Carrying on business of a corporate debtor with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose — an offence under Section 66 of the IBC that creates personal liability for directors and others who knowingly participated.
Explanation
Section 66 of the IBC deals with two distinct categories: (a) Fraudulent trading — where the corporate debtor's business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors; and (b) Wrongful trading — where directors knew the company would be unable to avoid insolvency but did not minimise potential loss. For fraudulent trading (Section 66(1)), the NCLT may declare that any persons who knowingly participated are personally liable for the company's debts. This is a significant provision — it can pierce the corporate veil and make individuals personally liable for corporate debts where fraud is involved. For wrongful trading (Section 66(2)), directors who failed to take steps to minimise potential loss when insolvency was inevitable may be held responsible.
Statutory Provision
Section 66(1), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'If during the corporate insolvency resolution process or a liquidation process, it is found that any business of the corporate debtor has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the corporate debtor or for any fraudulent purpose, the Adjudicating Authority may on the application of the resolution professional or liquidator pass an order that any persons who were knowingly parties to the carrying on of the business in such manner shall be personally responsible, without any limitation of liability, for all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the corporate debtor as the Adjudicating Authority may direct.' Section 66(2): wrongful trading — director contributed to insolvency by failure to take steps to minimise loss.
Acting with the intent to defraud, which implies an intention to deceive another to their prejudice or to the advantage of the person acting.
Explanation
Under Section 2(14) of the BNS 2023 (formerly IPC Section 25), 'fraudulently' means doing an act with intent to defraud but not otherwise. Intent to defraud implies both an intention to deceive and an intention to gain an advantage or cause prejudice through that deception. Unlike 'dishonestly' (which focuses on wrongful gain/loss in property), 'fraudulently' is broader and can relate to any interest, not just property. It appears in offences like forgery (BNS Section 336), fraudulent deeds (BNS Section 420), and fraudulent application for succession certificates.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(14), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly IPC Section 25): 'A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.'
The fundamental rights under Articles 25-28 guaranteeing to all persons freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
Explanation
Freedom of religion under Articles 25-28 has four distinct components: (a) Article 25 — right to profess, practise, and propagate religion (subject to public order, morality, health, and State's power to regulate non-religious activities of religious institutions and social reform); (b) Article 26 — right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, maintain institutions, own and acquire property, and administer such property; (c) Article 27 — freedom from being compelled to pay taxes for promotion of any religion; (d) Article 28 — freedom from being required to take part in religious instruction in State-funded institutions.
Statutory Provision
Article 25(1), Constitution of India: 'Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.' Article 26: 'Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right — (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.'
The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to freely express opinions, ideas, and information — including through speech, writing, film, art, and the press — subject to reasonable restrictions.
Explanation
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has read a wide range of activities into this right: the right to information (SP Gupta), commercial speech (Tata Press v. MTNL 1995), right to silence (Bijoe Emmanuel — right not to sing National Anthem), and internet access as a mode of speech (Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020). However, freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds of sovereignty, security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offence.
Statutory Provision
Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India: 'All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.' Article 19(2): 'Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.'
A person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued for an economic offence involving Rs. 100 crore or more and who has left or refuses to return to India to face prosecution — declared a Fugitive Economic Offender under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, leading to confiscation of all their property.
Explanation
The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA), 2018 was enacted in the wake of major economic offenders (Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi) fleeing India after defrauding banks of thousands of crores. The FEOA allows: (a) application before the Special Court for declaration of a person as Fugitive Economic Offender; (b) provisional attachment and confiscation of all property of the FEO and properties held by associates and benami holders; (c) civil courts and tribunals may bar the FEO or companies controlled by them from filing any civil case or defending any civil case until the declaration is vacated. Threshold: Rs. 100 crore. The FEOA is a powerful deterrent — it targets not just the specific fraud proceeds but the entire property of the fugitive.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(f), Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018: 'fugitive economic offender means any individual against whom a warrant for arrest in relation to a Scheduled Offence has been issued by any court in India, who — (i) has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution; or (ii) being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution.' Section 4: an application may be filed before the Special Court to declare a person a fugitive economic offender.
A bench constituted of all the judges of a court (or more commonly in Indian High Courts, a bench of three or more judges constituted to resolve conflicting decisions of Division Benches or to decide important questions of law).
Explanation
In Indian High Courts, 'Full Bench' typically refers not to all judges of the court (which would be impractical for a High Court with 50+ judges) but to a bench of three or more judges constituted specifically to: (a) resolve a conflict between two Division Bench (two-judge) decisions on the same question; (b) decide an important question of law that warrants more than two judges; or (c) overrule a prior Division Bench decision. A Full Bench decision (three judges in a High Court) binds all Division Benches and Single Judges of that High Court. Only another Full Bench or the Supreme Court can overrule it.
Statutory Provision
No specific statutory definition — 'Full Bench' is a judicial convention. In the Letters Patent of various High Courts, Full Bench references are provided for. Section 108, Government of India Act, 1915 (now replaced by the Constitution) empowered High Courts to constitute Full Benches. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the High Court Rules of each High Court govern bench composition.
Eleven duties enumerated in Article 51A (Part IVA) of the Constitution, added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, prescribing obligations of citizens towards the nation, its heritage, and its people.
Explanation
Fundamental duties were inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 (during Emergency) as Article 51A, originally listing ten duties. The 86th Amendment (2002) added an eleventh duty — to provide opportunities for education to children aged 6-14 years. Unlike fundamental rights (enforceable) and directive principles (non-justiciable), fundamental duties occupy a middle ground: they are legal obligations but not directly enforceable through courts as rights of action. However, courts have used them to uphold laws that enforce these duties (e.g., environmental protection, national symbols).
Statutory Provision
Article 51A, Constitution of India: 'It shall be the duty of every citizen of India — (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem; (b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom; ... (k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.'
The basic human rights guaranteed to all persons (citizens and non-citizens) under Part III (Articles 12-35) of the Constitution of India, enforceable against the State, with the Supreme Court as their custodian.
Explanation
Fundamental rights are the bedrock of Indian constitutional democracy — they limit State power and protect individual dignity and liberty. Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12-35) guarantees six categories of fundamental rights: (1) Right to Equality (Articles 14-18); (2) Right to Freedom (Article 19-22); (3) Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24); (4) Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28); (5) Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30); and (6) Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32). The 44th Amendment (1978) abolished the right to property as a fundamental right (now Article 300A — a constitutional right, not fundamental).
Statutory Provision
Article 13(2), Constitution of India: 'The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.' Article 32(1): 'The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.'
