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

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

This is in continuation to the series analysing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 Rules”). In the first part, we traced the evolution of intermediary liability and the key changes brought about by the 2021 Rules. In the second part, we discussed the consequences of non-compliance by intermediaries which, inter alia, disentitle them from claiming the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“Act”).


Continue Reading From Harbour to Hardships? Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 Part III

Prakash Gupta Judgment – Has the Supreme Court given more Powers to SEBI in the Matter of Compounding

Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) was essentially introduced to protect the interests of investors and to regulate and promote the development of the securities market in India. As a direct consequence of this legislative intention, the SEBI Act lays down that contravention, attempt to contravene and abetment of contravention of the provisions of the SEBI Act would be punishable with imprisonment and fines of varying quantum.


Continue Reading Prakash Gupta Judgment – Has the Supreme Court given more Powers to SEBI in the Matter of Compounding

LEARNING TO SPRINT SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO REDUCE DELAY IN DISPOSING EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS

I. Introduction:

  1. In the past decade, the Indian judiciary has been globally recognized for its historic rulings. However, even such successes, more often than not, are tainted because of the time that goes by, in passing the final ruling in a case. Justice delayed is justice denied, as the adage goes. Delay is so integral to judicial proceedings in India that it not only effects litigants initiating legal proceedings, but also plagues the minds of decree holders who have painstakingly gone through the entire lifecycle of a litigation. Even armed with a decree, a litigant must once again fight an already conquered battle before the executing court.
    Continue Reading Learning to Sprint: Supreme Court Issues Directions to Reduce Delay in Disposing Execution Proceedings

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

This is in continuation of the series analysing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 Rules”) and their impact. In the first part, we traced the evolution of intermediary liability and the key changes brought about by the 2021 Rules.

In this part, we attempt to identify the implications of the 2021 Rules on intermediaries, mainly focussing on the consequences of non-compliance which could entail criminal liability, and aspects relevant to investigative authorities.
Continue Reading From Harbour to Hardships? Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Part II

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