While the general principles of asset tracing in India are set out in the trusts law, civil procedure and criminal law, the Indian courts have yet to substantively address these issues. The absence of precedent and jurisprudence is surprising given India's robust, if dilatory, judiciary and the circumstances that inform India's dismal ranking on the transparency index.
While Indian law recognises the supervening claim of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the conflicting demands of a claimant who has suffered fraud against the rights of such a bona fide purchaser have yet to be decided by Indian courts.
As set out in this chapter, the elements required for Indian courts to develop the jurisprudence for asset tracing already exist in Indian law, and this will arguably develop as efforts to increase transparency succeed. Interestingly, in India this may well develop at the criminal law level and not as a result of civil actions.
ii LEGAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
i Civil remedies
Tracing is the most sought remedy in respect of fraud under civil law. Recourse is generally available under contract law, company law and tort and trust law.
Law of tort
Generally, the law of tort in India is similar to the law of tort in England; consequently, fraud and conversion are recognised in India as follows:
- the act of wilfully making a false statement with the intent that the plaintiff acts in reliance on it, and which he or she does and suffers harm in consequence, is a fraud in tort;2
- fraudulent representation is an essential constituent of deceit. For a representation to be fraudulent, the person committing fraud must be aware of its falsity, or be indifferent to its truth, and have made the representation with the intent of inducing the victim to act on it and consequently cause him or her damage; and
- conversion is an act of wilful interference with movable property without lawful justification in a manner that is inconsistent with the right of another, thereby depriving the other of the use and possession of the movable.
Those who abet a tortious act have equal liability to those who commit the wrong. A person procuring a wrongful act from another is liable if he or she knowingly induces that wrongful act. All persons who aid, abet, direct or join in committing a wrongful act are joint tortfeasors who are liable jointly and severally to the injured party.
The principal remedy for a tort is an action for damages. In certain cases, an injunction restraining any dealing in or with the property obtained by fraud may also be obtained in addition to damages. Another remedy that may be available is specific restitution of property.
The principal legislation governing contracts in India is the Indian Contract Act 1872 (Contract Act). Section 19 of the Contract Act allows a party to nullify a contract in cases where consent to the contract by a person was caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.3 Any such person may also insist that the contract be performed and that he or she be put in the position in which he or she would have been if the representations made had been true.
Fraud under the Contract Act includes acts committed by a party to the contract, acts committed with that party's connivance, or acts committed by that party's agent, with the intent to deceive another party thereto or his or her agent, or to another party thereto or his or her agent, or to induce him or her to enter into a contract.4
In addition to claiming rescission of the contract on account of fraud (where the rescinding party is liable to restore any benefit received under a contract that is voidable),5 a claimant may also bring a civil suit for damages.
As a general rule, damages are calculated based on the position that a plaintiff would have been in had the representation been true, as opposed to the position he or she is in owing to the fraud.6 A claim for effective restitution would likely necessitate an action to trace a specific asset.
Fraud under the Companies Act 2013 (Companies Act)
Section 447 of the Companies Act defines fraud to include an act or omission with the intent to deceive or gain an advantage over, or to cause injury to, a company, its shareholders or its creditors, regardless of whether or not there is in fact any wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
Section 448 of the Companies Act additionally provides that any false statements made in, inter alia, the financial statements, prospectus and reports of a company will be treated as a fraud against the company.
Penalties for fraud in terms of the Companies Act include imprisonment and fine.
Interestingly, the Companies Act also allows for a company or any of its members, creditors or contributories to complain about the wrongful possession of any of the company's property by an officer or employee.7 While not strictly tracing, we believe that this is likely to provide the basis for a tracing action should facts permit an aggrieved party to seek this remedy.
The Companies Act stipulates that the fraudulent management of a company's affairs, including fraudulent acts or misconduct on the part of the management, and the formation of a company for unlawful or fraudulent purposes, are grounds for the compulsory winding up of a company.8
The police, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Directorate of Enforcement, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the National Company Law Tribunal are the authorities empowered to investigate economic offences, which may include fraud. While the SFIO was established in 2003 by the Indian government, it was established once again, after a review of its functioning, in 2015 under the Companies Act. In the year ending on 31 March 2017, the SFIO had completed 87 investigations, more than doubling the number of investigations completed in the year ending on 31 March 2015. We believe that over time it will be the principal investigative authority for matters concerning public fraud, while the police will continue to investigate economic offences against individual persons and companies.9
At Indian law, for every offence committed by a company or its officers, the company and the officer in default are held liable, as far as the Companies Act is concerned, making the directors and the management of the company vicariously liable for the acts of the company subject to their involvement in the conduct of its business.
The Indian Trusts Act 1882 allows beneficiaries of a trust to bring an action against trustees for a 'breach of trust', essentially being a breach of the trustees' duties towards the beneficiary.10 This would include improper acts such as fraud on part of the trustees of an express trust or a constructive trust.
If trust property reaches the hands of a third party inconsistently with the trust's aims, the beneficiary may institute a suit for a declaration that the property is comprised in the trust.11 Where a trustee has disposed of the trust property and the money or other property received can be traced into his or her hands, or the hands of his or her legal representative or legatee, the beneficiary has the same rights as he or she would to the original trust property.
ii Defences under civil law
The Sale of Goods Act12 and the Transfer of Property Act13 protect a buyer who, in good faith and without notice of defect in title, purchases an asset without notice of the vendor's defect in title to that asset. While these protections are circumscribed by the stipulations of the relevant statute, they should provide a defence to a tracing action where the asset concerned has been alienated by the counterparty to the impugned contract.
- an action for damages in tort would fail if the claim is not founded or is found to be malicious;
- at contract, Indian law provides for a carve out that, for consent caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of the Contract Act, the contract is nevertheless not voidable if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth;
- for breach of trust, a trustee may claim that the beneficiary has by fraud induced the trustee to commit the breach; or that the beneficiary, being competent to contract, willingly concurred with the breach, or subsequently acquiesced therein;14 and
- the Limitation Act 1963 prescribes the limitation period within which any claim may be filed, outside which time the claim will be dismissed by the courts irrespective of whether limitation is set up as a defence, unless a sufficient cause is shown for not raising the claim within the limitation period.15 If the knowledge of the right or title on which a claim is founded or any document to establish a claim is fraudulently concealed, the limitation period begins to run from the time the plaintiff discovers or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud; or from the time the plaintiff first had the means of producing or compelling the production of a concealed document.16 In the case of a continuing tort, the limitation period continues to run at every moment during which the tort persists.17
iii Remedies under criminal law
Offences and penalties under the Indian Penal Code 1860 (Penal Code)
The Penal Code is the principal legislation describing criminal offences, and it recognises acts of criminal conspiracy, criminal misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property, and forgery as offences.
The Penal Code defines 'fraudulently' and a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he or she does that thing with the intent to defraud, but not otherwise.18 To constitute fraud under the Penal Code, there must be deceit or an intention to deceive; and injury, actual or possible, or the intention to cause actual or possible injury.19 A general intention to defraud, without the intention of causing wrongful gain to a person or wrongful loss to another, is sufficient to cause conviction.20
The act of deceiving a person, fraudulently or dishonestly and thereby inducing him or her to deliver any property to any person, consent that the property be retained by any person, or commit an act or omission that causes or is likely to cause damage to the property, is punishable under the Penal Code as an offence of 'cheating'.
Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property by a person entrusted with that property constitutes an offence of 'criminal breach of trust'.
In sum, the act of fraud forms an essential component of several offences and the offender is liable to be proceeded against and convicted in accordance with the procedural laws prescribed in this respect.
Offences relating to property
Property that has come into a person's possession through theft, extortion, robbery or criminal misappropriation, or in respect of which criminal misconduct is committed, whether within or outside India, is construed as stolen property. However, if the stolen property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to its possession, it ceases to be classified as stolen property.21
Receipt22 and retention23 of stolen property are offences under the Penal Code. Habitual receiving and selling of stolen property and the act of assistance in the concealment of stolen property are recognised as separate offences under the Penal Code.
Courts have the power to trace and identify property that they reasonably believe to be stolen24 by conducting an inquiry, investigation or survey and for this purpose may issue summons for the production of any document or information that they consider necessary for the purpose of carrying out the investigation.25
Property identified as stolen is forfeited to the government free from all encumbrances.26 Where certain properties are commingled, the court will identify and specify to the best of its knowledge those properties it believes are the proceeds of crimes.27 When in respect of any property to be forfeited to the government the source of only part of the property is proven to be stolen, an option will be given to the person affected to pay a fine equal to the market value of that part of the property in lieu of forfeiture,28 upon payment of which the order of forfeiture shall be revoked.29
Unless expressly provided for, an abettor of an offence, where the act abetted is committed in consequence, is punishable with the same punishment as provided for the offence, unless the Penal Code makes a provision to the contrary.30 The term 'abetment' under the Penal Code includes the abetment of an act in India that is committed outside India and that would constitute an offence if committed in India.31
Offences associated with fraud are essentially cognisable and the law permits police officers to investigate any cognisable offence without the order of a magistrate. The police, after recording the relevant information,32 may arrest the persons concerned33 without a magistrate's order,34 and thereafter record the relevant information and produce the detainees before a magistrate.35
iv Defences under criminal law
Period of limitation
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code of Criminal Procedure) prescribes the period of limitation for cognisance of offences.36 However, limitation is prescribed only for those offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and irrespective of this bar, courts may take cognisance of an offence after the expiry of the limitation period in the interests of justice.
iii SEIZURE AND EVIDENCE
i Securing assets and proceeds
Efforts to secure assets may be taken pending the outcome of a claim and the procedures will vary depending on whether the claim is civil or criminal in nature.
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Code of Civil Procedure) sets out the procedural requirements for civil actions in India and provides options to the claimant for attachment before the judgment37 and appointment of a receiver.38
Attachment before judgment
At any stage of a dispute, if a court is satisfied that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove the whole or part of the property from the jurisdiction of the court with the intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant, the court may order the defendant to furnish security or to show cause as to why he or she does not need to furnish security.
If the defendant fails to do as ordered, the court may order the specified property to be attached. The attachment will, however, not affect any rights of third parties against the attached property that have accrued prior to the attachment; and not bar any person holding a decree against the defendant from applying for a sale of the attached property in execution of the decree.
Indian courts have viewed granting an order for attachment as a drastic and extraordinary measure to be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure when the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and the defendant is about dispose of his or her property.
Appointment of a receiver
A court may, when it considers it to be just and convenient, order:
- the appointment of a receiver of any property;
- remove from any person possession of the property;
- commit the property to the possession of the receiver; and
- confer rights in relation to the property on the receiver.
A receiver will not be appointed:
- unless the plaintiff proves prima facie that he or she has a very strong chance of succeeding in the suit and shows adverse and conflicting claims to the property along with some danger or emergency or loss of his or her own right demanding immediate action;
- if it has the effect of depriving a de facto possession, as that may cause irreparable wrong; and
- if the party making the application comes to court with unclean hands.
Additionally, the court must exercise sound and judicial discretion and must take into consideration all the circumstances of the case as may be required to provide justice.
Criminal proceedings may be more efficacious, as courts and the police have broader powers with respect to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The courts are, inter alia, authorised to issue summons for the production of any documents or information as may be considered necessary for an investigation or inquiry,39 and to issue search warrants,40 including to any place outside India with which the Indian government has made arrangements.41 A police officer may be authorised by a magistrate to, inter alia, enter and search any place and take into possession any property that is reasonably suspected to be stolen,42 or seize43 any property that he or she, on his or her own accord, suspects to be stolen or that creates suspicion of an offence.
ii Obtaining evidence
In civil proceedings, the plaintiff may apply to the court to issue summons requiring a witness to be present in court, or the court may suo moto summon for the same reason any person who, after the issuance of the summons, is under a duty to be present and give evidence, or produce any document in his or her possession or power, as may be directed by the court.
Where a party to a suit refuses to give evidence when required, the court may pronounce judgment against that party or make any order it deems fit.
In criminal proceedings, courts have the power to summon any person as a witness and examine them, or to examine any person in attendance,44 and to recall or re-examine any person at any stage of a proceeding.
iv FRAUD IN SPECIFIC CONTEXTS
i Banking and money laundering
Central bank regulations
The Reserve Bank of India regulates the banking sector in India and promulgated the Master Direction on Frauds dated 1 July 2016 (the Master Direction) to address, inter alia, frauds related to cheques and loans.
The Master Direction requires banks and financial institutions to frame policies for fraud risk management and investigation, and to report any discovered frauds. Any matter in which a criminal process has been initiated otherwise than by the police must be treated as a fraud.
The Master Direction was further amended to provide for an online, searchable central fraud registry based on instances of reported fraud. The registry is currently accessible only by banks.
The Reserve Bank of India has also released regulations limiting customer liability in unauthorised or fraudulent electronic banking transactions.47 These regulations require banks to provide mechanisms for reporting unauthorised electronic transactions and limit customer liability if the customer informs the bank of the unauthorised transaction within a specified number of days.
Under Indian law, any person who obtains a negotiable instrument by fraud is not entitled to claim the amount due thereon.48 However, a holder of such an instrument in 'due course' who acquired the instrument for consideration without notice of fraud may make such a claim.49
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 stipulates, inter alia, that the 'proceeds of crime' including any property obtained or increased in value, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity related to a scheduled offence under the Act, may be seized and forfeited. Where property is taken or held outside India, 'proceeds of crime' also include property equivalent in value held within India.
India has reciprocal arrangements with contracting states to deal with cases of money laundering.
Pursuant to extant law, an 'act of insolvency' includes transfer of property that would otherwise be void because of fraudulent preference were the debtor adjudged an insolvent. The property of the insolvent vests in the official assignee, and remedies against an insolvent are available to creditors only as prescribed under law.50
If during the insolvency resolution process or liquidation process of a company it is found that the business was being carried out with a fraudulent purpose or with the intent to defraud the creditors, action may be taken against the persons who were knowingly involved in carrying out the business, including requiring them to make such contributions to the assets of the company as may be deemed fit. An officer of the company may also be punished for commission of fraud prior to the insolvency commencement date.51
An order of discharge operates against liabilities, save for those incurred as a consequence of fraud or as means of any fraud. A fraud by the debtor is grounds for refusal of absolute discharge.
In 2009, a division bench of the Supreme Court of India had held that an issue of fraud requires adducing and elaborate examination of evidence, and is therefore beyond the competency of an arbitrator.52 However, in 2014,53 a single judge of the Supreme Court of India held in favour of the arbitrability of fraud while noting that allegations of fraud to void an arbitration contract for delaying or avoiding reference to arbitration have become routine.
A division bench of the Supreme Court settled the position in October 201654 by holding that a mere allegation of fraud cannot be reason to set aside an arbitration agreement and the court can only set aside an arbitration agreement if:
- the allegations of fraud are so serious that they may constitute a criminal offence;
- the allegations of fraud and resulting issues are so complex that they can be decided only by a civil court upon the review of voluminous evidence; and
- fraud is alleged against the arbitration provision itself or the parent contract.
iv Fraud's effect on evidentiary rules and legal privilege
In certain cases, fraud has the effect of relaxing strict evidentiary rules. Illustratively, ordinarily, to give contents of a document that are in the possession of another party as secondary evidence, notice must be given to the party possessing the document except if the party has obtained possession of the document by fraud. Similarly, oral evidence, usually inadmissible, is permitted where fraud is sought to be proven as a ground to invalidate the contract.55
Separately, while information received by lawyers during the course of their engagement is privileged and confidential, the prohibition from disclosure ceases to apply where the lawyer has observed any fact showing that any fraud has been committed after the commencement of his or her engagement.56
v INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS
i Conflict of law and choice of law in fraud claims
While there are no specific rules in relation to fraud claims, Indian courts generally respect an express choice of the parties in relation to the law governing the contract provided that the choice is 'bona fide and legal'.57 The law chosen must relate to the subject matter of the contract or the parties in some manner, and must not be designed to overcome some specific prohibitions prescribed in the laws of the jurisdictions in which the parties reside or to which the transaction in some manner relates. Consequently, where the fraud arises out of a contract with an express choice-of-law provision, sufficient nexus needs to be established for an Indian court to honour the provision.
ii Collection of evidence in support of proceedings abroad, and seizure of assets or proceeds of fraud in support of the victim of fraud
In criminal proceedings, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance (the Ordinance) provide enabling provisions to secure the arrest of persons and the seizure of property with respect to contracting states with which India has arrangements.
If a court in India receives a warrant of arrest issued by a court in a contracting state for any person requiring him or her to attend or produce any document or thing, it may execute the warrant as if it were issued within India.
Where the government receives a letter from a contracting state requesting attachment of property in India resulting from the commission of an offence in that state, the government may forward the letter to an Indian court, which may authorise the tracing of the property. If the property is believed to be concealed or disposed of by the police officer conducting the search, the property may be seized. Further, as a result of the investigation and after hearing the affected person, if it is established that the properties are the proceeds of a crime, the court may forfeit the properties in favour of the government.
In civil proceedings, Rules 18 to 22 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure allow a high court to issue a commission for examination of a witness situated in India upon a request made by a foreign court to obtain the evidence of that witness in any proceeding before it.
iii Enforcement of judgments granted abroad in relation to fraud claims
To enforce a foreign decree or a judgment passed by a court located in a reciprocating territory, an execution application may be filed in an Indian court having competent jurisdiction (such as a court within whose jurisdiction the immovable property of the judgment debtor is located)58 under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the decree of judgment may be executed in India as if it had been passed by an Indian court.59
In respect of a court located in any country other than a 'reciprocating territory', a fresh suit upon judgment may be filed within three years of the date of the foreign judgment. The foreign suit will be treated merely as evidence against the defendant and will not be binding on the Indian courts. However, where a certified copy of the foreign judgment is produced, Indian courts will proceed on the assumption that it was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. While considering the foreign judgment, Indian courts are not permitted to decide on the accuracy of the judgment, but only to ensure that the foreign court has applied its mind to the facts of the case and the law on the point.60
iv Fraud as a defence to enforcement of judgments granted abroad
Any judgment or decree would be enforced in India unless the judgment:
- has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction or on the merits;
- on the face of it is founded on an incorrect view of international law, or has not recognised Indian law where that law is applicable;
- was obtained in proceedings opposed to natural justice or by fraud; or
- sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.61
Courts have previously held that a foreign judgment would be hit by Section 13(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e., inconclusive on account of being obtained by fraud) where the foreign court was misled or tricked, as a result of which the judgment or order came to be passed.62 However, the Supreme Court of India, while noting that there is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery, has observed that while a judgment cannot be set aside on the ground in the case of former, it ought to be set aside in cases of the latter.63
vi CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Indian government has, over the past few years, taken several measures to curb the use of 'black money', namely money held outside the formal economic system. In 2015, the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 was notified to address the issue of undisclosed income and assets held outside India by Indian residents. In 2016, the Income Declaration Scheme was declared, which permitted taxpayers to disclose previously undisclosed domestic income and assets subject to payment of tax, a surcharge and a penalty with respect to the income and assets disclosed.
Asset tracing is currently neither an effective nor efficient remedy in India. According to the Reserve Bank of India's Financial Stability Report dated 26 June 2018, the monetary value of frauds in 2017–2018 increased to more than 300 billion rupees, with public sector banks accounting for about 85 per cent of this total. However, there have been recent instances of attaching the wrongdoer's assets, such as the 'Punjab National Bank Scam', involving more than US$2 billion and allegedly driven by the diamond dealer Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi, the prime accused. Based on a report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Enforcement Directorate registered a money laundering case against the accused for cheating Punjab National Bank into issuing fraudulent letters of understanding in connivance with certain bank officials, without complying with the procedural requirements, causing immense financial loss to the bank. The Enforcement Directorate is in the process of attaching the accused's assets for allegedly engineering the scam. However, the accused absconded in February 2018, well before the news broke in India, and are purportedly in the United Kingdom, continuously changing locations. The Indian government is currently seeking the extradition of the accused.
Following the scam, the Reserve Bank of India decided to discontinue the practice of issuance of letters of understanding and letters of comfort for trade credits for imports into India.64
Given the increasing number of financial frauds and instances of offenders fleeing India to evade the process of law, the Ordinance was promulgated on 21 April 2018. The Ordinance essentially empowers the investigating agency (i.e., the Enforcement Directorate) to attach the properties of the fugitive economic offender that are proceeds of crime in India and abroad prior to convicting the offender for the scheduled offence and paying off the lenders by selling off the confiscated properties.
It is essential that tracing develops and is recognised as an appropriate remedy in Indian law. At this time, it is unclear whether the lead will be taken by the courts of civil law or the courts addressing criminal matters, but we hope that there will be significant progress on these matters in the near future. Arguably, in the absence of effective asset tracing, the government's stated objective of improving transparency will remain, in large measure, unfulfilled.
1 Justin Bharucha and Sonam Gupta are partners at Bharucha & Partners.
2 Bradford Building Society v. Borders, 1941 2 All ER 2015.
3 Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; a promise made without any intention of performing it; and any other act fitted to deceive, or any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. However, it is also clarified that failure to disclose a fact will not constitute fraud, unless circumstances show that an individual had a duty to speak, or that silence would amount to speech. This would be the case, for example, where parties stand in a fiduciary relationship to one another.
4 Section 17 of the Contract Act.
5 Section 64 of the Contract Act.
6 The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, Pollock and Mulla, 13th edition.
7 Section 452 of the Companies Act.
8 Section 271 of the Companies Act.
9 The SFIO is charged to investigate cases characterised by complexity and having interdepartmental and multidisciplinary ramifications; and substantial involvement of public interest to be judged by size, either in terms of monetary misappropriation or in terms of persons affected and the possibility of investigation leading to or contributing towards a clear improvement in systems, laws and procedures.
10 Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act 1882.
11 Section 63 of the Indian Trusts Act 1882.
12 Which applies to property not being immovable property subject to the Transfer of Property Act.
13 Which applies to immovable property.
14 Section 23 of the Indian Trusts Act 1882.
15 Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1963.
16 Section 17 of the Limitation Act 1963.
17 Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963.
18 Section 25 of the Penal Code.
19 The Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 32nd edition, p. 106.
20 Dhunum Kazee, 1882 9 Cal 53, 60.
21 Section 410 of the Penal Code.
22 Section 411 of the Penal Code.
23 Section 412 of the Penal Code.
24 Section 105C(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 105D(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25 Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
26 Section 105H(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
27 Section 105H(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
28 Section 105I(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
29 Section 105I(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
30 Section 109 of the Penal Code.
31 Section 108A of the Penal Code.
32 Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
33 Including suspects.
34 Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
35 Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
36 Sections 467–468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
37 Section 60 and Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
38 Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure.
39 Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
40 Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
41 Section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
42 Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
43 Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
44 Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
45 Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
46 Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
47 Reserve Bank of India Circular on Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions, dated 6 July 2017.
48 Section 58 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
49 The bona fide purchaser would also be protected in respect of property discussed earlier.
50 In December 2016, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs started notifying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 in tranches. Part III of the Insolvency Code governing individuals is yet to be notified.
51 Sections 66 and 73 of the Insolvency Code.
52 N Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers & Ors, 2009 (13) SCALE 403.
53 Swiss Timing Limited v. Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010, AIR 2014 SC 3723.
54 A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam & Ors, AIR 2016 SC 4675.
55 Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
56 Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
57 British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries and Ors (1990) 3 SCC 481.
58 Illustratively, the United Kingdom, Aden, Fiji, Singapore, Malaya, Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, the Cook Islands (including Niue) and the Trust Territories of Western Samoa, Hong Kong, Papua and New Guinea, Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.
59 Section 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
60 Formosa Plastic Corporation Ltd v. Ashok Chauhan & Ors 76 (1998) DLT 817.
61 Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
62 Maganbhai Chottubhai Patel v. Maniben, AIR 1985 Guj 187.
63 Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1974 SC 1764.
64 Reserve Bank of India Circular on Discontinuance of Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) and Letters of Comfort (LoCs) for Trade Credits dated 13 March 2018.