1. A warranty is a promise that a particular statement made is true at the date of contract.

A
breach of warranty gives rise to claims for breach of contract. A representation, on the other
hand is a statement of fact similar to a warranty, but such statement is made during a
contractual negotiation to induce another party to enter into a contract.

The key difference between a representation and a warranty is the remedy available to the
innocent party when there is a breach. If a warranty is found to be untrue, the innocent party
will be entitled to damages. A breach of warranty does not allow the innocent party to
rescind the contract, which would effectively set it aside and put the parties back in the
position they were in before the contract was made. As a warranty is a term of the contract,
normal breach of contract considerations applies. A breach of warranty will therefore only
give rise to damages if the innocent party can prove that the breach resulted in a loss and that
the loss was not too remote i.e., the loss was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at
the time the relevant contract was entered into. If damages are available, they will be
assessed to put the innocent party back in the position they would have been in had the
breach of warranty never occurred.

In contrast, if a representation is found to be untrue the innocent party will be entitled to

bring a claim for misrepresentation, which if successful would allow the innocent party to
rescind the contract. The right to rescind may be lost, though, if the innocent party affirms
the contract, if a significant amount of time has passed, or if third-party rights would be
infringed.

A breach of representation may also entitle the innocent party to damages, which in principle
are wider in scope than the damages available under a breach of warranty. 

2. Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is a specialize body that was tasked with primarily
implementing and investigating offences under two financial laws: - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

Section 2(i)(u) of the PMLA divides proceeds of crime into three categories: -
(1) property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity;

(2) the value of such property; or

(3) if the property has been “taken or held” abroad, any other property “equivalent in value”
whether held in India or abroad.

If an individual is in possession of “proceeds of crime,” the ED has the authority to

temporarily attach a property under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The Adjudicating Authority
confirms the aforementioned attachment under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, and the
Government would finally confiscate it under Section 9 of the PMLA. The existence of
“proceeds of crime” is thus essential in establishing a money laundering or property
attachment offence under the PMLA. To summarise, the ED has been entrusted with the
responsibility of executing the provisions of PMLA by conducting investigation to trace the
assets derived from proceeds of crime, to provisionally attach the property and to ensure
prosecution of the offenders and confiscation of the property by the Special court.

FEMA is a civil law enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to facilitate
external trade and payments and to promote the orderly development and maintenance of
foreign exchange market in India. ED has been given the responsibility to conduct
investigation into suspected contraventions of the foreign exchange laws and regulations, to
adjudicate and impose penalties on those adjudged to have contravened the law.

Additionally, with the increase in the number of cases relating to economic offenders taking
shelter in foreign countries, the Government of India introduced the Fugitive Economic
Offenders Act in 2018 (FEOA 2018), and the ED has been entrusted with its enforcement
as well. Under this law, the ED is mandated to attach the properties of the fugitive
economic offenders who have escaped from India warranting arrest and provide for
the confiscation of their properties to the Central Government.

Note- There had been several petitions in the SC regarding PMLA being amendment to
give itself more strength to deal with matters of money laundering, but the SC has upheld
the constitutional validity of the PMLA on July 27 2022, and ED’s power to hold enquiries,
arrest people, and attach property under section 5 of the PMLA Act. However, the apex
court has also said as of August 2022 that it will hear a plea of Congress MP Karti
 Chidambaram, seeking a review of the judgment that upheld the ED’s powers power to
hold enquiries, arrest people, and attach property.

3. A crypto exchange is a platform on which you can buy and sell cryptocurrency. Exchanges
can be used to trade one crypto for another. For instance, converting Litecoin to Bitcoin. The
same can also be used to buy regular currency, like the Indian rupee. Exchanges reflect
current market prices of the cryptocurrencies they offer. Such currencies can also be
converted back to an Indian rupee or another currency on an exchange to leave cash inside
your account, aiding a person to trade back to crypto at a later date or withdraw such
currency by tranasferring it to your regular bank account.
Virtual currencies such as cryptocurrency are based on a blockchain technology that permits
networking from under to user without the intervention of a third party. These currencies
have no asset backing, and therefore, the price of these currencies are cent percent based on
the demand and supply in the market. Even though the transactions are present on the public
ledger, such ledgers are protected by a unique key available to the user, thereby ensuring
anonymity of such transactions and making the tracking of such transactions increasingly
difficult.
There are no specific laws relating to market makers in relation to cryptocurrency exchanges
in India. There are certain guidelines that have been promulgated by Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI), however these are applicable only to Shares and in relation to certain
stock exchanges only. There were no prevailing tax regulations to tax such cryptocurrencies,
and doing so has been extremely difficult due to its inherent nature. This is one of the reasons
why the Indian government is totally against the use if cryptocurrencies. The Indian
government went ahead to ban the uses of such currencies from India. However, such ban
was struck down by the Supreme Court, wherein it stated that banning of such practices is a
disproportionate measure, and the same should be replaced by regulatory methods to govern
the use of such virtual currencies instead.1 This was a very adequate stand taken by the
Supreme Court since digitalization of the economy is inevitable, and therefore it is the duty
of the policy makers to properly regulate such digitalization of the economy instead of trying
to curtail it.
1
Internet And Mobile Association of India Vs RBI, Writ Petition (Civil) No.528 of 2018.
 Finally, crypto currencies have been dealt for the first time by way of amendment in the
Income Tax Act in the year 2022, and cryptocurrencies have been defined to fall into the
category of virtual digital assets.
However, this is the first step in the right direction and we still have a long way to go. One
of the main concerns in taxing the virtual currency is the reporting requirement. It is
impossible for the regulatory bodies to tax these virtual currencies is their transactions are
not being reported by the exchanges, businesses, and other parties. Since the regulatory
bodies throughout the world are unable to come up with adequate rules to govern these
currencies, majority of the transactions go unreported, thereby leading to tax evasion. Such
currencies are increasingly becoming a perfect substitute for tax with more and more
vendors excepting virtual currencies throughout the world. However, cash on one hand is
heavily regulated by regulatory bodies throughout the globe, and on other hand there is
little to no statute governing virtual currencies.
4. Severability clauses, also known as survival clauses, inform courts a contract is not invalid
if one provision is found unenforceable. If a severability clause is not in place, a judge or
jury has the right to void the agreement. Otherwise, they enforce the remainder. Such
clauses can be used in a variety of situations. For instance, allowing a business to operate
even when one of the partners committed fraud, getting pay rates incorrect in employment
agreements. Attached herewith is a draft severability clause: -
Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in
such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law. But if for some reason, any
provision of this Agreement is held to be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, the
validity and enforceability of such provision or provisions as applied to any other particular
facts or circumstances and the validity of other provisions of this Agreement will not in any
way be affected or impaired thereby, and the relevant parties agree that the arbitration panel
or any other competent jurisdiction shall possess the power to alter the said provision in a
manner consistent with the object of the agreement.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered the judgement on three (3) petitions in 2021 that
involved questions of withdrawal or modifications after the approval of resolution plan by
the Committee of Creditors and filed with NCLT for its approval.  The Court held that once
the resolution plan is approved by Committee of Creditors (CoC) and submitted to NCLT;
the successful resolution applicant cannot withdraw or modify the resolution plan under any
circumstance. The NCLAT held that withdrawal of the plan on account of delays in the
approval of the application by the NCLT, cannot be allowed. Allowing for withdrawal
would permit resolution applicants to take advantage of the situation, and would result in
the act of Court harming the stakeholders standing to benefit from the approval of the
resolution plan, that could keep the corporate debtor running as a going concern. In the
Seroco appeal in Seroco Lighting Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Kapoor on 10 December 2020
against I.A No. 96 of 2020, on the hands of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal), case No. 1054/2020: Seroco addressed a letter to Arya-RP and
Arya-CoC on 9 June 2020 seeking a modification of the Resolution Plan and the resolution
amount to Rs 5.29 crores (approx.) on account of the economic slowdown caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently filed applications before the NCLT and an appeal
before the NCLAT seeking a modification of the Resolution Plan on account of the original
being filed over eighteen months ago. The apex court explicitly held that parties can only
seek reliefs that are specifically envisaged in the IBC. It held that since the 330 days outer
limit of the CIRP under Section 12(3) of the IBC, including judicial proceedings, can be
extended only in exceptional circumstances, this open-ended process for further
negotiations or a withdrawal, would have a deleterious impact on the Corporate Debtor, its
creditors, and the economy at large as the liquidation value depletes with the passage of
time, thereby prohibiting withdrawal or negotiations even after the time period of 330 days.
Therefore, endeavour should be made to complete the CIRP within a period of 330 days
and the timeline should be treated as a norm and not the exception. The IPs, CoC,
Resolution Applicant, NCLT, NCLAT should be sensitive to the effect of such delays and
endeavour should be made on a best effort basis to adhere to the timelines stipulated under
the IBC. The Apex Court has taken conspectus of the complete law on the aspect and
explicitly clarified by the Apex Court that upon the approval of the resolution plan by the
COC, the same cannot be withdrawn and hence it inflicts a mandatory character on the
implementation of the approved plan. The judgement once again propounded ‘creditor in
control' regime.