 |
|
| Legal Brief |
| Newsletter by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. |
|
 |
| INSIDE THE LEGAL BRIEF |
- Feature Insight
- Brief Updates
- Success Highlights
- Spotlight
- Ask MHCO
|
|
MHCO Legal Brief :
Insights, Updates, and Expertise Unveiled |
| Stay ahead with MHCO’s latest legal insights, success stories, and expert guidance on emerging laws and industry developments. |
|
|
| Feature Insight |
| Inside the Legal Landscape |
|
Legal Insights - Limits on Investigating Authority to Freeze Bank Accounts
Introduction:
The Madras High Court (HC) ruled that investigating authorities cannot freeze the entire bank account of a suspect in financial fraud cases. Only the specific amount suspected to be involved in the crime can be frozen.
Section Applied:
Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaces the provisions of
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), grants police officers the power to seize property suspected of being stolen or linked to an offense. The seizure must be reported to the officer in charge and the Magistrate. If the property is perishable, of low value, or cannot be stored properly, it may be sold at auction. The person taking custody of seized property must execute a bond to ensure its production before the court.
Key Elements:
- Proportionality: The court emphasized that freezing the entire bank account would be disproportionate and infringe upon the suspect's fundamental rights, including the right to trade and the right to livelihood.
- Specificity: The court mandated that the investigating authority must clearly specify the amount suspected to be proceeds of the crime and only freeze that amount.
- Judicial Oversight: The court directed that the investigating authority must inform the jurisdictional court about the account freeze and obtain necessary approvals.
|
|
 |
Did You Know?
The Companies Act, 2013, introduced the concept of One Person Company (OPC), allowing solo entrepreneurs to establish a private company with limited liability—a first in Indian corporate history. |
 |
|
|
 |
Did You Know?
Under Rule 9b, private companies (excluding small companies) must dematerialize their shares for transparency. while the initial deadline was September 30, 2024, it has now been extended to June 30, 2025, according to a February 2024 notification issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. |
|
Legal Insights – MahaRERA Tribunal Orders Full Refund
Introduction
The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has ruled in favor of homebuyers under Section 18 of RERA, ordering a full refund, including all related costs, due to possession delays in the Ekta Parksville project.
Section Applied:
- Section 18 of RERA, 2016 – Grants homebuyers the right to a refund with interest if possession is delayed beyond the agreed timeline.
- The Tribunal modified MahaRERA’s earlier order, extending refund coverage to stamp duty, registration fees, MVAT, brokerage, and pre-EMI payments.
Key Elements:
- Homebuyers have an absolute right to withdraw if possession is delayed.
- Refund includes stamp duty, registration fees, MVAT, brokerage, and pre-EMIs paid.
- Interest awarded at 2% above SBI’s highest MCLR from payment dates.
- Developer must refund within 41 days or face additional penalties.
|
|
 |
|
| Brief
Updates |
| Capturing the fast paced changes |
|
 |
SEBI and Regulatory Communication
SEBI Update: SEBI has directed stock exchanges to establish an online repository platform for merchant bankers to streamline due diligence during public issues. This initiative mandates document uploads within specified timelines and aims to enhance record management and regulatory oversight. Learn More.
SEBI Update: SEBI has banned influencer Asmita Patel and seized INR 536.7 million for unregistered investment advisory services on social media. This action underscores SEBI’s focus on investor protection, regulation of online financial advice, and combating deceptive promotions. With 15,000+ entities under review, SEBI reinforces transparency and accountability in the financial market. Learn More. |
|
Arbitration Updates
Supreme Court Judgment on MSME Dispute Resolution
The Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between dispute-specific rulings and binding precedents, particularly concerning unregistered MSME rights under the MSMED Act. This landmark judgment reaffirms equitable access to dispute resolution and provides clarity for the legal community, protecting MSME interests and ensuring fairer treatment in contractual disputes. Learn More. |
Excerpts from Experts: Bombay HC on RERA and Arbitration
In M/s. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Rajendra kumar Pagariya & Ors., the Bombay High Court held that disputes covered under RERA are non- arbitrable, even if an arbitration clause exists in the agreement. The court emphasized RERA's comprehensive mechanism for protecting homebuyers' rights, stating that its statutory remedies cannot be overridden by arbitration clauses. Learn more. |
Excerpts from Experts: SC on Oral Contracts in Securities Transactions
In AC Chokshi Share Broker Pvt. Ltd. v. Jatin Pratap Desai & Anr., the Supreme Court ruled that a husband can be held jointly and severally liable for the debit balance in his wife’s trading account based on an oral contract. Upholding the arbitral award under BSE Bye-law 248(a), the Court rejected the High Court’s view that the arbitration lacked jurisdiction, reinforcing the validity of oral agreements in securities transactions. Learn More. |
|
|
| Success
Highlight |
| deals or judgements that MHCO procured. |
|
 |
|
Civil Dispute:
MHCO secured a successful outcome for the plaintiff, obtaining a refund of the earnest money despite challenges such as an incomplete agreement and public purpose restrictions. This case underscores our expertise in contract review and legal compliance in property transactions. |
Successful Securities Dispute:
In a recent securities dispute before the HC, MHCO successfully defended the exemption of companies undergoing corporate restructuring from delisting requirements. This judgment reinforces our expertise in insolvency and securities law, affirming the primacy of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in corporate restructuring.
|
Order Procured in Favor of Client:
MHCO successfully represented a client in a case where an individual offering investment advisory services without registration was penalized. Despite the individual’s claim of exemption as an "authorized person" for a brokerage firm, SEBI ruled that the exemption for sub-brokers did not apply. This decision emphasizes the critical importance of adhering to SEBI regulations and the need for proper registration to provide investment advice. |
|
|
| Spotlight |
| In the
Limelight. |
|
| In the 2025 edition of The Legal 500 Asia Pacific Rankings, Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. has been recognized across 9 practice areas. The firm has earned new rankings in Intellectual Property and achieved significant progress in Real Estate and Construction (City-focus Mumbai), elevating to Tier 1. MHCO continues to be a leader in Dispute Resolution and Commercial, Corporate, and M&A (City-focus Mumbai), reflecting the team's unwavering commitment to excellence. These accolades highlight the firm’s dedication to providing top-tier legal services to clients across diverse sectors. Learn More. |
|
|
| Spotlight |
| In the
Limelight. |
|
| Powering through the IP landscape, Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. has been recognized as a Notable Firm by AsiaIP for Trademark Contentious and Prosecution work. Additionally, the firm has been featured in the World Trademark Review 1000 2025 Rankings for Enforcement & Litigation and Prosecution & Strategy. This double win underscores our dynamic team's commitment to excellence and our leading position in the IP arena. |
|
| Moreover, our partners, Bhushan Shah and Meeta Kadhi have also beenrecognised individually by World Trademark Review 1000. |
|
|
Ask Mansukhlal
Hiralal & Co. |
Breaking
down complex
legal issues for you |
|
 |
|
In this edition, we have Bhushan Shah, Partner at Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., breaking down a recent query: “How do the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 impact Consent Managers for e-commerce entities?”
Bhushan explains: The draft Rules impose clear responsibilities on Consent Managers, mandating them to be incorporated in India with the necessary technical and financial capacity. These managers must act transparently and in a fiduciary capacity, ensuring no conflicts of interest with Data Fiduciaries. The Rules also require proper record-keeping, audit mechanisms, and compliance reporting, making the role of Consent Managers critical for e-commerce entities in managing user consent securely and effectively. |
 |
Bhushan Shah
Partner |
|
 |
You can send your legal queries to ask@mhcolaw.com for expert advice in the next newsletter! |
|
|
| We sincerely thank our clients, colleagues,
and partners for their ongoing support. Your
trust fuels our growth, and together, we look
forward to reaching new heights. |
 |
|
 |
 |
Address |
| Surya Mahal, 2nd Floor 5, Burjorji Bharcha Marg
Fort, Mumbai-400 023 India |
| C-9, Lower Ground Floor Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014 India |
 |
Telephone |
| +91-22-40565252 / +91-11-40196496 |
 |
Website |
| www.mhcolaw.com |
|
|
 |
Subscribe our
Newsletter to get
regular updates! |
|
This newsletter has been published on 15 Jul 2025.
