Demystifying Economic Crimes under the IPC | Sr. Adv. Vikas Pahwa | Nyaya Forum

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 7. 05. 2020
  • NYAYA Forum for Courtroom Lawyering presents a Webinar Series on Practical Skills for Litigation.
    Session No 7: Demystifying Economic Crimes under the IPC.
    Panelist - Mr Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate.
    This lecture uncovers knowledge on various economic crimes with specific reference to Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, and Forgery under the IPC. Economic crimes as an area of practice will have a wide scope in the future as between the 1970-2000s we are seeing a gradual change in the nature of the crime; from crimes of passion to smart crimes. Understanding the mens rea elements in this chapter under IPC can help in a better understanding of economic crimes under special enactments.
    Mr. Vikas Pahwa is a criminal lawyer with over 27 years of experience in the field. He was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Delhi High Court in July 2011. Earlier in January 2008, he was appointed as Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi State in the Delhi High Court representing the Delhi Police. In January 2009 he was also appointed as the Standing Counsel for the CBI. He has been primarily practicing on the criminal side and has been seen doing cases in India and Overseas. He has appeared before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Greece and The Court of Dubai International Financial Center to name a few.
    He handles cases in Criminal Law including the cases pertaining to Anti-Corruption Laws, PMLA, NDPSA, FEMA, SFIO cases, Official Secrets Act, Fraud/Forgery Cases, COFEPOSA, NSA, etc. He has also represented various Multinational Corporations, Banks, Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies, and Individuals before various Courts and Tribunals throughout the country. He has successfully prosecuted ‘Maruti Suzuki Indian Limited-Manesar Factory Riot case’; he appeared pro bono for ‘Association for the Victim of Uphaar Tragedy’ and ‘Meerut Fire Tragedy’ to name a few.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    For future updates on events join our telegram community: t.me/+6P1lZyYgW_o0NTk9

Komentáře • 10

  • @yashguptapalwal
    @yashguptapalwal Před 4 lety +8

    *_Series of what sir said:-_*
    1. Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr ,2000
    2. S.W. Palanitkar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr, 2001
    3. Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others,1999
    4. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors, 2008
    5.M/S Thermax Ltd.& Ors vs K.M.Johny & Ors, 2011
    6.S.K. Alagh vs State Of U.P. & Ors, 2008
    7. Maksud Sayed v. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2008

  • @salmanlaw309
    @salmanlaw309 Před 4 lety +4

    Informative...a very practical webinar..a cut above the rest,pls keep on,God bless..

  • @adarshnigam1917
    @adarshnigam1917 Před 5 měsíci

    Great need more like this sir❤

  • @yashguptapalwal
    @yashguptapalwal Před 4 lety +3

    1. Mohd ibrahim vs state,2009- s.464
    2. Sheila Sebastian vs R.Jawaharaj,2018
    3. Vesa holdings vs state of Kerala,2015- s. 420
    4. V.Y jose vs state of gujarat,2009

  • @shekhartalashilkar7063

    Excellent insight into Economic Offence. Thank you very much.

  • @anupammathur8618
    @anupammathur8618 Před 4 lety +1

    kindly upload session no 8

  • @shekhartalashilkar7063

    Excellent lecture

  • @commonerIndian
    @commonerIndian Před 4 lety +1

    brilliant

  • @kumarman76
    @kumarman76 Před 4 lety

    greatly informative

  • @judgeshrikrishnadagliya6753

    The lecturer is incorrect when he says that when cheating is accompanied by delivery of property then only it would be punishable under section 420.
    There can be no cheating without delivery (when delivery of the property is in question).
    The difference between 417 and 420 IPC is subtle: when the inducement is fraudulent, it is covered by 417; when it is dishonest, it is covered by 420. Delivery is essential in both the cases (when delivery of the property is in question).
    417 IPC is not confined to delivery of property alone. It is attracted even when inducement is to make a person do that which he would not do in case deception is not practiced etc.
    There are other points of difference also.