Dispute resolution

Ripple Effect of Sanctions: How US Measures against Russia affect Indian Businesses

Background

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

Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?

Introduction:

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?

Navigating the Crypto Maze: Delhi HC expands scope of predicate offences under PMLA

Introduction

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…

Critiquing the Regulatory Threshold for an ‘Officer Who is in Default’ under the Companies Act, 2013

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

When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible

OVERVIEW

A criminal trial is nearing its conclusion. The evidence has been led, and witnesses examined and cross examined. Only the final arguments remain. Yet, for “the pursuit of truth”, would a “further investigation” be permissible at such a belated stage? In several judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative, subject to there being compelling facts justifying such an extraordinary measure.Continue Reading When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible

Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts

Introduction

The question of incorporation of arbitration clauses referred to in another document has been a bone of contention between parties, in view of the absence of statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Although the principle of incorporating an arbitration clause, referred to in another document is a well-established principle in arbitral jurisprudence,[1] Section 7(5) only provides that the reference should be “such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract”. Hence, it has been left to the courts to determine the conditions that need to be satisfied for the same.Continue Reading Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts

Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law

The Supreme Court’s (“SC”) recent[1]interpretation of the intent and scope of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act” or “Arbitration Act”) has sent ripples through the Indian arbitration landscape. In this landmark verdict, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan have provided much-needed clarity and guidance on the extension of time limits for arbitral awards beyond the stipulated timeframe under Section 29A of the Act.Continue Reading Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law

The Evolving Landscape of Pre-Reference Interest in Indian Arbitration Regime

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India in Pam Developments Private Limited v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.[1] has reignited discussions on awarding pre-reference interest in arbitration proceedings. The case had arisen from a dispute over delays in a road construction project. Marking a significant development in the evolution of the Indian arbitration law, particularly on granting interest, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s authority to award interest on the awarded sum from the date of the cause of action until the date of the award, even when the contract was silent on the matter. While analysing the Pam Developments case, this blog delves into the nuances of pre-reference interest in light of the existing legal framework and relevant jurisprudence.Continue Reading The Evolving Landscape of Pre-Reference Interest in Indian Arbitration Regime

Can an Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate be Extended Post Award?

Introduction of Section 29A to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”), by way of an amendment in 2015, marked a significant event in the arbitration regime in India. It recognised the sluggishness that had crept into arbitration proceedings and provided for strict timelines for making of an award. The section was further amended in 2019, pursuant to recommendations of Justice B N Srikrishna committee.Continue Reading Can an Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate be Extended Post Award?

Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating: Decoding the Confusion

Introduction

Offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust are often invoked in Indian criminal law system. It is common practice that when a First Information Report (“FIR”) is registered under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) (Section 316 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)) for criminal breach of trust, the same is also registered under Section 420 of IPC (Section 318 of BNS) for cheating. This practice is on account of a long-drawn confusion between the two offences, wherein the two are often equated and thus understood as offences with similar ingredients.Continue Reading Criminal Breach of Trust vs. Cheating: Decoding the Confusion