India

New Delhi, July 22, 2025: Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys (LKS) has announced the elevation of sixteen lawyers from Partner to Executive Partner, reinforcing the firm’s continued focus on nurturing leadership and advancing legal excellence across its practice areas. Speaking about the new promotions, Mr. V Lakshmikumaran, Managing Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, said, “These promotions are a testament to the extraordinary talent and dedication within our firm. Each new Executive Partner brings unique perspectives and deep expertise that will not only enhance our service delivery but also drive the firm’s long-term vision. I am confident their leadership will further strengthen our standards and create enduring value for our clients. My warmest congratulations to all on this well-deserved achievement.’’ These elevations show the commitment of the firm to emerging practice areas, strategic growth in key industries as also geographies in India. The new Executive Partners embody the firm’s values of excellence, knowledge and commitment to clients. The promotions will take effect from 01st July 2025. Partners elevated to Executive Partners Name Practice Areas Office Location Amar Pratap Singh Tax Chandigarh Asish Philip Abraham Corporate and Tax Mumbai Atul Gupta Tax Prayagraj Devinder Bagia International Trade and WTO New Delhi Gaurav Dayal Corporate M&A New Delhi Jaya Pandeya Intellectual Property New Delhi Krati Singh Tax Chandigarh Narendra S Dave Tax Hyderabad Rahul Tangri Tax Kolkata Rajesh Ostwal Tax Mumbai S K Noorul Hassan Corporate M&A Hyderabad Shweta Kathuria Tax New Delhi Sriram S Tax Mumbai Syed Maqdum Peeran Disputes Bengaluru Vinay Kumar Jain Tax Mumbai Yogendra Aldak Disputes New Delhi About Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan attorneys Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (LKS) is a premier full-service law firm in India, specializing in areas such as corporate & M&A/PE, dispute resolution, taxation and intellectual property. The firm, through its 14 offices across India, works closely on Corporate, M&A, litigation and commercial law matters, advising and representing clients both in India and abroad. Over the last nearly 4 decades the firm has worked with over 15,500 clients which range from start-ups, small & medium enterprises, to large Indian corporates and multinational companies. The professionals within the firm bring diverse experience to service clients across sectors such as automobiles, aviation, consumer electronics, e-commerce and retail, energy, EPC, financial services, FMCG, hospitality, IT/ITeS, logistics, metals, mining, online gaming, pharma and healthcare, real estate and infra, telecom and media, and textiles. The firm takes pride in the value-based, client-focused approach that combines knowledge of the law with industry experience to design bespoke legal solutions. The firm’s driving principles to achieve our vision are integrity, knowledge and passion.    For more details contact:  Arnab Bhattacharya   +91 8287613705  [email protected]  Sakshi Sharma +91 9521867484 [email protected] www.lakshmisri.com 

INTRODUCTION The question of whether an improper or irregular arrest automatically entitles an accused to bail has been the subject of considerable judicial scrutiny. This issue has gained renewed significance with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), particularly Section 483, which governs the grant of bail. While the Constitution of India and various statutory provisions lay down procedural safeguards to protect the liberty of individuals, the law also seeks to ensure that criminal investigations are not impeded by mere technicalities. Courts have consistently struck a delicate balance between safeguarding individual rights and preserving the integrity of criminal investigations. The jurisprudence that has emerged affirms that procedural irregularities in arrest, such as non-compliance with procedure, do not, by themselves, constitute a standalone ground for grant of bail. Rather, the decision to grant bail must be grounded in a holistic appreciation of the facts and circumstances of each case. This article examines the recent Karnataka High Court decision of Edwin Thomas v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition Nos. 101502/2025 and 101503/2025 – Judgment dated April 29, 2025), particularly in light of recent developments under the BNSS, and underscores the principle that procedural lapses alone do not ipso facto justify the release of an accused on bail. STATUTORY OVERVIEW REGARDING ARREST The right to life and personal liberty is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of these rights except according to procedure established by law. This constitutional guarantee encompasses the right of an individual to be arrested only through lawful means and in strict adherence to statutory procedures. Furthermore, Article 22(1) of Constitution of India states that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice and Article 22(2) of Constitution of India states that every person who is arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest. In furtherance of these constitutional safeguards, Chapter V of the BNSS outlines certain safeguards, such as informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest, particulars of the offences for which arrest is made, and the right to bail, the right of an arrested individual to meet an advocate of their choice during interrogation, information as to the arrest of the person and where the arrested person is being held, to his relatives, friends or any other person mentioned by the arrested person, etc. These provisions, when read collectively, establish a comprehensive statutory framework designed to balance the powers of law enforcement authorities with the rights and liberties of individuals and echoes constitutional vision of fair procedure. Any deviation from these prescribed procedures can raise serious constitutional concerns and may invite judicial scrutiny regarding the legality of the arrest. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT’S RECENT DECISION In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka addressed whether procedural irregularities during an arrest automatically grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. In the case of Edwin Thomas v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition Nos. 101502/2025 and 101503/2025), the Petitioners claimed their arrests were illegal due to the local police not being informed. The Karnataka High Court clarified that procedural lapses do not automatically entitle someone to bail. It ruled that the arrests were not illegal, noting that the only irregularity was a failure to notify the New Delhi police during the transfer of the Petitioners, which the investigating officer apologized for. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Petitioners were not entitled to automatic bail and could seek legal action regarding their arrest, but the arrests themselves were deemed proper. To substantiate their claim, the Petitioners placed strong reliance on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269) and Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (2025 SCC OnLine SC 240). Both judgments pertain to instances where the Court found serious lapses in the process of arrest and recognized the breach of fundamental rights as a ground to grant relief to the accused and were considered to be misplaced. In the case of Vihaan Kumar, the Supreme Court intervened in light of a clear violation of the statutory safeguards and emphasized the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, in the case of Subhash Sharma, it was observed that the arrest had been carried out in flagrant disregard of procedural requirements mandated by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Accused was denied access to legal representation and basic rights. These cases involved egregious violations which were absent in the present matter. In the instant case, the Petitioners have not alleged any grave violation of their fundamental rights such as illegal detention, denial of legal counsel, or inhuman treatment in custody and neither have the Petitioners alleged that the grounds of arrest were not informed to them. Instead, the foundation of the Petitioners’ argument is based solely on a procedural lapse, which, by itself, does not render the arrest illegal in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or mala fide intent on the part of the police authorities. Furthermore, the Petitioners had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing a habeas corpus petition concerning the very same arrest. During the course of those proceedings, the Investigating Officer had tendered an unconditional and voluntary apology before the Court, acknowledging the procedural oversight, which the Petitioners had accepted without any objection. The said habeas corpus petition was thereafter voluntarily withdrawn by the Petitioners without pressing any further claim of illegal arrest. Therefore, it is evident that the Petitioners had already waived any grievance related to the arrest by accepting the apology of the investigating authorities and by choosing not to pursue the habeas corpus remedy to its logical conclusion. Hence, the Petitioners could not raise the same contention as ag round for bail. This is in consonance with the concurring decision of Justice Bela Trivedi in the case of Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 449) where she voiced that, minor procedural lapse on the part of authorized officers may not be seen with a magnifying glass by the courts in the exercise of judicial review, which may ultimately end up granting undue advantage or benefit to the accused persons. The observation was made in relation to special acts and not with respect to offences under IPC / BNS. CONCLUSION The case of Edwin Thomas presents a significant judicial pronouncement that draws a fine line between procedural irregularity and illegality in the context of arrest and custody. While the Indian judiciary has time and again reiterated that violations of procedural safeguards, especially those impacting fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, can render an arrest unlawful and illegal, this protection cannot be extended to cover every minor lapse or technical omission by the investigating agency. The Karnataka High Court, sends a clear signal that while procedural fairness is paramount, the same cannot be misused as a tool to escape prosecution. The Courts are duty-bound to protect individual liberty, but they must also prevent the dilution of criminal justice by frivolous or opportunistic claims framed on procedural grounds. The police authorities also have a duty to ensure that the arrest is conducted as per law and that the rights of the arrested person are not affected. More importantly, such lapses do not, by themselves, render the evidence adduced inadmissible, as courts are required to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case. Hence, this serves as a reaffirmation of the principle that the grant of bail must be governed by a holistic assessment of facts, legal merit, and judicial conscience—not by technicalities devoid of substance. It also reinforces the judiciary’s balanced approach in ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected without compromising the integrity and efficiency of criminal investigations.

A tragic incident recently occurred where an Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, after just taking off from Ahmedabad got crashed within a few minutes. In accordance with the Data from the Airport Authority, the last recorded altitude of the plane was at 625 feet off the ground, just immediately after takeoff. It flew just 2 km more. The flight was carrying 230 passengers and 12 crew members. However, except for one passenger, all the passengers and the crew members died on the spot.  Moreover, the flight crashed into the B.J. Medical College Hostel's mess and, as per the report, killed around 19 people and injured at least 60 more on the ground. The flight was a scheduled international passenger flight operated by Air India from Ahmedabad Airport in India to London Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom. After the 2010 air crash incident wherein the 2-year-old aircraft had crashed outside Mangalore airport in Karnataka on May 22, killing 158 people when it burst into flames after overshooting a tabletop runway and plunging into a nearby forest. This is the tragic incident wherein the Air India Flight 171 crashed and killed around 300 people. The Air India Flight 171 crashed in the B.J. Medical College Hostel's mess, causing damage to the properties nearby, approximately 2 square kilometres. This event has reportedly triggered what could be India's largest aviation liability, exceeding 1,000 crores. In this article, we will discuss and try to understand what kinds of liability arise because of this plane crash on the airlines and the country, and under which law. LAWS OF INDIA GOVERNING THE AIRPLANE INCIDENT The Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2012, were notified by the Central Government of India through a Gazette Notification. This notification was published as G.S.R. 536(E) on July 5, 2012. These rules were formulated based on the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) SARPs (Standards and Recommended Practices) and the Indian Civil Aviation scenario. The purpose of these rules was to establish a framework for investigating aircraft accidents and incidents, which led to the establishment of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB). As per the Definition of the Accident in the Act, it refers to an event related to the operation of a manned or unmanned aircraft occurring between boarding and disembarkation (for manned) or from readiness to engine shutdown (for unmanned), resulting in either: fatal or serious injury caused by being in or coming into contact with the aircraft or jet blast (excluding natural causes, self-inflicted harm, assaults, or injuries to hidden stowaways); aircraft damage or structural failure affecting performance or safety, requiring major repair or replacement (excluding minor or localized damage to components like engines, propellers, tires, or panels); or the aircraft being missing or completely inaccessible. In these types of cases of aircraft accidents, the airline is primarily liable for compensating victims, and the amount can vary. For international flights, the Montreal Convention sets a minimum compensation of around 1.4 crore per passenger, while domestic flights are also subject to this convention's standards. However, if negligence on the airline's part is proven, the compensation can exceed this capped amount. The Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2012, and subsequent amendments primarily focus on the investigation process and don't directly dictate compensation amounts, but they do establish the framework for investigation and reporting. The Air India Flight 171 took off from Ahmedabad Airport in India and was going to London Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom, which means it was an International flight. Therefore, the liability would be covered under an International Convention. In this case, the damage caused to the passengers will be governed under the Montreal Convention, 1999, also known as the 'Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air'. Montreal Convention, 1999 India was the 91st country to ratify the Montreal Convention 1999. The Convention was effective for India on 30th June 2009, wherein the death of a passenger, there is a strict liability of 100,000 SDRs. As per Article 17, the liability of an air carrier is limited under specific conditions. The carrier is liable for a passenger’s death or bodily injury only if the accident occurred on board the aircraft or during embarking or disembarking operations. As per Article 21, the air carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability for passenger death or injury damages up to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) per passenger. For damages exceeding this amount, the carrier is not liable if it proves that the harm was not due to its own negligence or that of its employees or agents, or that the damage was entirely caused by a third party’s negligence or wrongful act. The SDR is an international reserve asset created by the IMF to supplement the official reserves of its member countries. As per Article 24, the SDR amounts are reviewed and adjusted every 5 years for inflation. Thereafter, the current SDR amount is updated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in the month of October,2024. As per the reports, one SDR is equal to 122 INR. The Kerala High Court division bench in the case of National Aviation Company Of India Ltd vs S.Abdul Salam dated 25.10.2011 has held that while an air carrier’s liability for passenger death or injury in an air accident is unlimited, only actual damages proven by the victim or claimants are payable, either through settlement or by a competent civil court. The law does not mandate any minimum compensation under Rule 21(1) or any other provision, although carriers are encouraged to offer reasonable ex gratia payments to avoid prolonged litigation. In the absence of a settlement, claimants must establish the extent of damages in court. The carrier may defend itself by proving contributory negligence on the part of the passenger. For claims exceeding the threshold, the carrier can escape additional liability only by proving that the accident was not due to its own or its agents' negligence, or was solely caused by a third party, failing. Judgement Link Who is to claim compensation The legal heirs or dependents of the deceased can file a claim for compensation. In case of injury, the passenger themselves can do so. The amount depends on the proof of damage or loss (for claims beyond the strict liability limit). As per Article 33, an action for damages may be initiated, at the plaintiff’s choice, in the territory of a State Party either where the carrier is domiciled, has its principal place of business, where the contract was made through a business location, or at the place of destination. In cases involving death or injury of a passenger, the plaintiff may also sue in the State where the passenger had their principal and permanent residence at the time of the accident, provided the carrier operates services to or from that State under its own or a partner carrier’s aircraft, and conducts its business from premises it owns or leases. CONCLUSION The tragic crash of Air India Flight 171, resulting in nearly 300 fatalities and massive property damage, marks one of the most catastrophic aviation disasters in India’s history, raising critical questions about airline accountability and systemic safety failures. Governed by the Montreal Convention, 1999, and India’s Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents and Incidents) Rules, 2012, the legal framework mandates strict liability up to 100,000 SDRs per passenger, with scope for higher compensation if negligence is proven. Legal heirs of the deceased can seek damages through various jurisdictions, though claims beyond the fixed threshold require evidence and may involve prolonged litigation. The crash not only exposes the country to liabilities exceeding ₹1,000 crore but also highlights the urgent need for stronger aviation safety standards, accountability mechanisms, and crisis response systems to prevent such devastating incidents in the future. Author: Mr Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan, Partner Co-Author: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Assessment Intern

SNG & Partners represented investors and the debenture trustee in relation to the issuance of rated, listed, senior, secured, redeemable, taxable, transferable non-convertible debentures (NCDs) aggregating to a total of INR 500 Crores by Lodha Developers Limited, formerly known as Macrotech Developers Limited (Lodha Developers), one of India’s largest and most prominent real estate developers. The NCDs were issued in two issuances comprising (i) 20,000 debentures of face value INR 1,00,000 each, and (ii) 30,000 debentures of face value INR 1,00,000 each, aggregating to INR 500 crores. The debentures were privately placed and subsequently listed on the stock exchange, marking a significant capital mobilisation by the company. The issuances attracted participation from some of India’s most prominent and sophisticated institutional investors, including a leading mutual fund and a major private sector bank—underscoring strong market confidence in the company’s performance and governance standards. Lodha Developers is a key player in India’s real estate sector with a diversified and expansive portfolio spanning residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments. With a strong footprint in core urban markets such as Mumbai, Pune, and Bangalore, Lodha Developers is known for delivering high-quality developments under marquee brands such as “Lodha,” “CASA by Lodha,” and “Crown – Lodha Quality Homes”. Lodha Developers’ vision and execution continue to shape the urban real estate landscape in India. The funds raised through this issuance are intended to be utilised towards Lodha Developers’ capital expenditure, refinancing of existing debt, meeting long-term working capital requirements, and general corporate purposes—forming an integral part of the company’s broader strategy to optimise its capital structure and fuel future growth. SNG & Partners acted as legal counsel to the investors and the debenture trustee, advising on all aspects of the transaction including structuring of the issuance, drafting, reviewing, and negotiating the transaction documents, conducting legal due diligence, and overseeing regulatory compliances leading to successful listing of the debentures on the stock exchange. The transaction was led by Aditya Vikram Dua (Partner & Head – Financial Services), with Aniket Sawant (Associate Partner), Parvathi Menon (Senior Associate), Kartikeya Rao (Associate) and Prashant Dubey (Associate) forming the core team that provided end-to-end legal support and seamlessly executed the transaction within tight timelines. This transaction further reinforces SNG & Partners' deep-rooted capabilities and experience in the debt capital markets space and its commitment to delivering high-quality, solution-oriented legal services in complex financing transactions.