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

ED cannot arrest accused once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under PMLA: Supreme Court

Introduction:

In Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office,[1] the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court (“SC”) held on (i) the Enforcement Directorate’s (“ED”) powers of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002[2] (“PMLA”), once cognizance is taken of a PMLA complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA,[3] and (ii) the applicability of the twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA[4] in instances where the accused has furnished a bond in accordance with Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[5] (“CrPC”), for appearance in court following summons. In this significant decision, the SC essentially addresses the extent of the ED’s powers of arrest and applicability of the stringent twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA once the Special Court has taken cognizance of a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA.Continue Reading ED cannot arrest accused once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under PMLA: Supreme Court

Earlier clause prevails over subsequent clause in case of repugnancy: Supreme Court

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its recent judgment in Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar & Anr.[1] adjudicated inter alia upon repugnancy in clauses when construing/ interpreting a deed or a contract. It was categorically held that where the earlier and later clause of a deed cannot be reconciled, the earlier clause would prevail over the later clause in accordance with themaxim of ut res magis valeat quam pereat[2].Continue Reading Earlier clause prevails over subsequent clause in case of repugnancy: Supreme Court

Untangling legal knot: SC’s ruling on “security deposits” as financial or operational debt under IBC

Introduction

For initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), categorisation of a creditor as either a “financial creditor” or an “operational creditor” is a rather significant first step. Such categorisation is not merely organisational, but essential since the rights, obligations and procedural requirements for realisation of debt by financial and operational creditors also differ under the IBC.Continue Reading Untangling legal knot: SC’s ruling on “security deposits” as financial or operational debt under IBC

Fraud-Related Disputes Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

Arbitrability of a dispute is a key factor in any arbitration, as it establishes the jurisdictional reach of an arbitral tribunal. In Booze Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.,[1] the Supreme Court stated that the disputes dealing with rights in personam are arbitrable, but those pertaining to rights in rem are not as they can affect the public.Continue Reading Fraud-Related Disputes Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

Writ Jurisdiction over Arbitral Proceedings an ‘Exceptional Rarity’: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Indian Constitution bestows upon the High Courts “extraordinary writ jurisdiction”. While Article 226 empowers Courts to protect and enforce fundamental as well legal rights, Article 227 confers on them the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction.Continue Reading Writ Jurisdiction over Arbitral Proceedings an ‘Exceptional Rarity’: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Final Word on Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

“It [law of arbitration] is to be expeditious where the law is slow, cheap where the law is costly, simple where the law is technical, a peacemaker instead of a stirrer-up of strife.”[1]

Are arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements enforceable? This is a question that has been under legal scrutiny and has seen conflicting views from various constitutional benches of the Supreme Court for over half a decade.Continue Reading Final Word on Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

Supreme Court overrules ‘Asian Resurfacing’ judgment: No automatic vacation of stay orders passed by High Courts

Introduction:

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,[1]adjudicated inter alia upon whether the court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can order the automatic vacation of all interim/ stay orders of the High Court in civil and criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period. Continue Reading Supreme Court overrules ‘Asian Resurfacing’ judgment: No automatic vacation of stay orders passed by High Courts

Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards

Context

In India, execution of decrees is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), and execution of arbitration awards is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), and the CPC. For the purposes of enforcement, both domestic and foreign awards (recognition and enforcement thereof) are treated as decree of Court. This legal fiction also applies to consent awards, which are obtained after settlement is entered between parties. Domestic awards, which are basically India-seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part I of the 1996 Act, while foreign awards, which are foreign seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part II of the 1996 Act.Continue Reading Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards

Jurisprudence around Grant of Interim Injunction in Defamation Suits in India

Introduction:

In civil proceedings in India, the standard for grant of interim injunction, is well established. The aggrieved party, seeking an injunction, must establish a three-part test to the satisfaction of a court of law, that is, (i) a prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable harm/loss. While the three-part test remains applicable in defamation cases (including through offline and online media), for granting interim injunction, the threshold is slightly advanced due to the nature of dispute, rights involved, continuous cause of action (reputational damage if the publication is ex facie defamatory) and due to the advent of technology and widespread access to internet. Continue Reading Jurisprudence around Grant of Interim Injunction in Defamation Suits in India

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