Photo of Ankoosh Mehta

Partner in the Dispute Resolution Team at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Ankoosh focuses on arbitrations (domestic and international),  corporate/commercial litigation, real estate disputes and private client pratice related litigation. He can be reached at ankoosh.mehta@cyrilshroff.com

EXPANDING THE NET - THE INCREASING SCOPE OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988

Introduction

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), was promulgated to curb corruption in the country. In particular, the PC Act serves as a consolidated body of law to prevent corruption by public servants in India. Though the PC Act came into force in 1988, recent years have seen a marked judicial and legislative inclination towards expanding the scope of the PC Act and strengthening its provisions.

For instance, in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli[1] in 2016, the Supreme Court found that the Managing Director and Executive Director of a private bank, operating under a licence, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, would be considered as a ‘public servant’ and thus would be liable under the PC Act. Subsequently, in 2018, the PC Act was amended by the legislature, expanding the scope of offences regarding commercial organisations carrying on business in India.
Continue Reading Expanding the Net: The Increasing Scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

“A predicate offence is the sine qua non for the offence of money laundering” - IS IT REALLY

1. INTRODUCTION

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) has proven to be a revolutionary legislation and is certainly one of its kind. The nature of the statute and the utmost necessity that it be enforced in a manner that fulfils the legislative intent thereby creating economic security as well as the nation’s requirements have resulted in wide powers being granted to the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”). Although there are significant judgments that have set the law straight, both procedural and substantive, or at least strived to, a fascinating, albeit controversial judgment has been passed by the High Court of Bombay recently in Babulal Verma and Ors. vs. Enforcement Directorate and Ors (“Babulal Judgment”).[1]
Continue Reading “A predicate offence is the sine qua non for the offence of money laundering” – IS IT REALLY?

From Harbour to Hardships Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 - Part I

Evolution of intermediary liability in India

Ever since the enactment of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“the IT Act”), the treatment of intermediary liability[1] has been pendulous. The recent Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 Rules”), bring about the most significant changes for intermediaries in terms of increasing due diligence obligations and liability in cases of non-compliance.
Continue Reading From Harbour to Hardships? Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Part I

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - RECIPROCATING COUNTRY UNDER INDIAN LAWS

I. Introduction

India and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) have had strong diplomatic and trade relations since decades. At the 13th Session of the “India-UAE Joint Commission Meeting on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation” held on August 17, 2020, representatives from both India and UAE expressed optimism over the growing trade, economic and investment cooperation between the two countries. While both the countries are optimistic about growth in trade relations, the Indian Government in the beginning of 2020, took commendable steps to facilitate cross border trade by declaring UAE as a reciprocating territory for execution of foreign judgments in India under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”). The same was done by way of an Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 36 of 2020, issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice on January 17, 2020.
Continue Reading United Arab Emirates: Reciprocating Country under Indian Laws

 Supreme Court sets out object and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

Introduction

Judicial time is precious and ought to be employed in the most efficient manner possible. Sham litigations are one such menace that not only waste the time of the courts, but also cause unwarranted prejudice and harm to parties arrayed as defendants in such litigations, thereby defeating justice. In order to deal with such a menace, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), under Order VII Rule 11[1] (“O7 R 11”) provides litigants the option to pursue an independent and special remedy, empowering courts to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any grounds contained in this provision.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali[2] (“Case”), while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents, discussing the intent and purpose of O7 R11, while setting out the principles in relation to the same.
Continue Reading Supreme Court sets out object and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - DELHI HIGH COURT SMM

Introduction

Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”) in Gammon India Ltd. and Anr. v. National Highways Authority of India[1], had the occasion to opine on the scourge of multiplicity of arbitral proceedings while dealing with a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) wherein the objections raised were primarily based on the findings of a subsequent award. In dealing with the issues before it, the Court revisited various judicial precedents while setting out the principles to be considered when referring multiple disputes arising out of the same agreement to arbitration.
Continue Reading Multiplicity of proceedings defeats the purpose of alternate dispute resolution: Delhi high court

BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AND LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS IN WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Introduction:                 

The handling, disposal and management of bio-medical waste (“BM Waste”)in India is government by inter-alia, the Biomedical Waste Management & Handling Rules, 1998 (“1998 Rules”) were notified by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6,8 & 25 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. These rules provide for the framework of the management and Handling of disposal and scientific management of BM Waste

In wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centre Pollution Control Board (“CPCB”) recently issued guidelines dated March 27, 2020 for handling, treatment and safe disposal of BM Waste generated during treatment, diagnosis and quarantine of patients confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines have been necessitated due to the super infectious nature of the Novel corona virus and provide for a mechanism for the segregation, packaging, transportation, storage and disposal of BM Waste in order to avoid further spread of the virus through BM Waste.
Continue Reading BIO-MEDICAL WASTE AND LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS IN WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Introduction

The growth and diversification of businesses have led to an increase in white collar crimes. The term ‘white collar crime’ was first defined by Edwin Hardin Sutherland as crimes committed by persons who hold high societal status and repute in their profession. As the complexity of such crimes has grown over the years and investigations have become refined, we have seen an increase in private professional services offering support to companies and their management in dealing with white collar crimes.

These support services extend from providing an in-depth analysis of the crime to the management, carrying out forensic investigations into the affairs of the company, including audit and forensic diligence reports and preparing the company for legal proceedings. The need for internal private investigations has also increased as a result of strengthening of laws on compliances and reporting of white collar crimes. The allegations may vary from offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as fraud, cheating, forgery, etc.) to offences under offences under special statutes (such as money laundering, insider trading, corruption, etc.).


Continue Reading For or Against Forensic diligence when facing a White-Collar Investigation: Evidentiary Value

DOUBLE TROUBLE IN 2020 - TACKLING COVID-19 WHILE PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Background

Dire times call for ingenious, and often, radical measures. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to actions being taken under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in India, is one such unprecedented and grim event. While governments and health workers all over the world are grappling to curb the spread of the virus, it has been realised that surveillance of affected persons is of paramount importance in order to assess and implement preventive and control measures.

Data tracking and analysis has emerged as an unlikely hero. This analysis has enabled governments to implement measures to stop the pandemic at its source and to prevent deaths, social disruption, unnatural burden on the healthcare system and economic loss. As government authorities are required to control the pandemic not only in their own country, but also understand how the same is evolving in other countries, governments all over the world have taken the stance that free flow of information that is updated in real time will allow for the formation of a steady global picture and help in curbing the spread of the pandemic.
Continue Reading Double Trouble in 2020 – Tackling COVID-19 while Protecting the Right to Privacy

SUPREME COURT’S CONTINUOUS BATTLE WITH COVID-19

I. Introduction

The last few months have been extremely unpredictable and extraordinary for the world as it continuously battles against the novel Corona virus (“Covid-19”) in all its spheres. In India, the economy has suffered a severe blow and the legal fraternity and judicial system seems to be no different due to a lack of digital infrastructure.

Recently, by an order dated May 6, 2020 (“May 06 Order”)[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) w.e.f. March 15, 2020 until further orders. This order has a tremendous implication for strict timelines prescribed under these statutes. In this article, we will analyse whether the May 06 Order was necessary in light of the order dated March 23, 2020 (“March 23 Order”) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same proceedings[2] and thereafter, explore the implication of the same.
Continue Reading Supreme Court’s Continuous Battle with Covid-19