Photo of Juvraj Singh

Partner in the Dispute Practice at the Noida office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, specializes in general civil, corporate and commercial litigation, and arbitrations, under ad hoc and institutional rules, seated in India and abroad. He has for a decade advised several Fortune 500 companies in a range of sectors and also represented them in their disputes such as disputes arising from Joint Venture Agreements; Infrastructure and construction projects related to Power, Oil & Gas etc.; disputes arising  from Shareholders’ Agreements, Share Purchase Agreements, claims for oppression and mismanagement of companies etc., that are frequently multi-jurisdictional. Additionally, he has represented and advised several international clients, on trans-national and multi-jurisdictional matters in the realm of anti- corruption, anti-bribery, anti-money laundering, financial crime, serious fraud investigations, complex cyber-crime issues, corporate governance etc. He can be reached at juvraj.singh@cyrilshroff.com

Tracing the Grey Lines Interim Relief in Case of Disparagement Claims in Comparative Advertising

With increased incidences of trade wars between business rivals through commercial advertising in print and electronic media, there is an apparent need to identify the threshold at which the publication of a certain advertisement becomes defamatory or disparaging to another’s product. The Apex Court has declared that the publication of commercial advertisements forms a part of ‘commercial speech’ protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.[1]

Continue Reading Tracing the Grey Lines : Interim Relief in Case of Disparagement Claims in Comparative Advertising

Whatsapp Group Admin

The modern genesis of vicariously attributing culpability to a creator or administrator of a WhatsApp group for offensive, defamatory or objectionable content posted by a group member can be found in the recent decision of the High Court of Kerala on February 23, 2022, in the matter of Manual versus State of Kerala and another[1]. The High Court of Kerala has largely followed the bright line laid down by the High Court of Bombay[2], the High Court of Delhi[3] and the High Court of Madras[4] in their previous decisions on this subject. As a rule, most common law jurisdictions have traditionally applied vicarious liability by employing the common law doctrine of respondent superior. It is noteworthy that superior courts have also authoritatively held in successive judgments that vicarious criminal liability can be attributed only if a penal provision of such nature is specifically provided in the underlying statute.

Continue Reading Can the admin of a WhatsApp group be held vicariously liable for an objectionable post by a group member?

Explaining the rudimentary principles of proving contradictions in a criminal trial

The craft of cross examination is often tested by the ingenuity of a trial lawyer in impeaching the credibility of a witness by extracting contradictions such that his previous testimony becomes unworthy of belief. The art of cross examination has always been deemed the surest test of truth and a better security than oath[1]. The method lies in introducing and proving an otherwise inadmissible evidence, with a masterful knowledge of the underlying laws of evidence. At a macro level, the broad contours of impeaching the credit of a witness is contemplated under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the “Act”), where under inter alia proving contradictions play a formidable part. Superior courts in India have time and again emphasised on the imperativeness of proving contradictions in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Section 145 the Act. Whilst, in a large measure, Section 145 of the Act is worded to take within its fold the procedure for proving contradictions in both criminal and civil trials by an adverse party, outlined below is an attempt at non-exhaustively analysing the procedure for extracting and proving contradictions in a criminal trial.

Continue Reading Explaining the Rudimentary Principles of Proving Contradictions in a Criminal Trial