Photo of Vikash Kumar Jha

Vikash Kumar Jha

Subscribe to Vikash Kumar Jha's Posts

Vikash has over 13 years of experience and focuses on commercial litigation before various forums including Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLAT, NCLT, PMLA, Trial Court etc. He also has extensive experience in arbitration and court proceedings arising out thereof. He has done practice in trial courts and has a fair amount of experience in original side practice. He is a qualified AOR, Supreme Court. He can be reached at vikashkumar.jha@cyrilshroff.com

Introduction

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”), aims to promote,  develop and enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs. To address the issue of delayed payments, several provisions of the MSME Act provide additional safeguards and benefits to MSMEs. One such safeguard is Section 15, which outlines the buyer’s liability to make payments due to MSMEs once the goods or services are accepted/ deemed to be accepted.[1] Similarly, Section 16, read with Section 17, states that delays in payments for goods supplied or services rendered by MSMEs, shall attract a compound interest rate of three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India.[2] Further, reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSEFC”) for any amount due under Section 17 can be made under Section 18. However, questions on the applicability of this statutory provision are raised, when parties to a dispute do not invoke the MSEFC mechanism and go under the pre-existing arbitration agreements.Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements v. MSME Act: Can interest rates under MSME Act survive outside of Section 18 proceedings?

IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.Continue Reading IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case

Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?

Introduction:

It is settled law under the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that maximum 120 days will be provided for filing of a written statement in a commercial suit. On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement, and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record[1]. For regular or non-commercial civil suits, the period for filing the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of summons[2], however, it can be extended at the discretion of the Court. Continue Reading Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?

Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act

INTRODUCTION

The intersection between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), has caused significant judicial deliberation, particularly concerning creditor rights, financial discipline, and the resolution of financial distress. Section 138 of the NI Act holds the drawer of the cheque liable in case of dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The provision imposes penal consequences on the drawer, serving as a deterrent against indiscriminate issuances of cheques and safeguarding creditors’ interests.[1]Continue Reading Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act

Is writ maintainable against an award passed under the MSME Act? – Part I

Introduction:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”)[1] debated on the seminal question of maintainability of writ petitions against an order/ award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”). In M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporate Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another[2] (“…

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in its landmark decision in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE[1] (“Arif Azim”)[2] has once again reiterated the distinction between ‘seat’ and ‘venue’ in an arbitration agreement and its jurisdictional implication. The judgment addresses the contentious issue of whether a location designated in an arbitration agreement serves merely as ‘venue’ (a place where proceedings may occur) or as juridical ‘seat’ (which grants a court jurisdictional oversight). This distinction has immense implications, especially for cross-border commercial agreements, where different interpretations can lead to divergent legal outcomes.Continue Reading Decoding Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision on ‘Seat’ vs. ‘Venue’ in Arbitration

Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?

Introduction:

A recent decision rendered by the Madras High Court in S. Srinivasan v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai[1], has held that being in possession of the proceeds of crime and claiming it to be untainted property can independently be perceived as money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

Although the said decision is in line with the principles previously enunciated by various courts while interpreting the PMLA provisions, such a simple interpretation may possibly lead to unintended situations. The primary reason being that anyone who is merely in possession of proceeds of crime without any genuine knowledge or any involvement therein can be prosecuted under PMLA. This perspective may prove to be counterproductive to the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.Continue Reading Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?

Simultaneous IBC Proceedings against Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor: Critical Takeaways from BRS Ventures Case

The legal landscape governing insolvency resolution in India has undergone significant transformation since the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). One of the contentious issues in this evolving framework is whether simultaneous insolvency proceedings can be initiated against both the corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor for the same debt. The recent Supreme Court judgment in BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (2024 INSC 548) offers clarity on the treatment of such proceedings and reinforces key principles governing the relationship between creditors, debtors, and guarantors.Continue Reading Simultaneous IBC Proceedings against Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor: Critical Takeaways from BRS Ventures Case

Can an Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate be Extended Post Award?

Introduction of Section 29A to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”), by way of an amendment in 2015, marked a significant event in the arbitration regime in India. It recognised the sluggishness that had crept into arbitration proceedings and provided for strict timelines for making of an award. The section was further amended in 2019, pursuant to recommendations of Justice B N Srikrishna committee.Continue Reading Can an Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate be Extended Post Award?