homepage

 Recent Upadates


 India is likely to emerge as Hub for Commercial Arbitration.:
The Indian Lok Sabha passed the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015 by voice vote for speedy disposal of arbitration cases. The bill seeks to amend Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to make of commercial disputes more user-friendly and cost effective which in turn will lead to expeditious disposal of cases. Key Provisions of Bill Mandatory for arbitrators to settle disputes within 12 months. This period can be extended by 6 months only by a court on sufficient cause. Cut the fees of arbitrators if the court finds that the delay has been caused due to arbitrators. Rewarding arbitrators with extra fees in case the matter is disposed of within 6 months and the parties agree to pay more. Empower arbitration tribunals to grant all kinds of interim measures that courts provide. Thus giving more teeth to them in order to make tribunals directives enforceable in the same manner as those of courts. This will enable, India to be a Hub for Commercial Arbitration.

 Govt of India nod for two new bills to improve dispute resolution process !:
The Cabinet has approved two Bills to be introduced in Parliament aimed at speeding up and strengthening the dispute resolution process in the country. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2018 “is a part of the efforts of the Government to encourage institutional arbitration for settlement of disputes and make India a centre of robust Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism”, the government said in a release. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Bill 2018 seeks to bring down the specified value of a commercial dispute to ₹3 lakh from the present ₹1 crore. In other words, commercial disputes of a “reasonable value” can be decided by commercial courts. “This would bring down the time taken (presently 1,445 days) in resolution of commercial disputes of lesser value and thus further improve India's ranking in the Ease of Doing Business,” the government said. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2018 will establish an independent body—the Arbitration Council of India (ACI)—that will lay down standards, make arbitration process more party friendly, cost effective, and ensure timely disposal of arbitration cases. “The Chairperson of ACI shall be a person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice or Judge of any High Court or any eminent person,” the release said. “Further, the other members would include an eminent academician, etc, besides other Government nominees.” The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Bill 2018 provides for the establishment of commercial courts at the district judge level for the territories over which the respective High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction—Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and the state of Himachal Pradesh. “The State Governments in such territories may by notification specify such pecuniary value of commercial disputes to be adjudicated at the district level, which shall not be less than three lakhs rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district court,” the government said. - courtesy The Hindu.

 GENERAL DEFENCES TO IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE S.76-106:
Classification of general exceptions Excusable Act – Excusable General Exceptions Mistake of fact (Section 76 and79) Accident (Section 80) Infancy (Section 82, 83) Insanity (Section 84) Intoxication Justified Act Judicial Act (Section 77 and 78) Necessity (Section 81) Consent (Section 87 – 89 and 92) Duress (Section 94) Communication (Section 93) Trifles (Section 95) Private Defense (Section 96-106)

 Section 124A deals with the Offence ‘Sedition‘. - Offences against the State'. :
Section 124A deals with the Offence ‘Sedition‘. - Offences against the State'. 2. The word ‘Sedition’ is not mentioned in 124A. The Section reads as follows; 124-A. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffec­tion towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  3. 124A was not part of the Original Indian Penal Code of 1860. It was introduced in 1870 4. The section was amended by the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act (IV of 1898.). As a result of the amendment, the single explanation to the section was replaced by three separate explanations as they stand now. 5. The maximum punishment for the Offence is Life Imprisonment 6. The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-compoundable and triable by a Court of Sessions. 7. Many Indian freedom fighters including Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were charged with Sedition during freedom Struggle. 8. The first case in India that arose under the section is known as the Bangobasi case (Queen-Empress v. Jagendra Chunder Bose) 9. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was convicted under this Section and sent to Mandalay, Burma from 1908 to 1914 for  defending the Indian revolutionaries and called for immediate Swaraj or self-rule in his newspaper ‘Kesari’  (Queen Empress Vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897)) 10. In 1959 Allahabad High Court declared that S.124A was ultra vires to Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 11. The above decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Case 12. In Kedar Nath Case, the Constitution Bench had read down Section 124A. It was upheld by construing it narrowly and stating that the offence would only be complete if the words complained of have a tendency of creating public disorder by violence. 13. In Kedra Singh Case it is clarified that comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feeling which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. 14. In Balwant Singh And Anr vs State of Punjab , Supreme Court held that the casual raising of the Slogans like Khalistan Zindabad etc once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India. 15. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court warned the Courts against the casual approach in invoking this section. It is held that ‘mechanical order convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and to promote enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. It is expected that graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen is not lightly interfered with’.

 Section 124A deals with the Offence ‘Sedition‘. - Offences against the State'. :
Section 124A deals with the Offence ‘Sedition‘. - Offences against the State'. 2. The word ‘Sedition’ is not mentioned in 124A. The Section reads as follows; 124-A. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffec­tion towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  3. 124A was not part of the Original Indian Penal Code of 1860. It was introduced in 1870 4. The section was amended by the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act (IV of 1898.). As a result of the amendment, the single explanation to the section was replaced by three separate explanations as they stand now. 5. The maximum punishment for the Offence is Life Imprisonment 6. The offence is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Non-compoundable and triable by a Court of Sessions. 7. Many Indian freedom fighters including Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were charged with Sedition during freedom Struggle. 8. The first case in India that arose under the section is known as the Bangobasi case (Queen-Empress v. Jagendra Chunder Bose) 9. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was convicted under this Section and sent to Mandalay, Burma from 1908 to 1914 for  defending the Indian revolutionaries and called for immediate Swaraj or self-rule in his newspaper ‘Kesari’  (Queen Empress Vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897)) 10. In 1959 Allahabad High Court declared that S.124A was ultra vires to Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 11. The above decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Case 12. In Kedar Nath Case, the Constitution Bench had read down Section 124A. It was upheld by construing it narrowly and stating that the offence would only be complete if the words complained of have a tendency of creating public disorder by violence. 13. In Kedra Singh Case it is clarified that comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feeling which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. 14. In Balwant Singh And Anr vs State of Punjab , Supreme Court held that the casual raising of the Slogans like Khalistan Zindabad etc once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India. 15. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court warned the Courts against the casual approach in invoking this section. It is held that ‘mechanical order convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and to promote enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. It is expected that graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen is not lightly interfered with’.

ENHANCING VALUE THROUGH EXPERTISE!

 Client Representative

ADROIT provides Client Representative services where a Client requires an industry professional to monitor the performance of his project team. We can also assist in the selection and appointment of the Stake holders.

Read More

 Contract Management

Compiles documents for the Contract, which includes penalty clauses, specifications, schedules and specifications in line with the International best practices and FIDIC standards. Enable a smooth and successful

Read More

 Risk Management

In the current financial climate, a comprehensive understanding of the Risk and opportunity inherent in your business venture or project is crucial. By understanding the certainty..

Read More

 Cost Management

Cost Management addresses the activities undertaken by ADROIT to control expenditure and to obtain the best value for money on major building and civil Engineering investments.

Read More

All Rights Reserved

Privacy Policy