Legal Dictionary

Under the General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 3(42), 'person' includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. In criminal law, only natural persons can commit offences; juristic persons (companies) may be held liable through their directing minds. In civil law, both natural and juristic persons can sue and be sued. The concept of legal personality extends to companies, registered societies, partnership firms, and the State itself.

While 'aggrieved person' and 'person aggrieved' are functionally identical — both denote someone with a direct legal grievance — Indian statutes use both phrases in different contexts. 'Person aggrieved' is used in the CPC (Order XLVII Rule 1 — review), Criminal Procedure (appeals from conviction), the Trade Marks Act, the Patents Act, and competition law to define who may approach tribunals or courts for relief. The phrase is contextual — its meaning differs across statutes. In appeals, 'person aggrieved' means the party against whom an adverse order was passed; in trademark law, it means any person whose trade interests are damaged.

Personal guarantors (typically promoters/directors who personally guaranteed corporate loans) are subject to separate insolvency provisions under Part III of the IBC. When a corporate debtor undergoes CIRP and a resolution plan or liquidation is ordered, lenders may simultaneously proceed against personal guarantors. The NCLT handles insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors in the context of related corporate insolvency; where there is no related corporate insolvency, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has jurisdiction over personal insolvency of guarantors. Key Supreme Court ruling: State Bank of India v. V. Jagdishkumar Gupta (2021) — a personal guarantor's discharge by the corporate debtor's resolution plan does not discharge the guarantor under the general law of surety; the creditor can still proceed against the personal guarantor.

Phishing is not separately codified in the IT Act — it falls under the general provisions of the IT Act and the BNS: Section 66D IT Act (cheating by personation using communication devices), Section 66C IT Act (identity theft — using the credentials obtained through phishing), and BNS Section 318 (cheating) and Section 319 (cheating by personation). Phishing attacks targeting banks ('Vishing' — voice phishing by phone) are the most common form in India. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued advisories and guidelines for banks to combat phishing. Section 75 IT Act extends liability for offences committed outside India if they involve computers, computer systems, or networks located in India.

PIL is a distinctive judicial innovation developed by the Indian Supreme Court, notably through Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1970s-80s. It radically relaxes the traditional rule of locus standi (only the aggrieved person can file) — any member of the public or organisation may file a PIL in the High Court (Article 226) or Supreme Court (Article 32) for enforcement of fundamental rights or other constitutional obligations of State authorities. PIL has been used to address bonded labour, environmental pollution, judicial appointments, custodial violence, access to food, and electoral reforms.

A PIL petition differs from ordinary writ petitions in locus standi: any person (not necessarily personally aggrieved) may file a PIL on behalf of: persons unable to approach courts due to poverty, disability, or social disadvantage; classes of persons whose constitutional rights are systematically violated; or matters of grave public importance requiring judicial attention. PIL petitions have addressed: prisoners' rights, bonded labour, child labour, environmental protection, electoral corruption, mid-day meals, undertrial prisoners. The Supreme Court has increasingly imposed costs on frivolous PILs and cautions that PILs must be genuine public interest matters, not disguised private interest litigation.

Doctrine to determine legislative competence.

Document filed by plaintiff containing facts, cause of action and relief claimed.

India's PPV&FR Act, 2001 is unique globally: it combines breeders' rights (incentivising new variety development) with farmers' rights (protecting traditional cultivation practices). Breeders may apply for protection of new plant varieties that are: Novel (not sold in India within 1 year), Distinct (distinguishable from existing varieties), Uniform (similar among plants of the same variety), and Stable (stable characteristics across generations) — the NDUS criteria. Protection period: 15 years for crops/trees; 18 years for vines; 9 years for others. Farmers' exemption: farmers may save and use seeds of protected varieties for their own use; sell unbranded seeds under own names; and exchange seeds in communities. Compulsory licence provisions protect public interest.

Plea bargaining was introduced in India under CrPC Sections 265-A to 265-L (now BNSS Chapter XXIX, Sections 289-300) following the Malimath Committee Report (2003). It is available in cases involving offences not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding 7 years. The accused approaches the court voluntarily; the court ascertains that the plea is voluntary (not coerced); the prosecutor, victim, and accused work out a mutually satisfactory disposition; and the court passes sentence accordingly. Sentence is limited to 1/4th of the minimum sentence (if mandatory minimum exists) or a reduced sentence within the court's discretion.

Delivery of goods by a debtor to a creditor as security for repayment of a debt or performance of a promise.

Special law protecting children under 18 from sexual abuse, exploitation, and pornography.

POCSO Courts are designated Sessions Courts with exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the POCSO Act. Key provisions: (a) In-camera proceedings — the trial is conducted without public present, to protect the child victim's privacy; (b) Child-friendly court environment — Section 36 POCSO: the child should not be made to see the accused during testimony (screens, one-way mirrors); (c) No repetitive questioning — Section 33: the child may not be asked the same question repeatedly; (d) Interpreter/special educator — for differently-abled children; (e) Section 33(5): no aggressive cross-examination; (f) Section 35: trial to be completed within one year from the date of taking cognizance. POCSO courts have expanded into Fast Track Special Courts funded by the Central Government.

A poison pill (technically called a 'shareholder rights plan') is a pre-emptive defence against hostile takeovers. It typically works as follows: (a) the company's board adopts a rights plan; (b) if any person acquires more than X% of shares (the 'trigger'), all shareholders except the triggering person may purchase additional shares at a large discount (e.g., 50%); (c) the hostile acquirer is massively diluted — their existing stake is worth much less; (d) the takeover becomes prohibitively expensive — the acquirer must now buy many more shares to achieve control. Poison pills are not recognised under India's SEBI Takeover Code — Indian listed company boards have limited ability to adopt them due to SEBI's mandatory open offer regime and the duty of neutrality imposed on target company boards during open offers.

A police report under Section 2(y) BNSS 2023 is the formal document submitted by the investigating officer to the Magistrate upon completion of investigation. It is colloquially called a 'charge sheet' or 'challan.' On receipt of a police report charging the accused, the Magistrate takes cognisance and proceeds to trial. The police report must be filed within statutory time limits (60 or 90 days, BNSS Section 187) — failure gives the accused the right to default bail. The report may state either that sufficient evidence exists to prosecute, or that the case should be closed (final closure report).

The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) requires the polluter to bear the entire cost of environmental damage — not just operational clean-up costs but also the cost of restoring damaged ecosystems and compensating affected communities. The Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212 and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996) adopted the PPP as part of Indian domestic environmental law. It is different from 'user pays' — the PPP focuses on harm caused, not just resources used. The principle also has deterrent value: if the full cost of pollution is borne by the polluter (rather than externalised to society or future generations), polluters have a financial incentive to minimise pollution.

The polygraph test measures involuntary physiological responses on the premise that lying causes measurable physiological changes. In India, the Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 definitively held that polygraph tests, narco-analysis, and brain electrical oscillation signature (BEOS/brain mapping) tests cannot be administered compulsorily — compelling a person to take these tests violates Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to mental privacy). Even with consent, the results are not admissible as evidence in court — but any facts discovered as a consequence of information obtained during these tests may be admissible (similar to the discovery provision under Section 25 BSA).

Possession in law comprises two elements: corpus possessionis (physical control) and animus possidendi (intention to hold as owner). Courts protect possession independently of title because disturbance of possession without legal process is a wrong. TPA Sections 5-8 and 53A (part performance) recognise possession as a substantive right. A person in lawful possession may maintain a suit against trespassers even without proof of title. Constructive possession exists where property is under one's legal control without physical occupation.

A decree for possession of immovable property may be sought under: (a) Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 — a summary suit for recovery of possession by a person dispossessed from immovable property within six months of filing the suit, without needing to establish title; (b) a regular title suit where the plaintiff establishes title and seeks possession; or (c) under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC — execution of a decree for possession. Section 6 SRA is a quick remedy for recent dispossession — the plaintiff need not prove title, only that they were in possession and were dispossessed within six months. The order under Section 6 does not bar a subsequent title suit.

Section 110 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates postal ballot for certain resolutions (change of registered office, alteration of memorandum to change objects clause, issue of shares with differential rights, buy-back of shares, conversion of private to public, etc.). The company sends a notice to all members along with a postal ballot form and explanatory statement. Members send their vote (for/against) by post or through electronic voting (e-voting) within 30 days. A scrutiniser is appointed (a company secretary in practice) to oversee the process. Postal ballot enables wider shareholder participation — particularly from dispersed shareholders who cannot attend meetings physically.