Photo of Sumit Attri

Partner in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi NCR Office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and an AOR for the firm. Sumit focuses on disputes in relation to insolvency proceedings, arbitration (domestic and international), corporate commercial and contractual litigation, white collar crimes, criminal matters, environmental and mining matters. He regularly appears and argues matters before the Supreme Court, High Court, Tribunals and Regulatory Authorities. He can be reached at sumit.attri@cyrilshroff.com.

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

Pending Section 37 Appeal under Arbitration Act: Not a Legitimate Ground for Entertaining Belated Claim under IBC

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1] judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). In this case, an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), was pending against a Section 34 award and the Appellant submitted a claim for the same subsequent to the committee of creditors (“COC”) approving the resolution plan. Continue Reading Pending Section 37 Appeal under Arbitration Act: Not a Legitimate Ground for Entertaining Belated Claim under IBC

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

No room for change- How Final is the Final Resolution Plan, Exploring the Practical Repercussions

Introduction

The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.Continue Reading No room for change- How Final is the Final Resolution Plan, Exploring the Practical Repercussions

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]