More than a decade after the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act” or “the Act”) introduced class action lawsuit provisions, two major applications for initiating such suits have ingressed the halls of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).
Continue Reading Class Action Lawsuits: A New Horizon for Corporate Litigation?
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
As sanctions regimes become highly objective oriented, the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) is focused on ensuring enforcement and targeting entities involved in violating the sanctions, irrespective of their nationality. The inherent complexity, supplemented by an objective-focused approach, makes sanctions compliance even more important in today’s geopolitical climate. On June 12, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) unveiled a comprehensive set of anti-money laundering measures aimed at enhancing transparency and preventing illicit financial activities. These measures, along with the OFAC advisory, bring significant implications for financial institutions worldwide by expanding grounds for imposing sanctions against Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) and limiting the provision of certain software technologies to Russia.[1]
Continue Reading Navigating OFAC Sanctions: Insights for Indian Businesses and Banks![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
Through a series of recent judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined limits to the Directorate of Enforcement’s (“ED”) powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Resultantly, issues that were rather ambiguous are now a lot clearer.
Continue Reading Tarsem Lal v Directorate of Enforcement: Supreme Court further clarifies PMLA framework
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