collar crimes litigation. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The debate around the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), as regards timing of police custody has reawakened since the Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji vs. State represented by Deputy Director & Ors.; 2023 SCC Online SC 934(“Senthil Balaji Case”), sought to re-examine the position. In the course of assessing the import of Section 167(2) of CrPC, the Supreme Court has raised doubts on the otherwise settled position of law laid down in the Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni;(1992) 3 SCC 141, later concurred by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Budh Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2000) 9 SCC 266. The Supreme Court has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for appropriate orders to form a larger bench.Continue Reading Unsettling the balance: Analysing the Import of Section 167(2) of CRPC.