Area of Practice

Area of practice

The fields the author works in, and which the writing on this blog draws from.

Opinions

Considered legal opinions on questions of law and fact.

Criminal, Civil, Recovery and Property Law

Trial and appellate work, including issues under the CPC, criminal procedure, recovery and property.

CPC · Criminal law

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Arbitration and conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Arbitration writing →

Quashing Petitions

Proceedings to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings, including civil disputes given a criminal cloak.

Special Leave Petitions

Petitions before the Supreme Court of India under Article 136.

Supreme Court writing →

Fiscal Laws: IBC, SARFAESI and Loan Grievances

Insolvency, securitisation, DRT proceedings and borrower–lender disputes.

IBC · SARFAESI

Consumer Disputes

Complaints and appeals before consumer commissions.

Consumer law →

Legal Notices and Documentation

Legal notices, replies, agreements, contracts and allied documentation.

Contract law →

For an opinion, feedback or a consultation, please use the consultation form.

This page is published for information, as permitted for advocates' websites under the Bar Council of India Rules. It is not an advertisement or solicitation of work, and nothing here is legal advice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE PRACTICE OF EXHIBITION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE INDIAN LAW.

Exhibition of a document in judicial proceedings is a standard customary practice that has been followed for a long period of time. There isn’t any specific provision under the law that governs the  expression ‘ exhibit ’   or ‘marking’ of documents. There are only certain rules laid down in the Delhi High Court (original side) rules with regard to the mandatory marking of the document with exhibit or labeling of every document produced during trial. PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS. Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates rules for admission or rejection of documents. The same read as follows: Rule 3   - Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. ― The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection. Rule 4  -  Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. ― (1) Subject to the provisions of the next foll...
Read more

WHAT IS 'QUESTION OF LAW' & ' SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW'

The maintainability of an appeal before the high court or the Supreme Court depends on the narrow  determination/validity of issues of laws involved. The courts in appeal should be convinced that a  substantial question of law is involved for its indulgence into the matter and not mere question of  law. The legislation does not describe ‘Question of law’ and ‘Substantial question of Law’ but  judicial precedents overtime has shaped and differentiated its true meaning. A Question of law arises when there is ambiguity and uncertainty in application of a settled legal provision to the facts and circumstances of the case and this question of law becomes substantial when the question of law has not been dealt with or when there are conflicting judicial opinions by  different benches of the High Court or the Supreme Court that requires effective interpretation and  permanent judicial consideration. What is the test for determination on whether a Substantial Quest...
Read more

ARE SUBSIDARIES INCLUDED AS ASSETS OF THE PARENT COMPANY DURING INSOLVENCY.

Once a company goes into insolvency, the Resolution Professional (RP) is mandated to take over all the assets of the Corporate Debtor thereto but the IBC code imposes some statutory restrictions to the term ' assets ' stipulated under section 18 of the IBC code (herein after the code) Do subsidiaries come under the purview of insolvency of the parent shareholding company? It is a settled law that a subsidiary is a separate legal entity from its parent company as laid down by the celebrated english precedent in  Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 . This foundational doctrine of a separate corporate personality has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, most notably in the landmark case of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 , which has clarified that even a wholly-owned subsidiary does not lose its distinct identity and that its assets belong to it, not to its parent shareholder.  The statutory pro...
Read more