Siddhartha Associates- Siddhartha Jangam

  Landmark Ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the Applicability of BNSS vs CrPC In a recent and pivotal judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified how the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 interacts with the now-repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This ruling stems from a case involving Mandeep Singh, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act—a provision that deals with the dishonor of cheques. Case Background: Mandeep Singh, after being convicted, sought to file a criminal revision petition under Section 401 of the CrPC. However, the petition was filed 38 days after the deadline stipulated under the CrPC. Crucially, Singh filed this petition after July 1, 2024, the date on which the BNSS replaced the CrPC. The court had to decide whether the petition would be adjudicated under the BNSS or the CrPC. This decision was critical, as the new BNSS brought significant procedural changes, and there wa

  Comparative Analysis: Section 173 BNSS and Section 154 CrPC The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) have been cornerstones of the Indian legal system, with reforms introduced under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) marking significant changes. Two important sections to analyze are Section 173 of BNS and Section 154 of CrPC. While both deal with crucial elements of criminal investigations and procedures, the reform introduced through Section 173 of the BNS brings noticeable advancements and challenges in comparison to Section 154 of CrPC. This article provides a comparative analysis useful for legal practitioners. Section 154 of CrPC: First Information Report Section 154 of the CrPC relates to the process of recording First Information Reports (FIR). It mandates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense, if given orally, must be reduced to writing, and the person providing the information should sign the written s

  "Behind the Corporate Veil: Unveiling Legal Exceptions to Corporate Personhood" Introduction The principle of a separate legal entity, propounded in Salomon v. Salomon & Co., is a foundational concept in company law. Upon incorporation, a company becomes a distinct legal entity, and its dealings are conducted in its own name. This creates a 'veil of incorporation' that separates the company from its members. However, there are instances where the corporate veil may be lifted to expose the individuals behind the company, especially when justice or public interest demands it. This article explores the statutory and judicial exceptions to the doctrine of separate legal entity. Statutory Provisions The Companies Act, 2013 contains provisions where the corporate veil may be lifted, holding members or directors personally liable in certain cases. 1.       Reduction in Membership Below Statutory Minimum (Sec. 45): If the number of members falls below the

  Memorandum and Articles of Association under Companies Act 2013 Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association under Companies Act, 2013 Memorandum of Association Section 2(56) of the Companies Act 2013 defines a memorandum of association. It provides that a “companies act 2013 ” has two meanings: - The constitutive act as originally drafted; - The companies act as originally drafted refers to the companies act as it was when the company was incorporated. - The Companies Act as amended from time to time; - This means that all amendments made to the Memorandum of Association from time to time will also form part of the Memorandum of Association . - This section also states that amendments must be made in accordance with any previous company law or this law. Further, under section 399 of the Companies Act, 2013 , any person may inspect any document filed with the Registrar under the provisions of the Act. So, anyone who wants to deal with the company can know a

  Doctrine of Indoor Management: A Detailed Overview By Jangam Siddhartha Highcourt Advocate Introduction The ‘Doctrine of Indoor Management,’ also known as ‘Turquand’s Rule,’ is a well-established principle originating over 150 years ago. This doctrine emerged as an exception to the ‘Doctrine of Constructive Notice,’ providing a shield to outsiders engaging with companies. While the Doctrine of Constructive Notice aims to protect the company from outsiders, the Doctrine of Indoor Management safeguards the outsider from the company. Explaining the Doctrine of Indoor Management The Doctrine of Indoor Management emphasizes that an outsider dealing in good faith with a company can presume that internal company procedures have been properly followed. This presumption provides protection to third parties, assuming the company's internal actions align with its external commitments. The origin of this doctrine traces back to the landmark English case, Royal British Bank v.