Legal Dictionary

'Proceeds of crime' is the foundation of the PMLA's entire framework. Without proceeds of crime, there can be no money laundering offence. The PMLA definition is broad: proceeds of crime include not only property directly derived from the crime (e.g., the stolen money itself) but also property derived indirectly (e.g., a building purchased with stolen money) or property that has been intermingled with legitimate money and then separated (tainted portion). The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) confirmed: (a) the definition of proceeds of crime must relate to a scheduled offence; (b) if the accused is acquitted of the scheduled offence, the PMLA prosecution may be affected; and (c) the tainted and untainted portions of mixed property may both be subjected to attachment.

Liability of manufacturer for harm caused by defective product.

Writ issued to stop lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction.

Declares child marriages voidable and punishes those who perform or permit child marriages.

A prohibition petition seeks to prevent an inferior court from committing an error before it is too late to correct it without quashing. Grounds for prohibition: (a) want of jurisdiction — the inferior court is about to exercise jurisdiction it does not have; (b) excess of jurisdiction — it proposes to act beyond its powers; (c) acting in violation of natural justice in a fundamental way that goes to jurisdiction. Prohibition is prospective — it operates before the order is made; certiorari is retrospective — it corrects an order already made. A prohibition petition should be filed as soon as it becomes clear that the inferior court is about to exceed its jurisdiction — delay may lead to the court holding that the petitioner acquiesced in the proceedings.

Promissory estoppel extends classical estoppel (which covers representations of existing fact) to promises of future conduct. Where a person makes a clear and unambiguous promise with the intention (or with the reasonable expectation) that the other party will rely on it, and the other party acts in reliance to their detriment, the promisor cannot resile from the promise on the ground that there is no consideration or no binding contract. In India, the doctrine was most powerfully developed against the State in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP AIR 1979 SC 621 — a state government that made a tax exemption promise cannot later revoke it when the taxpayer has already set up a factory in reliance.

Written undertaking to pay certain sum.

A 'promoter' under the Companies Act, 2013 (Section 2(69)) is a person named in the prospectus, identified by the company as a promoter, or who directly or indirectly controls the management or policy of the company. Promoters owe fiduciary duties: (a) duty of utmost good faith to the company; (b) duty to disclose any personal interest in contracts made on the company's behalf; (c) duty to account for secret profits made through promotion. A promoter's liability is significant: if a prospectus contains misstatements, promoters (who authorised the prospectus) can be held liable to investors for compensation (Section 35 CA 2013). Under SEBI regulations, promoters typically hold a lock-in period on their shareholding.

Party whose presence helps in effective adjudication.

Prospective overruling was introduced in India by the Supreme Court in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643, where the Court overruled the earlier position that Parliament could amend fundamental rights, but declared the overruling prospective only — so that all constitutional amendments already passed remained valid, but future amendments affecting fundamental rights would be unconstitutional. The doctrine allows the Court to change the law without disrupting settled transactions and legitimate expectations built on the old rule. It is a middle path between two extremes: either keeping a wrong rule or retroactively undoing all actions taken in reliance on the old rule.

Offer document issued by company for public issue.

Petition by complainant against acceptance of final report.

Person appointed to attend meeting on behalf of member.

Public documents include legislative acts, judicial records, and official records of government bodies — their certified copies are admissible as secondary evidence without production of the original.

Litigation for enforcement of public rights with relaxed standing.

An act or omission that causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or to a class of persons — punishable as an offence and actionable if special damage is proved.

Public policy in law refers to the standards and principles that courts enforce to protect the interests and welfare of the public — even in the absence of specific statutory prohibition. Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agreement is void if the court regards it as 'opposed to public policy.' Specific public policy grounds recognised by Indian courts: agreements in restraint of marriage, agreements ousting jurisdiction of courts, maintenance of alien enemies, trafficking in offices, and agreements defrauding revenue. The concept also appears in arbitration law — under Section 48(2) and 57(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign awards contrary to the 'public policy of India' may be refused enforcement.

Officer appointed by Government to conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State.

The definition of 'public servant' in Indian criminal law is deliberately wide. Section 2(28) of the BNS 2023 (formerly IPC Section 21) lists twelve categories of public servants, including judges, officers of courts, jury members, arbitrators, persons in the armed forces, all government employees, commission members, and persons performing duties or powers conferred by law. The importance of the definition is profound: offences committed by or against a public servant attract enhanced punishment, different investigation procedures, and special protections under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Public Trust Doctrine has ancient roots (Roman law concept of 'res communis' — things common to all) and was applied in Indian environmental law by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388. In that case, a private company's hotel had encroached on the Beas river's floodplain and diverted the river's course. The Supreme Court held: (a) the State holds natural resources such as rivers, forests, air, and seashore in trust for the people; (b) these resources cannot be transferred to private parties for private use — such transfers violate the public trust; (c) the State has a duty to protect these resources from exploitation; (d) the hotel's encroachment on the river was void; (e) the Polluter Pays Principle required the company to restore the floodplain.