A&A advised the Acquirer on the above transaction including conducting legal due diligence and closing of the transaction documents. The approximate deal value is INR 500 billion.

A&A Team included Mr. Uday S. Ahlawat (Managing Partner), Ms. Kavita Patwardhan (Partner), Ms. Disha Toshniwal (Senior Associate), Mr. Aman Chadha (Senior Associate), Ms. Shramona Sarkar (Associate), Mr. Sarthak Chawla (Associate) and Mr. Garv Sood (Associate). 

“This transaction was particularly interesting for us since it involved multiple parties from multiple jurisdictions and the brainstorming involved in structuring and closing the transaction documents. It was a wonderful experience to be leading this transaction.”

Kavita Patwardhan, (Partner) Ahlawat & Associates

The post Deal Update: A&A advises Dev Clever Holding PLC on the acquisition of Veative Labs Private Limited appeared first on LexForti .

According to the appellant, the State government had accepted the proposal of KUDA to allot 200 sq. yard developed plot free of cost to each of the 134 ex-employees of a mill in the form of a rehabilitation and welfare measure.

Knowing this, the 318 other retired workers who had opted for voluntary retirement along with the previous 134 workers made a representation before the government for allotting them the plot. However, the government rejected their request.

Aggrieved by this, the workers’ approached High Court. The single-bench High Court had allowed the writ petition, but upon appeal, the Division bench had set aside the judgment.

The appellants’ then approached the apex court wherein they contended that there stands no reasonable differentia between the 134 ex-employees who had taken voluntary retirement and remaining 318 who had also taken up the benefit of voluntary retirement.

The bench accepted the contentions made by appellant and stated that for a classification to be valid, they must stand two tests- the distinguishing rationale should be based on a just objective and the choice of differentiating two sets of persons ought to bear a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.

The bench further observed that there had been no justification for treating 318 ex-employees different from the 134 ex-employees.

Therefore, the bench restored the single bench judgment and directed the state government to allot plots to the remaining 318 ex-employees as well.

The post Right vested under Art. 14 violated when equals treated unequally- SC appeared first on LexForti .

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India had made several observations regarding the allegations against the government for intruding the privacy of general public.

It observed that it is its duty to uphold the constitutional expectations, rule of law and principles of natural justice without being affected by political rhetoric. However, it clarified that political thicket would not under any circumstance prevent the judiciary from raising voice against abuse of fundamental rights.

It addressed the issue of vulnerability of data stored in the cloud and stated that the technology can be useful and at the same time, might breach one’s private space by sharing the information with unauthorized authorities.

The Apex Court’s take on breach of individual’s privacy included every citizen’s right to be protected against violations of privacy. The bench reiterated that restrictions, if any, should pass the constitutional scrutiny as the restrictions ought to bear reasonable explanation.

Furthermore, the bench observed that surveillance is permitted, only when the statute provides so. Unless the surveillance runs on constitutional grounds, it could not be questioned by judiciary. However, the alleged intrusion/surveillance had been conducted without any mention of national security or national interest.

The bench also highlighted the protection to journalistic sources as the same remains primary condition for the freedom of press. The snooping techniques had potential chilling effect and had raised grave allegation on the infringement of basic fundamental rights.

The bench upheld the celebrated values like governmental transparency and openness as the same ensure free flow of information from citizens’ to State. The State ought to gather trust of general public as then only the latter would attain belief in former’s scheme and policies.

The post Indiscriminate spying on individuals not allowed unless statute provides so- SC on Pegasus Snooping case appeared first on LexForti .

In the instant case, the High Court of Kerala had held that petitioner (mother-in-law) could not be entitled to be a legal representative under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and thus dismissed her petition. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal.

The counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that petitioner had been living with the deceased and his family members and thereby is entitled to be treated as a legal representative for the purpose of determining the compensation.

The counsel further raised the issue whether the High Court had been justified in precluding petitioner as a legal representative of deceased. The bench addressed the issue by noting that Motor Vehicle Act does not explicitly define “legal representative.”

The bench defined the term as person who has been legally empowered to represent the estate of deceased person and receive compensatory benefits. The bench clarified that a legal representative might not necessarily be a legal heir.

Moreover, it emphasized on the fact that the term be given wider interpretative w.r.t the Chapter XII of Motor Vehicle Act and not be confined to spouse, parents and children of deceased. The bench highlighted the objective of this legislative, which is to provide monetary relief to the family of victims, and called for liberal interpretation in order to accomplish the underlying objective.

The bench also observed that nowadays it is not uncommon for the Indian Society to see a mother-in-law residing with her daughter and son-in-law. It agreed to the fact that mother-in-law can be a dependent on her son-in-law for maintenance.

The bench concluded the petition by addressing the situation of mother-in-law, who certainly suffered on account of her son-in-law’s death, and therefore, allowed the appeal by holding her as a legal representative of deceased.

The post Mother-in-law of a deceased a legal representative in a claim petition filed u/MV Act- SC appeared first on LexForti .

In the instant case, the prosecution witness confessed that he had been unable to identify any individual whom he had seen 11 years ago, however, he asserted that he would be able to identify the accused even though he has seen him for the first time 11 years ago, on the day of incident.

The division bench stated that usually there is presence of sufficient corroborative evidence to corroborate the testimony of witnesses.

The bench allowed the appeal filed by the accused who had been convicted under Section 55(a) of Kerala Akbari Act, and disbelieved the witness who had identified the accused in the court on the ground that he had seen him for the first time in 11 years.

The accused contended that since the TIP had not been conducted, the prosecution’s version could not be relied upon.

The bench, however, clarified that the TIP is a part of investigation and does not form part of substantive evidence.

The post SC on accepting and discarding the testimony of witnesses appeared first on LexForti .

The procedural history of this case has its traces in Trial Court’s order which dismissed the anticipatory bail application on similar grounds. The trial court denied the anticipatory bail to accused as proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been issued.

Thereafter, the accused approached the High Court which allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the state approached the apex court and placed reliance on the verdict of State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma.

The counsel contended that the person, against whom proclamation has been issued and the proceedings under above mentioned sections have been initiated, does not stand entitled to the benefit of relief under anticipatory bail.

The court accepted the contention of the counsel and noted that the High Court missed out on the facts which stated that the proceedings had already begun under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC.

The court allowed the appeal and observed that what matters the most is the nature of allegations and accusations, and not that the nature of accusation arising out of a business transaction.

The post An absconder, against whom proceedings have been initiated, not entitled to anticipatory bail- SC appeared first on LexForti .

Apart from Magistrate and Courts, the directions have also been issued to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to ensure that the undertrials remain informed about their fundamental rights.

The directions included not extending the custody of an undertrial prisoner mechanically with respect to Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the authorities have been directed to ensure that the right of an undertrial to seek default bail is not defeated under any circumstances, including principles of law and legislative mandates.

The single-judge bench specifically highlighted the provision under Section 167(2) of CrPC, 1973, and directed that neither the magistrate nor the court is empowered to mechanically extend the period of custody, for the maximum period of 15 days.

The bench explained that custody should be extended keeping in mind the 60^th, 90^th and 120^th day of completing the investigation and submitting the charge sheet. However, the same depends upon the nature of offence and applicability of a Special enactment.

The bench added that the format of custody warrant shall include a column which would indicate the date on which the default bail had been granted to the undertrial prisoner.

Moreover, the bench upheld the obligation of jail authorities to inform the undertrials regarding the date when their right to default bail accrues.

The bench took note of this issue in a case wherein a plea had been filed to challenge the Sessions Court order which dismissed petitioner’s revision petition, which had been filed for challenging the dismissal of application of default bail under respective provisions.

The post Order of remanding or extending the custody of undertrial a judicial function- Delhi HC appeared first on LexForti .

The background facts of this case include filing of an FIR against the power of attorney of the complainant and purchaser of the property. The bench examined the FIR and observed that the criminal proceedings had been adopted as a weapon to harass the purchaser.

Furthermore, it had been observed that the FIR did not disclose any criminal offence against the party and the relevant part of the charge sheet appeared to be vague.

The bench also addressed the powers extended to the High Court and stated that latter ought to examine whether a particular complaint discloses criminal offence; nature of allegation; or essential ingredients of the offence have been present or not.

Moreover, it reiterated that powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been designed with an objective to achieve the purpose that no criminal proceedings are initiated which aim at harassing the individuals.

The apex court bench allowed the appeal and clarified that there stands no doubt that even civil transactions might have criminal texture, however, it’s the duty of High Court to see whether a dispute of civil nature has been given color of criminal offence or not.

The bench quashed the criminal proceedings not just because a civil remedy is available but because neither the FIR nor the charge sheet could make out a criminal case against the appellant.

The post Civil dispute when given color criminal offence acts as a weapon of harassment- SC appeared first on LexForti .

In the instant petition, the petitioner sought for directions to the respondent, New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), in furtherance of permanently stopping the illegal hawking.

The bench expressed its displeasure over the uninterrupted practice of hawking in no vending areas and issued a “stern warning” to the officers of municipal corporation and Delhi Police to ensure strict compliance of the Supreme Court schemes and High Court orders.

The bench further stated that when it comes to writing letters and maintaining their record, the NDMC authorities appear to be very efficient, however, in case of actually abiding by their obligations with respect to ground work, they’ve failed miserably.

For the purpose of issuing directions, the bench relied on the photographs presented by the counsel on behalf of petitioner and the referred High Court precedents. The counsel showed photographs wherein scores of hawkers and vendors were found occupying the public spaces on pavements.

The bench observed that the photographs showed lack of concern of Delhi Police officers towards the unauthorized encroachments and their incompetence in ensuring the compliance of their own schemes.

Moreover, the bench highlighted that the salaries of employees are paid from time to time but they’ve failed miserably in discharging their duties. The bench added that the situation where garbage is collected and not removed, results in diseases like dengue, which the city of Delhi is currently facing.

The post Illegal hawking in No vending areas affects citizens’ Right to Life- Delhi HC appeared first on LexForti .

The complaint had been filed by Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) senior leader, Naeem Akhtar, in the year 2018 wherein it had been alleged that the Republic TV had broadcasted a news segment revolving around Khalid Jahangir’s letter which did not include complainant’s name yet the Editor-in-Chief had intentionally and deliberately mentioned his name while reporting about the same.

The letter included allegations of corruption and favoritism, and the complainant alleged that the anchors and journalist of Republic TV repeatedly mentioned his name in connection to the allegations raised in the letter.

The bench denied the allegations and stressed upon the duty of press to bring before the viewers’ news of day-to-day events relating to those public figures whose actions affect the public at large.

Furthermore, the bench observed that in cases where journalist publishes true report in respect of a public figure and their public functions, which already remain in public domain, it could not be said to be an intentional act to harm the reputation of such public figure.

The bench stated that publication of charges which concern public duties of a public figure and have already been recorded in a letter which is also in public domain, would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

It also highlighted that mens rea, a condition precedent to constitute the offence of defamation, had been absent in order to prove the intention or knowledge on part of accused to harm the reputation of complainant.

The bench therefore, quashed the proceedings and the complaint on the ground that no emanating offence had been disclosed against the petitioners.

The post J&K&L HC quashed defamation complaint filed against media-persons appeared first on LexForti .