Recently, the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) has reiterated that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), empowers courts to partially set aside an arbitral award and it would not amount to a modification, as an arbitral award consists of distinct components independent of each other.Continue Reading Court’s power to partially set aside arbitral awards: An Indian perspective
In the previous blog published on November 19, 2024, we had discussed the United States (“US”) Office of foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) sanctioning nearly 400 entities and individuals for their contribution to Russia’s efforts against Ukraine and the implications of this action on Indian businesses. The US has since imposed sanctions on several entities under its Russia-related sanctions program as well as under its other sanctions programs. There has also been a major focus on the Iran-related sanctions program.Continue Reading Ripple Effect of Sanctions- II: Recent Iran-related sanctions imposed by the United States
Securing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA“), is challenging due to the high threshold for bail stipulated by the Act. Section 45 of the PMLA stipulates that bail may be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if two conditions are met: first, the Public Prosecutor must be given the opportunity to oppose the bail application; second, there must be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is frequently contended that these twin conditions pose a significant challenge to the prevailing legal principle in criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the twin conditions challenge an accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution[1].Continue Reading Renewed focus on Liberty – Delhi High Court upholds Constitutional Safeguards on Bail under PMLA
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“Arbitration Act”)[1] deals with the powers of courts to grant interim reliefs, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced, to parties in order to safeguard the subject matter
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
Party autonomy is undoubtedly a cornerstone of arbitration proceedings, allowing parties substantial freedom to shape the contours of their dispute resolution process. This freedom extends to choosing arbitrators and defining procedural rules, reflecting a central appeal of arbitration over litigation. However, this autonomy has limits, particularly where it intersects with the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act / Act”), designed to uphold fairness, impartiality and transparency.Continue Reading Revisiting Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments: The Supreme Court’s New Stance on Fairness and Equality
The ongoing tensions surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict have led to significant geopolitical shifts, particularly in the realm of international sanctions. In response to Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, the United States (U.S.) had implemented a series of sanctions to curtail Russian influence and capabilities. A pivotal moment in this effort was the issuance of Executive Order 14024 (“EO 14024”) on April 15, 2021, by President Joe Biden.Continue Reading Ripple Effect of Sanctions: How US Measures against Russia affect Indian Businesses
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?
A single judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a significant ruling in the matter of Adnan Nisar v. Directorate of Enforcement and other connected matters[1], on September 17, 2024, holding that an offence committed in a foreign country can be classified as Predicate Offence, under the Prevention of
In Part I of this series, we had discussed the ambiguities surrounding the rectification of non-compliances under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). In Part II, we seek to address another critical aspect of the Act – the imposition of liability on a company’s officer for offences and non-compliances by the Company.[1]Continue Reading Critiquing the Regulatory Threshold for an ‘Officer Who is in Default’ under the Companies Act, 2013