Dispute Resolution

“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?

Attachment Details Insolvency-and-Bankruptcy-Code-Re-affirming-its-primacy-over-the-Prevention-of-Money-Laundering-Act-2002

It has been an active month for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”/ “IBC”). On one hand, the legislature has inserted a new chapter into the Code providing for pre-packed insolvency resolution process for micro, small or medium enterprises (“MSMEs”) to ease and fast track the resolution for the stressed MSMEs, while on the other hand, Courts through various landmark decisions have upheld the primacy of the Code which will play a significant role in boosting the confidence of the stakeholders, particularly the creditors and the resolution applicants, in the sanctity of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIR Process”).
Continue Reading Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Re-affirming its primacy over the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

‘CASH ONLY’ to dissenting financial creditors - Supreme Court in Jaypee

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors.[1] (“Jaypee Decision”) has laid down some new requirements whilst reinforcing several old ones in relation to the insolvency resolution regime of the country. In this article, we examine and discuss the implications of the rights of dissenting financial creditors as held in the Jaypee Decision on the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Continue Reading ‘CASH ONLY’ to dissenting financial creditors – Supreme Court in Jaypee

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

IBC and Limitation - The Dust Settles Blog

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Apex Court has held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act (“Section 18”) applies to extend the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC.
Continue Reading IBC and Limitation: The Dust Settles

Does NCLT has power to refer parties to Arbitration in an in rem insolvency proceeding

The conflict between Insolvency and Arbitration is almost of near polar extremes. The difference in focus of the two was well illustrated in Re United States Lines Inc[1] as a:

“… conflict of near polar extremes: bankruptcy policy exerts an inexorable pull towards centralization while arbitration policy advocates a decentralized approach towards dispute resolution”.

Thus, while insolvency/ bankruptcy aims to centralise all the proceedings against a debtor to one jurisdiction and give rise to a proceeding in rem (against the world at large) thereby creating third party rights for all creditors of the debtor, arbitration on the other hand advocates a decentralised approach and promotes party autonomy in dispute resolution resulting in a proceeding in personam (against a particular person).
Continue Reading Does NCLT has power to refer parties to Arbitration in an in rem insolvency proceeding?

Dispute mechanism available under a lease

How it started:

It started with the case of Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc v. SBI Home Finance Ltd & Others (“Booz-Allen”), wherein the Supreme Court, after hearing the matter, held that the disputes relating to eviction and tenancy were not arbitrable. Leases are governed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TOPA”). The court discussed the nature and scope of issues arising for consideration in an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“Act”) wherein “even if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, and even if the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement, the court where the civil suit is pending, will refuse an application under Section 8 of the Act, to refer the parties to arbitration, if the subject matter of the suit is capable of adjudication only by a public forum or the relief claimed can only be granted by a special court or Tribunal”.
Continue Reading Dispute mechanism available under a lease

LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING A SECTION 34 PETITION BEGINS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE SIGNED COPY OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD

Introduction:

Recently, a division bench of the Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. M/s Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.[1] has inter alia (i) clarified when the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) commences; (ii) discussed the legal requirement and significance of an award being signed; and (iii) highlighted the relevance of dissenting opinions in arbitration proceedings. The Court has also made observations on what happens to the underlying disputes between the parties after an award is set aside.
Continue Reading Limitation period for filing a Section 34 Petition begins from the Date of Receipt of the Signed Copy of the Arbitral Award

One-Sided-Contractual-Terms-Constitute-Unfair-Trade-Practice-Under-Consumer-Law-in-India

INTRODUCTION:

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna and Ors.[1], has inter alia held that developers cannot compel apartment buyers to be bound by one-sided contractual terms. Finding such one-sided agreements oppressive, the Court has held that the same would constitute an unfair trade practice under the consumer laws in India.
Continue Reading One-Sided Contractual Terms Constitute Unfair Trade Practice under Consumer Law in India

Supreme Court Clarifies that Acceptance of a Conditional Offer with a Further Condition does not Result in a Concluded Contract.

Introduction

In M/s. Padia Timber Company (P) Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of Vishakhapatnam Port Trust[1], the Supreme Court has reiterated that the acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition does not result in a concluded contract. The Court has observed that when the acceptor attaches a new condition while accepting the contract already signed by the proposer, the contract is not complete until the proposer accepts the new condition. 
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies that Acceptance of a Conditional Offer with a Further Condition does not Result in a Concluded Contract