Kavitha Gupta's blog

INBA-IAPP Privacy Summit 2015 – an insightful beginning to an informative innings for privacy in India With the lighting of lamp began one of India’s long awaited summit on the subject of privacy. On 23 rd  September, 2015, Indian National Bar Association (‘INBA’) represented by Kaviraj Singh, Secretary General and S.Ramaswamy Chairman, General Counsel Section and International Association of Privacy Professionals (‘IAPP’) represented by Rajesh Kumar and Kavitha Gupta, Co-Chairs of the Bangalore KnowledgeNet Chapter, who came together to host the first ‘Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security’ summit at ITC Gardenia, Bengaluru.  The event started with a Welcome Address note from Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Chinnappa (Retd), Chairman, State Police Complaint Authority, on the recent technological evolutions and the increasing amount of cybercrimes that are compromising individual rights to privacy. This was followed by thoughts shared by Mr. Kaviraj Singh, Secretary General, INBA, V

Repudiation of secret recordings of superiors and colleagues by employees Newsletters September 09 2015 | Contributed by S Horowitz & Co Employment & Benefits Israel The phenomenon of employees secretly recording their superiors and colleagues has become widespread. The reasons are varied – the employees may be: involved in a crisis; preparing for a lawsuit; or recording just in case, with no immediate reason. Often employees act upon legal counsel that the recording of a conversation in which they participate does not constitute a criminal offence, and that the contents of the recording will be valid as evidence if the dispute ends up in court. However, the lawfulness of hidden recordings and their validity as evidence do not reflect the whole picture, which includes aspects of inappropriate conduct on the part of the employees that may amount to dishonesty and breach of faith. When a cou

The Supreme Court of India has held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.  The court further held that in order to bring a case for the offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made, but, it is further necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made in order to deceive the complainant. Distinction between mere breach of contract and the cheating would depend upon the intention of the accused at the time of alleged inducement.  If it is established that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the very time when he made a promise and entered into a transaction with the complainant to part with his property or money, then the liability is criminal and the accused is guilty of the offence of cheating. On the other hand, if all that is est

Two Indian parties opting for foreign-seated arbitration: no bar? Nishith Desai Associates India October 14 2015 Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds arbitration agreement mandating two Indian Parties to take recourse to a foreign-seated arbitration with foreign substantive law; Holds that the resultant award would be a ‘foreign award’, as envisaged under Part II of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996; This is a step forward in the longstanding debate on whether arbitration proceedings between two Indian entities can be seated in a foreign country. BACKGROUND The Madhya Pradesh High Court (“ Court ”) in its recent decision in  Sasan Power Ltd  v . North America Coal Corporation India Pvt Ltd  1  has held that two Indian parties may conduct arbitration in a foreign seat under English law. The Court relied upon an earlier decision of a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India (“ Supreme Court ”) in  Atlas Exports Industries  v . Kotak & Company