Photo of Vikash Kumar Jha

Partner at the Delhi -NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Vikash has over 10 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

Harshness of Consequences not a Ground to Read-Down a Provision: Supreme Court

Introduction:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu[1]adjudicated, inter alia, upon (i) whether the forfeiture of the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5)[2] of the SARFAESI Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (“SARFAESI Rules”) can be only to the extent of loss or damages incurred by the Bank/secured creditor, in consonance with the underlying ethos of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”)? In other words, whether, the forfeiture of the entire earnest money deposit under the SARFAESI Rules amounts to unjust enrichment?; and (ii) whether the principle of “reading down” of a provision should be employed even in situations where the provision, in its plain meaning, is unambiguous and valid, but results in an allegedly ‘harsh’ consequence.Continue Reading Harshness of Consequences not a Ground to Read-Down a Provision: Supreme Court

Can Directors Be Made Parties to Arbitration Proceedings Following the Underlying Rationale of Group of Companies Doctrine? Delhi High Court Explains

Introduction

Agreement to arbitrate – through a clause in a master or a separate agreement – forms the crux of arbitration. Processes like arbitration depend entirely on parties’ written consent to arbitration agreements. Great importance is attached to party autonomy – autonomie de la volonté.[1] This age-old principle continues to be at the centre of any arbitration agreement; however, ascertaining the consent of a party, more specifically a non-signatory party, to an arbitration agreement has been up for debate.Continue Reading Can Directors Be Made Parties to Arbitration Proceedings Following the Underlying Rationale of Group of Companies Doctrine? Delhi High Court Explains

‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.,[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) makes a distinction between a ‘party to a suit’ and a ‘witness in a suit’ through its adopted phraseology? More specifically, whether a party to a suit i.e. a plaintiff or a defendant may be equated to a witness when interpreting the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies]; Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) [Duty of Defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him]; and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) [Original Documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues] of the CPC?Continue Reading ‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies

SC rules on applicability of doctrine of ‘group of companies’ in arbitration jurisprudence

Introduction

Consent by way of consensus-ad-idem and party autonomy are so deeply entrenched as the foundational or grundnorm principles of arbitration, that any material deviation therefrom is likely to pose challenges. One such challenge is the introduction of the doctrine of ‘group of companies’ in the jurisprudence of Indian arbitration, whereunder an arbitration agreement is extended, under certain conditions, to even non-signatory companies of the same group. In the words of Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble CJI, it is “a modern theory which challenges the conventional notions of arbitration law.”Continue Reading SC rules on applicability of doctrine of ‘group of companies’ in arbitration jurisprudence

Group Insolvency: Introduction

Group means two or more enterprises, which directly or indirectly are in a position to exercise 26% or more voting rights in other enterprise or appoint more than 50% members of the Board of Directors in the other enterprise or control the management or affairs of the other enterprise.[1]Continue Reading High Time for Group Insolvency Framework?!

CONUNDRUM SURROUNDING SECTION 42 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

INTRODUCTION

India’s arbitration law is thorough and organic because of its ever-evolving nature, through several amendments and decisions of the courts from time to time. However, the strict wordings of certain provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”),have caused a stir, for which courts have had to step in and use the tools of interpretation to resolve such practical dilemmas. Continue Reading Conundrum Surrounding Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Lombardi Engineering Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether, when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] (“1996 Act”), for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the validity of a pre-deposit condition can be looked into on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?Continue Reading Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application