A live location on your mobile phone, gets you a cab and instant food/grocery delivery, among myriad other things. On occasion, a live location could also get you bail!This is seen from several recent judicial orders including some passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well.
Continue Reading Out on bail: Do not disturb?
In 2020, the Gujarat Government enacted the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (“the Act”), to combat illegal encroachment and land grabbing of public and private land by land mafias in the state of Gujarat. The Act not only declared land grabbing as unlawful, but also brought it within the purview of crime. For trial of this new offence, the Act prescribed creation of Special Courts whose jurisdiction was not only limited to criminal cases of land grabbing, but also extended to providing civil remedies.
Continue Reading Gujarat High Court: Upholding the validity of The Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 – Part I
[Continued from Part I]
In 2019, aiming to solve the conundrum and marking a significant milestone in Indian arbitration, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vidya Drolia and Ors v. Durga Trading Corporation,[1] (“Vidya Drolia”) laid down the contours of arbitrability. While analysing thearbitrability of Landlord-Tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), the Supreme Court elucidated that the mere existence of a special statute dealing with certain disputes does not ipso facto render them non-arbitrable, thereby widening the scope of arbitrability and increasing the access to arbitration in complex legal contexts.
Continue Reading Arbitrability of Disputes: Indian Jurisprudence (Part 2)
Judicial pendency has been a roadblock in India’s quest to becoming a leading global economy. Although attributable to numerous factors, addressing the floodgate of litigation in the country is undoubtably the need of the hour[1]. Accordingly, various approaches have been adopted to promote the amicable settlement of pending litigation, including through alternate dispute redressal forums such as mediation, national lok adalats, etc., or by the volition of the State through numerous schemes such as Vivad se Vishwas[2].
Continue Reading The Uphill Battle of Challenging a Compromise Decree![Arbitrability of Disputes: Indian Jurisprudence [Part I]](https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/894/2024/06/Blog-Image43-656x375.png)
Arbitrability plays a pivotal role in dispute resolution, determining if a particular dispute can be resolved through arbitration. Several key factors, including, among other things, procedural/curial laws, governing law and actual text of the arbitral agreements, identity of the parties, etc., help establish arbitrability.[1]
Continue Reading Arbitrability of Disputes: Indian Jurisprudence [Part I]
Can a person who is neither named in the first information report (“FIR”) nor mentioned in the chargesheet, be summoned by a trial court later to face trial as an accused in respect of the very same FIR and chargesheet? If so, what would be the threshold and under what circumstances can such power be exercised?
Continue Reading Summoning additional accused in criminal trial: When, why and how
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) in its 205th board meeting[1] held on April 30, 2024, has approved amendments to the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 (“MF Regulations”), to enhance the existing regulatory framework for Asset Management Companies (“AMCs”) for facilitating identification and deterrence of potential market abuse, including front running[2]. As part of the said decision, detailed in its press release dated April 30, 2024, AMCs would be required to put in place an appropriate institutional mechanism, consisting of enhanced surveillance systems, internal control procedures and escalation processes to identify, monitor and address various types of misconduct. Additionally, SEBI’s Board has approved amendments in the relevant regulations to enhance responsibility and accountability of the management of AMCs for the said institutional mechanism and also for AMCs to put in place a whistle-blower mechanism.
Continue Reading SEBI’s efforts to curtail front running: Increasing onus on Asset Management Companies
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
An important question on whether advocates are liable for alleged deficiency in services under the Indian Consumer Protection Act has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.[1],has held that advocates would not be covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CPA 1986”), as re-enacted by the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“CPA 2019”) (‘collectively referred as Acts/ consumer law framework’). Until the said decision, there was no definite pronouncement on the concerned issue.
Continue Reading Advocates no longer liable under Consumer Protection Laws for alleged deficiency in services
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