Legal WIND-World In Discourse

𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐍𝐀𝐌𝐄: 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐧𝐚𝐦 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐈𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐬 𝐉𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐞 𝐊𝐚𝐤𝐮𝐛𝐡𝐚𝐢 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐟

In this case, the Appellant wanted to sell share in MSM since 2002 and for this he signed a placement instruction on 15.01.2005, authorising Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) as its agent and purchasing appellant’s shares in Atlas.
Respondent files a complaint with Economic Offences Wing in Bombay regarding forged signatures. On 19.04.2010 against appellant and SCB. Parties agree to solve the issue with Deed of Settlement (DOS) which contained clause 9 for breach of deed to be resolved through arbitral proceedings.
Arbitral proceeding starts and the final award in favour of the Appellant is finalised on 10.11.2014 awarding a claim of liquidated damages of US $1.5M. And for this Respondent files a petition u/s 34 of in Bombay high court on 24.01.2015 while Appellant files for ex*****on of the award.

Judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court is to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator, whereas appeal filed by the Respondent u/s37 of the said Act was dismissed by the Division Bench in terms of the impugned judgement dated 20.04.2021.

Para 17 of the judgment … “the plea of the award being vitiated by the patent illegality is available for an arbitral award, such an award has to be a purely domestic award, i.e., the plea of patent illegality is not available for an award which arises from international commercial arbitration post the amendment”.

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act post-2015, will be applied only after the effective date of the amendment.

Supreme Court set aside the Award and affirmed that the judgement passed by the Single Judge and Division Bench of Bombay High Court interfered with the award and also made an observation in the arbitrator’s judgment that “it is not in accordance with the fundamental policy of Indian laws and can be set aside as per the pre-amendment of section 34”.

Beware about the messages you send on Whatsapp, Instagram or various social media platforms as they may land you in jail. Recently South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramphonsa signed an Act where certain types of messages on social media can land a person in jail for up to three years or fine or both. But what about India, without any specific Acts cops can still penalize you under the IT Act 2000, for various kinds of messages such as:
Sharing doctored videos or morphed photos of important people,
If a woman complains of harassment over WhatsApp, police can arrest you,
Impersonating and creating a fake WhatsApp account with someone else’s name,
Sharing p**n clips, especially child p**n, images or obscene material on WhatsApp,
Using WhatsApp to sell drugs or other prohibited things,
Spreading hate messages to provoke harm to any religion or place of worship,
Using WhatsApp to send hidden s*x clips or video clips of people filmed illegally or voyeurism can get you arrested,
Sharing fake news or multimedia files or rumors on sensitive topics to incite violence
India is a country where awareness about basic law is a privilege and understanding new laws and amendments pertaining to WhatsApp is an overestimation of everyone. Currently, there are no laws properly governing social media which ask for protection against arrest in the above-mentioned scenarios because a vague definition of any provision can result in abuse of power by the hands of government or police. Abuse of power has been seen in the landmark case of Shreya Shingla (2015) in which SC struck down section 66A but even after that around 1,307 cases were registered under the Section. =
A channel has been started by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to take immediate action against the culprits and Ashish Joshi (DoT controller communications) has said - "if any person receives any kind of abusive, vulgar or threat messages can report it at [email protected]."

May this Diwali fill your lives with new hopes, new dreams and new adventures for tomorrow.

With lots of love , wishing you a Happy Diwali from Team Legal WIND. Best wishes!🕯️❤️