Which courts do S&S Co.'s commercial litigation lawyers appear before in Delhi NCR and Kolkata?

S&S Co. is a full-service law firm headquartered in Noida, Delhi and Kolkata, with advocates appearing regularly before the Delhi High Court, Calcutta High Court, the Commercial Courts of Delhi, Gautam Buddh Nagar and West Bengal, NCLT/NCLAT and DRT/DRAT.

Does S&S Co. handle arbitration as well as court litigation?

Yes. Our arbitration desk handles domestic and international arbitration, mediation and conciliation, including seat and venue disputes, Section 34/37 challenges and enforcement of foreign awards.

Which industries and clients does the firm represent?

We represent corporates, promoters, financial institutions, developers, food business operators, energy and infrastructure companies, and individuals across 14 practice areas.

Can S&S Co. represent clients outside Delhi NCR and Kolkata?

Yes, through associate and representative counsel in Bangalore, Kochi, Mumbai, Lucknow, Indore and Hyderabad, coordinating multi-jurisdiction matters pan-India.

S&S Co. | India's Full-Service Law Firm

2025 – 2026

Legal Updates

Key judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments across our practice areas — all entries listed chronologically from 2025 to 2026.

Supreme Court2026 INSC

M/S Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd.

Courts Must Exercise Restraint Reviewing Technical Tender & Contract-Award Decisions

Ruling on an O&M contract dispute for a gas-based power plant, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's interference, holding that evaluation and award of complex technical contracts falls within the domain of the procuring authority and the competence of technical evaluators. Judicial interference is confined to cases of clear illegality, mala fides or irrationality.

Key Takeaway — Infrastructure, energy and EPC clients challenging or defending a tender award should frame grounds around illegality or perversity — courts will not re-run a technical evaluation on the merits.

Supreme CourtMay 26, 2026

Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Participation in Proceedings Without Objection Waives Challenge to Arbitrator's Mandate

Justices Narasimha and Alok Aradhe upheld the validity of arbitral proceedings, holding that a party which participates in proceedings before an arbitral tribunal without raising a timely objection cannot subsequently challenge the arbitrator's mandate. The Court treated continued, unobjected participation as effective waiver of any procedural infirmity in the tribunal's constitution.

Key Takeaway — Parties must raise objections to an arbitrator's appointment or mandate at the earliest opportunity — silence coupled with continued participation will be treated as a waiver.

Supreme CourtApr 24, 2026

Home Care Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. v. Haresh N. Sanghavi

Section 9 Interim Relief Is Available Post-Award, Even to a Non-Award Holder

Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan held that either party to an arbitration may seek interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act at any stage of the proceedings, including after the award is passed. The Court clarified that the expression "a party" in Section 9 draws no distinction between the successful and unsuccessful party, so even a non-award holder may seek interim protection.

Key Takeaway — Award debtors are not without recourse post-award — Section 9 protection remains available to safeguard legitimate interests even after the tribunal has ruled.

Supreme CourtApr 15, 2026

J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India — 2026 INSC 368

Seat of Arbitration Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction — Venue Is Merely a Convenient Location

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the seat of arbitration is the juridical home of the arbitration, fixing the curial law and the court with exclusive supervisory jurisdiction once designated by the parties' agreement — to the exclusion of every other court, even one where part of the cause of action arose. The venue, by contrast, is only a geographical convenience and does not confer, alter, or determine jurisdiction.

Key Takeaway — Drafters must fix the seat with precision in the arbitration clause — once chosen, it alone governs supervisory jurisdiction regardless of where hearings are actually conducted.

Supreme Court — 2026 INSC 34Jan 7, 2026

Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust

Section 37 Appellate Scrutiny Cannot Exceed the Grounds Available Under Section 34

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Section 37 mirrors that under Section 34 — courts hearing a Section 37 appeal do not sit as ordinary appellate courts and must not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view is possible. The appellate court's role is confined to verifying whether the Section 34 court acted within, exceeded, or failed to exercise its conferred powers.

Key Takeaway — Section 37 appeals remain a narrow supervisory check, not a fresh opportunity to reargue the merits already decided at the Section 34 stage.

Supreme Court — PendingJan 2026

Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 — Legislative Watch

Constitution Bench in Gayatri Balasamy Urges Expedited Passage of Arbitration & Conciliation Bill 2024

The five-judge bench in Gayatri Balasamy explicitly urged the Ministry of Law & Justice to expedite passage of the pending Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024. The Bill proposes key amendments including mandatory timelines for arbitrator appointments, expanded institutional arbitration framework, provisions for emergency arbitrators, and updated enforcement procedures for foreign awards.

Key Takeaway — Practitioners must track the Bill closely — proposed changes to Sections 11, 29A, 34, and 37 will significantly alter the current arbitration landscape once enacted.

Himachal Pradesh High CourtDec 2025

NHAI v. Paras Ram — CMPMO Nos. 761–767 of 2025

Holding Hearings at a Location Does Not Fix It as the Seat of Arbitration

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, applying BALCO and BGS SGS SOMA, held that merely holding arbitration hearings at a location does not fix that place as the 'seat' of arbitration. Venue and seat are legally distinct. The first-filing rule under Section 42 locked in jurisdiction at the court having supervisory jurisdiction over the contractually specified seat — not the hearing venue.

Key Takeaway — Infrastructure and government contracting parties must explicitly agree on the seat of arbitration in contracts — the hearing venue will not determine which court exercises supervisory jurisdiction.

Supreme CourtOct 2025

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation v. MSEFC — Writ Jurisdiction

Writ Under Article 226 Maintainable Against MSEFC Where Order Is Passed Without Jurisdiction or Is a Nullity

The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) under Section 18 of the MSMED Act where the order is passed without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory procedure, or amounts to a nullity. While the MSMED Act provides a statutory remedy under Section 34/19, this does not bar exceptional writ jurisdiction.

Key Takeaway — MSME parties facing jurisdictionally infirm MSEFC orders now have a clearly preserved writ remedy — they need not proceed through the entire statutory appeal chain before seeking High Court intervention.

Bombay High Court — Division BenchSep 2025

IMAX Corp v. E-City Entertainment

Non-Parties Impleaded at Enforcement Stage — Corporate Veil Pierced to Prevent Award Evasion

The Bombay High Court held that where an affiliate or related entity benefited from a contract that is the subject of an arbitral award, non-parties to the arbitration may be impleaded at the enforcement and execution stage by piercing the corporate veil — preventing evasion of legal obligations through separate corporate structures.

Key Takeaway — Group companies cannot assume automatic protection from arbitral awards by being separate legal entities — enforcement courts will pierce the veil where affiliated entities benefited from the underlying contract.

Delhi High CourtAug 2025

Engineering Projects India v. MSA Global LLC Oman — CS(OS) 243/2025

Rare Anti-Arbitration Injunction Granted Against Foreign Arbitration for Undisclosed Conflict

The Delhi High Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction against ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore, citing an arbitrator's undisclosed conflict of interest. The court invoked Section 34(2)(b)(ii) (public policy) and held that vexatious continuation of proceedings before a tribunal with an undisclosed conflict warrants intervention, even at a foreign seat, in extraordinary circumstances.

Key Takeaway — Parties must conduct rigorous arbitrator due diligence before constituting a tribunal — undisclosed conflicts of interest can result in costly injunctive intervention even in foreign-seated arbitrations.

Supreme CourtJul 2025

Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals — 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1815

Unsigned Arbitration Agreement Is Binding if Parties Act on It Through Correspondence and Conduct

The Supreme Court held that parties who negotiated a contract through email and then acted on its terms — including an embedded arbitration clause — were bound by that clause even though the contract was never formally signed. The exchange of electronic correspondence and the parties' conduct evidenced acceptance of the contract terms including the arbitration agreement.

Key Takeaway — Businesses that execute contracts via email exchanges and act on them must be aware that embedded arbitration clauses are enforceable even without a formal signature.

Supreme Court — ASF BuildtechJun 2025

ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji — 2025 INSC 616

Arbitral Tribunal Can Itself Implead a Non-Signatory Under the Group of Companies Doctrine

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral tribunal has the inherent power to implead a non-signatory to arbitration proceedings by applying the Group of Companies doctrine — based on common control, management overlap, and integrated contract performance within a corporate group. This power is exercisable by the tribunal without requiring a fresh court referral under Section 11.

Key Takeaway — Corporate group entities must carefully assess whether they can be brought into arbitration without their consent — common control and integrated operations are sufficient basis for tribunal-initiated impleadment.

Supreme CourtMay 7, 2025

Tata Steel v. Raj Kumar Banerjee — 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1042

IBC Section 61(2): NCLAT Has No Jurisdiction to Condone Delay Beyond the 45-Day Outer Limit

The Supreme Court set aside an NCLAT order that had permitted an appeal to be filed 46 days after the NCLT order — one day beyond the outer limit. The Court held that Section 61(2) of the IBC prescribes a mandatory outer limit of 45 days (30 + 15) for filing appeals. The NCLAT, being a creature of statute, cannot assume equitable or inherent jurisdiction to override this express legislative limit. The CIRP of Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited was affected.

Key Takeaway — IBC practitioners must calendar Section 61 appeal deadlines with extreme precision — the 45-day outer limit is an absolute bar and even a single day's delay is fatal.

Supreme Court — Constitution Bench (4:1)Apr 30, 2025

Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies — 2025 INSC 1057

Constitution Bench Holds: Courts Have Limited Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 & 37

A five-judge bench by a 4:1 majority, authored by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, held that courts have a limited inherent power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. Modification is permissible to: sever legally separable invalid portions; correct obvious clerical, typographical, or computational errors; and adjust post-award interest rates in appropriate cases. The majority applied the principle omne majus continet in se minus — the power to set aside includes the lesser power to partially set aside. Courts cannot re-evaluate merits or rewrite the award. Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented, holding that Section 34 permits only 'setting aside' and that modification powers were deliberately excluded from the 1996 Act to align with the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Key Takeaway — Courts may now retain valid parts of awards by severing defective portions — this avoids fresh arbitration over minor errors and reduces delay and cost in post-award proceedings.

Supreme CourtApr 17, 2025

Adavya Projects v. M/s Vishal Structurals — 2025 INSC 507

Whether a Non-Signatory Is Bound by an Arbitration Agreement Is for the Tribunal to Decide Conclusively

The Supreme Court clarified the Group of Companies doctrine: the referral court under Sections 8 and 11 makes only a prima facie finding on whether a non-signatory is involved — it is left to the arbitral tribunal to conclusively decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement. Non-joinder at the Section 11 stage does not prevent later impleadment by the tribunal.

Key Takeaway — The arbitral tribunal, not the referral court, is the proper forum for finally deciding whether group entities or related parties are bound by an arbitration agreement.

Supreme CourtApr 2, 2025

M/s Ferro Concrete Construction v. State of Rajasthan — 2025 INSC 429

Contractual Bar on Interest Operates Differently Under the 1996 Arbitration Act vs. 1940 Act

The Supreme Court restored an arbitrator's discretion to award pendente lite interest, holding that a general 'no interest' clause in a contract does not prevent an arbitrator under the 1996 Act from awarding interest unless the contract expressly prohibits it. The court awarded 9% pendente lite interest, distinguishing the stricter position under the 1940 Act.

Key Takeaway — A general 'no interest' clause may not suffice to bar a pendente lite interest award — only an express, specific prohibition will achieve that under the 1996 Act.

Supreme CourtMar 18, 2025

Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences — 2025 INSC 352

Venue of Arbitration Does Not Determine the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court held that the contract must be read as a whole. Where the contract designated Colombian law for arbitration proceedings but Indian law as the lex contractus, Indian courts retained supervisory jurisdiction. The venue of arbitration (Bogotá) did not determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement. In the absence of an express choice, the lex contractus ordinarily governs the arbitration agreement.

Key Takeaway — Parties must expressly specify the law governing the arbitration agreement itself — absent such a choice, the law of the underlying contract will govern it.

Supreme Court — 5-Judge BenchFeb 2025

Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies — Hearing Commenced

5-Judge Constitution Bench Commences Hearing on Whether Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards

CJI Sanjiv Khanna led a five-judge Constitution Bench commencing detailed arguments on the foundational question: can Indian courts modify (not merely set aside) arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act? The bench identified two conflicting lines of authority — NHAI v. M. Hakeem (no modification) versus Vedanta/Tata Hydroelectric (modification permitted) — and reserved judgment after three detailed hearing sessions.

Key Takeaway — The Constitution Bench proceeding put all pending Section 34 modification applications on hold — practitioners awaited clarity on this pivotal question.

Supreme CourtJan 31, 2025

M/s C&C Constructions v. IRCON International — 2025 INSC 138

Section 37 Appellate Jurisdiction Cannot Exceed the Scope Prescribed Under Section 34

The Supreme Court clarified that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is narrowly circumscribed and cannot exceed the limits under Section 34. An appellate court under Section 37 cannot independently assess the merits of an award; it is confined to examining whether the court below acted within Section 34's bounds.

Key Takeaway — Parties attempting to re-argue merits at the Section 37 stage will be firmly shut out — Section 37 is not a second bite at the cherry.

Supreme CourtJan 3, 2025

Serosoft Solutions v. Dexter Capital Advisors — 2025 INSC 26

HC Writ Interference With Arbitral Orders Requires Perversity Staring on the Face of the Record

The Supreme Court held that interference by High Courts under Arts. 226/227 with arbitral tribunal orders is permissible only where the order is completely perverse and that perversity is evident on the face of the record. The Court emphasised that High Courts must actively discourage satellite litigation that disrupts the arbitral process — excessive judicial intervention is antithetical to arbitration's efficiency and finality.

Key Takeaway — Routine writ challenges to arbitral orders will be dismissed at the threshold; the bar for HC intervention is now very high.

Supreme Court — 2026 INSC 674Jul 9, 2026

M/s Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.

Commercial Courts Act Is Meant for Expediency — Voluminous Evidence Cannot Dilute Its Rigours

The Supreme Court held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 exists to secure speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes, and that a litigant cannot resist timely production of evidence merely by pleading that the record is voluminous. The Court read this squarely into the summary and case-management procedures the Act builds on top of the ordinary CPC.

Key Takeaway — Parties before the Commercial Courts of Delhi, Gautam Buddh Nagar and Kolkata must front-load disclosure and evidence — pleading volume as an excuse for delay will not be entertained.

Calcutta High Court — Division BenchJul 8, 2026

Recall of Jurisdictional Finding in a Commercial Courts Act Appeal

Calcutta HC Recalls Its Own Jurisdictional Finding After a Binding Supreme Court Precedent Went Unconsidered

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recalled an earlier finding — that a decree was a nullity for want of jurisdiction of the trial judge under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — on discovering that a binding Supreme Court precedent bearing directly on the point had escaped consideration when the original order was passed.

Key Takeaway — Litigants in Kolkata's Commercial Division should promptly flag any controlling Supreme Court authority missed at first hearing — the Calcutta HC has shown it will revisit its own jurisdictional findings to correct such oversights.

Calcutta High Court — Commercial DivisionJun 8, 2026

Star Pipe Products India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashirwad Foundries Pvt. Ltd.

Commercial Division Directs Sale of Mortgaged Property in Execution of a Money Decree

Justice Aniruddha Roy, sitting in the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court, directed the sale of mortgaged property to satisfy a decree obtained by the decree-holder, underscoring the Division's continuing role in enforcing commercial money decrees efficiently once liability has been finally adjudicated.

Key Takeaway — Decree-holders in Kolkata commercial disputes have a functioning, actively used execution route through the Commercial Division for realising secured dues — delay in enforcement is not inevitable once a decree is in hand.

Legislative Reform2026

Commercial Courts Act — 2026 Procedural Amendments

Wider Summary-Judgment Powers and Mandatory E-Filing Take Hold in Commercial Litigation

2026 has seen Commercial Courts extend summary judgment procedure under Order XIII-A CPC to a broader range of commercial disputes, enabling early disposal without full trial, alongside statutory recognition of e-filing, virtual hearings and electronic evidence protocols as the default mode of practice rather than the exception.

Key Takeaway — Defendants without a genuine triable defence face real exposure to summary judgment — commercial litigation strategy in Delhi NCR and Kolkata must now be built around this compressed timeline from the outset.

Supreme CourtJul 2, 2026

Essel Infraprojects — NCLT Order Set Aside for Reliance on AI-Hallucinated Precedents

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Insolvency Order Built on Fabricated, AI-Generated Case Law

The Supreme Court set aside an NCLT order in the Essel Infraprojects insolvency matter after discovering the tribunal's reasoning relied on non-existent precedents generated by an AI tool, and directed the Bar Council of India to frame norms governing the verification of AI-assisted legal research before it is placed before courts and tribunals.

Key Takeaway — Every citation used in NCLT/NCLAT filings — whether drafted with AI assistance or not — must be independently verified against primary sources before filing; unverified AI output is now a sanctionable and case-fatal risk.

Supreme CourtJul 2026

Public Interest Litigation on Bank-ARC Settlements — Notice Issued to Centre & RBI

SC Flags Nexus Between Banks, ARCs and Borrowers Over Steep Haircut Settlements

A bench led by the Chief Justice raised concern over a plea alleging that ₹1,537 crore owed to public sector banks was settled through two asset reconstruction companies for just ₹73.50 crore, and issued notice to the Centre, the RBI, and other respondents. The Court emphasised it was concerned specifically with the mis-utilisation of public money, while noting its limited institutional role in second-guessing the commercial wisdom of banks.

Key Takeaway — Lenders and ARCs should expect closer judicial and regulatory scrutiny of one-time-settlement and asset-sale pricing where public sector money is involved.

Supreme CourtApr 20, 2026

In re: Delays in NCLT Resolution Plan Approvals — AVJ Developers Matter

SC Flags Nearly Two-Year NCLT Delay in Approving Resolution Plans, Seeks Nationwide Data

Hearing a matter arising from the insolvency of AVJ Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court expressed serious concern that approval of a resolution plan had remained pending before the NCLT for nearly two years, undermining the Code's time-bound design. The Court directed that nationwide data on pending resolution plan approvals be compiled and placed before it.

Key Takeaway — Systemic NCLT delays are now under direct apex court monitoring — resolution applicants and creditors should factor possible administrative reform into deal timelines.

Supreme Court — Feb 2026Feb 2026

Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick & Ors. — (2026) ibclaw.in 47 SC

100-Allottee Threshold Under Section 7 Is Fixed at Date of Petition Registration

The Supreme Court held that the statutory threshold of 100 allottees (or 10% of allottees) for a Section 7 petition by homebuyers is to be determined as on the date of registration of the petition, not at the date of hearing or admission, and that substitution of petitioners prior to registration is permissible under the NCLT Rules. Two intrinsically linked and jointly liable real estate companies could also be proceeded against in a single, joint petition.

Key Takeaway — Homebuyer collectives should lock in the requisite threshold at the time of filing — later attrition or substitution of co-petitioners will not defeat an otherwise validly registered petition.

NCLATFeb 27, 2026

IBBI v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals — Feb 27, 2026

Section 198 IBC Cannot Be Used to Condone Delay in NCLAT Appeals Beyond Section 61(2) Limit

The NCLAT held that Section 198 IBC, which empowers condonation of delays in performance of statutory functions by IBBI, cannot be invoked to condone delay in filing appeals before the NCLAT beyond the outer limit prescribed in Section 61(2). The IBBI's 103-day delay was held un-condonable. Section 198 is limited to adjudicating authority proceedings — not appellate proceedings before NCLAT.

Key Takeaway — Even the IBBI is subject to the mandatory 45-day appeal limit — no statutory authority can invoke Section 198 to rescue time-barred appeals before the NCLAT.

Supreme CourtFeb 24, 2026

Catalyst Trusteeship v. Ecstasy Realty Pvt. Ltd.

SC Restores ₹600 Crore Insolvency Plea — NCLT/NCLAT Findings Called Perverse and Unsustainable

The Supreme Court set aside concurrent NCLT and NCLAT rulings rejecting Catalyst Trusteeship's Section 7 petition as perverse — based on surmises, conjectures, and assumptions. The Court held that informal restructuring negotiations cannot override the binding terms of a Debenture Trust Deed. The ₹600 crore CIRP was restored and initiation of CIRP directed.

Key Takeaway — Debenture trustees may proceed to CIRP irrespective of informal settlement talks — the binding obligations of a DTD prevail over restructuring negotiations.

NCLATDec 2025

Acute Daily Media v. Rockman Advertising — 2025 ibclaw.in 41 NCLAT

CIRP Terminated and SCN Issued Under Section 65 IBC for Collusive, Malicious Application

The NCLAT upheld the NCLT's termination of a CIRP and issuance of a show cause notice for penalty under Section 65 IBC after finding that the Section 7 application was filed collusively, with fabricated and antedated documents, for a purpose other than genuine insolvency resolution. The judgment reinforces the IBC's integrity safeguards against process misuse.

Key Takeaway — Creditors using IBC proceedings for purposes other than genuine resolution face penalty proceedings under Section 65 — courts have zero tolerance for fabricated applications.

Supreme CourtDec 2025

Homebuyer IBC Matters — Multiple Petitions

RERA Is Primary Forum for Homebuyers; IBC Should Not Be Used as a Recovery Tool

In multiple homebuyer IBC matters, the Supreme Court emphasised that RERA is the primary forum for homebuyers' grievances. The IBC should be invoked only for the revival of viable real estate projects — not as a debt recovery mechanism. The Court issued detailed directions: fill NCLT/NCLAT vacancies on priority, create dedicated IBC benches, and form a high-level committee for systemic real estate sector reform.

Key Takeaway — Homebuyers should approach RERA first — using IBC as a recovery tool is increasingly being treated as an abuse of process by the Supreme Court.

NCLATNov 2025

Avil Menezes (Liquidator) v. Hinduja Leyland Finance — 2025 ibclaw.in 55 NCLAT

Consortium Lender Cannot Claim Priority Over Pre-Existing Charge Without NOC

The NCLAT held that where a consortium of banks held a first pari-passu charge on a corporate debtor's assets, a lender who refinanced those assets after the prior charge had crystallised cannot claim a first charge without a No Objection Certificate from all consortium members. The ruling protects consortium lenders' security interests from unilateral refinancing.

Key Takeaway — Lenders in consortium arrangements must monitor refinancing activity by other consortium members — a subsequent charge obtained without NOC will rank below the existing consortium charge.

Supreme CourtSep 26, 2025

Kalyani Transco v. BPSL — Recall Order

Supreme Court Recalls Liquidation Order — CoC Is Not Functus Officio After Plan Approval

In a significant follow-up order, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier liquidation order in the BPSL case after further review. The Court held that the Committee of Creditors does not become functus officio once a resolution plan is approved — it continues to function until full plan implementation. The Court also clarified the scope of Section 32A IBC protection against ED/PMLA attachments.

Key Takeaway — The CoC remains active and accountable through full plan implementation — stakeholders may approach it for implementation issues even after NCLT plan sanction.

Supreme CourtJul 2025

SBI v. India Power Corporation — 2025 ibclaw.in 61 SC

NCLT Cannot Ignore a Rejoinder Affidavit After It Has Already Condoned the Delay in Filing It

The Supreme Court held that once the NCLT condones delay in filing a rejoinder affidavit, it cannot then direct that the factual assertions in the rejoinder be disregarded while deciding a Section 7 application. The condonation order, once granted, must result in full substantive consideration of the affidavit's contents.

Key Takeaway — Financial creditors whose delayed rejoinders are conditionally admitted must challenge any restrictive NCLT directions — condonation and substantive consideration go together.

Supreme CourtJun 2025

Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel — 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1010

JSW Steel Resolution Plan Set Aside — CIRP 330-Day Limit Violated; Liquidation Ordered

The Supreme Court set aside JSW Steel's approved resolution plan for BPSL — previously cleared by NCLT and NCLAT — and ordered liquidation. The CIRP exceeded the mandatory 330-day limit under Section 12. Resolution Applicants must submit unconditional and immediately enforceable plans and must disclose Section 29A eligibility via affidavit. NCLT/NCLAT cannot review decisions of statutory bodies (such as the ED under the PMLA) under the guise of IBC jurisdiction.

Key Takeaway — CIRP parties must ensure strict 330-day compliance and unconditional resolution plans — violations can result in liquidation even years after CoC approval.

Supreme CourtJun 2025

Independent Sugar Corporation v. Girish Sriram Juneja — 2025 ibclaw.in 37 SC

CCI Approval Under Section 31(4) IBC Before CoC Resolution Plan Approval Is MANDATORY

The Supreme Court reversed the NCLT and NCLAT in the Hindustan National Glass/AGI Greenpac CIRP, holding that the proviso to Section 31(4) IBC — requiring prior CCI clearance for resolution plans involving market-consolidating combinations — is mandatory, not directory. A CoC cannot approve a plan without CCI clearance where the plan creates a combination.

Key Takeaway — Resolution Applicants whose plans involve significant market consolidation must obtain CCI clearance before CoC approval — absence of clearance renders the plan unsanctionable.

Supreme CourtMay 2025

Visa Coke Ltd. v. Mesco Kalinga Steel — 2025 ibclaw.in 168 SC

Service of Section 8 Demand Notice on KMP at Registered Office Constitutes Valid Service

The Supreme Court held that service of an operational creditor's demand notice under Section 8 IBC upon the Key Managerial Personnel of the corporate debtor at its registered office constitutes valid service. Procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights where no real prejudice is demonstrated. The NCLT and NCLAT had dismissed the Section 9 petition on non-service grounds, which the Supreme Court reversed.

Key Takeaway — Operational creditors should address demand notices to the Corporate Debtor through its KMPs at the registered address — this now constitutes valid service.

Supreme CourtMay 7, 2025

Tata Steel v. Raj Kumar Banerjee — 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1042

NCLAT Cannot Condone Appeal Delay Beyond the Mandatory 45-Day Outer Limit Under Section 61(2)

The Supreme Court set aside NCLAT's condonation of a 46-day appeal delay in the BPSL/Rohit Ferro-Tech CIRP, holding that the outer 45-day limit under Section 61(2) is an absolute bar. The NCLAT has no power — equitable or inherent — to condone delays beyond this limit. The IBC's timeliness framework cannot be diluted by procedural flexibility.

Key Takeaway — Calendar Section 61 deadlines with extreme precision — even a single day beyond the 45-day outer limit is fatal to an IBC appeal.

Supreme CourtApr 17, 2025

M/s Sunshine Builders v. HDFC Bank — CA No. 5290/2025

Section 18 SARFAESI Pre-Deposit Is Not Mandatory for Procedural or Interim DRT Orders

The Supreme Court held through purposive interpretation that the Section 18 SARFAESI pre-deposit condition is not triggered by every DRT order. Procedural or interim orders — such as rejection of delay condonation or impleadment applications — do not attract the pre-deposit requirement. Only substantive orders determining liability require pre-deposit.

Key Takeaway — Borrowers challenging procedural DRT orders can now access DRAT without the punishing 50% pre-deposit — a significant reduction in cost barriers to appellate access.

NCLATMar 2025

Indian Bank v. M/s Aman Hospitality — 2025 ibclaw.in 27 NCLAT

Power of Attorney by Officer's Designation (Not Name) Is Valid for IBC Filings

The NCLAT held that a Power of Attorney executed by the General Manager of a bank by designation — rather than naming specific individuals — is valid for IBC proceedings. Technical objections challenging authority were rejected as obstructing justice. Banks may authorise branch-level officers by their designation for IBC applications.

Key Takeaway — Financial creditors may execute designation-based POAs for CIRP filings — individual name-specific POAs are not a mandatory requirement.

Supreme CourtJan 29, 2025

M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank — 2025 INSC 177

Mandatory 30-Day Gap Between SARFAESI Sale Notice Publication and Auction Under Rule 9

The Supreme Court confirmed that the 30-day notice period between publication of the SARFAESI sale notice and the auction under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is mandatory. Auctions conducted without observing this gap are void. The amended Rule 9(1) providing a 15-day period for re-auction does not apply retrospectively to auctions initiated under the prior rule.

Key Takeaway — Banks must strictly observe the 30-day notice gap — void auctions expose the bank to liability for recovery shortfalls and require fresh SARFAESI proceedings from scratch.

Supreme CourtJan 2025

IBC Statutory Timelines — Multiple Matters

IBC's Statutory Timelines Are Mandatory, Not Directory — Strict Compliance Required

Across multiple 2025 rulings, the Supreme Court consistently held that the IBC's statutory timelines — including the 330-day maximum CIRP period under Section 12 — are mandatory and not merely directory. The legislature's intent to create a time-bound framework cannot be diluted by granting ad hoc extensions without a statutory basis.

Key Takeaway — Resolution Professionals and parties in CIRPs exceeding 330 days without a court-granted extension face acute liquidation risk — timeline compliance is a hard obligation.

Delhi High Court2026

ADS Spirits v. Registrar of Trade Marks

'Uniqueness' Is Not the Test for Trademark Registration — Distinctiveness Under Section 9(1)(a) Suffices

The Delhi High Court held that a mark need not be wholly unique to qualify for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — distinctiveness in relation to the goods or services concerned is the governing standard. The Court also directed the Trade Marks Registry to pass reasoned, speaking orders when refusing applications rather than terse rejections.

Key Takeaway — Applicants wrongly refused registration on grounds of 'lack of uniqueness' now have clear Delhi HC authority to challenge such orders, and are entitled to a reasoned order explaining the refusal.

Delhi High CourtJul 2026

InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.

Delhi HC Clarifies Power to Direct Pro Tem Security in SEP & FRAND Disputes

The Court held that it may direct an implementer to deposit pro tem security in a complex Standard Essential Patent infringement suit even before a detailed examination of the merits, balancing the interests of SEP holders against those of implementers. The ruling is a significant contribution to India's developing FRAND jurisprudence in the telecommunications sector.

Key Takeaway — Implementers facing SEP infringement claims in India should be prepared for early-stage security deposit orders even before liability is finally determined.

Madras High CourtJul 2026

Novartis AG & Anr. v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.

Bolar Exception Is Narrowly Construed — Burden Is on the Party Invoking Section 107A

The Madras High Court held that the Bolar exception under Section 107A of the Patents Act is a narrowly construed statutory carve-out intended exclusively to facilitate regulatory approvals, not a general exemption for research or commercial exports. The evidentiary burden rests on the party invoking the exception to demonstrate a genuine regulatory purpose behind the impugned activity.

Key Takeaway — Generic manufacturers relying on Section 107A must maintain clear documentary proof that disputed activity was genuinely regulatory in purpose, not commercial in substance.

Supreme CourtFeb 2026

NCLT's Jurisdiction Under Section 60(5)(c) IBC — Trademark Ownership Dispute

NCLT Has No Power to Decide Trademark Ownership Disputes Without a Direct Insolvency Link

The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to adjudicate trademark ownership disputes that lack a direct connection to the corporate debtor's insolvency proceedings, reaffirming that the NCLT's residuary jurisdiction is not a substitute for dedicated IP forums.

Key Takeaway — Parties to a trademark ownership dispute involving an insolvent entity should approach the appropriate IP forum unless the dispute is squarely tied to the CIRP itself.

Supreme Court (Pending)Mar 2026

CCI v. Ericsson — Standard Essential Patents and Competition Law

Landmark Policy Moment: SC Ruling to Define Whether FRAND Disputes Go to Patent Courts or CCI

The Supreme Court's consideration of the CCI v. Ericsson matter on standard essential patents (SEPs) is expected to definitively clarify whether FRAND licensing disputes are governed by patent law or competition law in India — determining whether the CCI has jurisdiction to investigate SEP licensing violations as anti-competitive conduct. This is of enormous commercial significance for telecoms, IoT, and automotive sectors.

Key Takeaway — Tech companies licensing SEP-reliant technology must monitor this proceeding closely — it will determine the regulatory regime governing licensing negotiations in India.

Delhi High CourtFeb 2026

Swami Ramdev Personality Rights — AI Deepfake John Doe Order

John Doe Order Restrains AI-Generated Deepfakes and Fake Endorsements of Public Figures

The Delhi High Court passed a John Doe order restraining unidentified persons from misusing Swami Ramdev's name, image, voice, and likeness through AI-generated deepfakes, fake endorsements, and unauthorised commercial listings. This is a landmark extension of personality rights jurisprudence to AI-generated content, establishing a template for restraining synthetic media misuse.

Key Takeaway — Public figures and brands should proactively register personality rights with courts before AI-generated impersonation causes damage — John Doe orders are an effective pre-emptive remedy.

Madras High CourtFeb 2026

7-Eleven Inc. v. Trademark Registry — 'Big Bite' Mark Rejected

International Reputation Alone Cannot Establish Protectable Goodwill in India

The Madras High Court upheld the rejection of 7-Eleven's 'Big Bite' trademark application, ruling that a company's international reputation does not automatically translate into protectable goodwill in India for passing-off purposes. Actual business presence and consumer recognition in India must be independently established.

Key Takeaway — Foreign brands must demonstrate India-specific consumer recognition and business activity — international reputation alone cannot substitute for local goodwill in Indian IP disputes.

CGPDTMJul 2025

CRI Guidelines 2025 — Computer-Related Inventions

CGPDTM Notifies Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions 2025

The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks notified final 2025 Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), clarifying the distinction between patentable technical innovations and non-patentable computer programs 'as such' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The guidelines align with recent judicial decisions on the 'technical effect' requirement.

Key Takeaway — Software and tech companies must review their patent strategies against the 2025 CRI Guidelines — patent claims must demonstrate a technical effect beyond the digital domain to qualify for protection.

Bombay High Court — PILJul 2025

Kolhapuri Chappal PIL — GI Mark Protection

PIL Filed Alleging Prada Appropriated GI-Protected Kolhapuri Chappal Design

IP advocates filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court alleging that Prada's 2026 Milan collection featured footwear substantially similar to the Kolhapuri chappal — a traditional Indian sandal with an active Geographical Indication registration. The PIL sought injunctions, compensation, and a public apology, arguing that unauthorised commercial appropriation harms Indian artisans.

Key Takeaway — GI registrations are a powerful but underutilised tool — this case signals growing judicial willingness to protect traditional Indian crafts against global brand appropriation.

Calcutta High Court — IP DivisionJun 30, 2025

Sumitomo Rubber Industries v. Dunlop International — TEMPAPO-IPD 5/2025

Unreasoned Trademark Registrar Orders Set Aside — IP Division Demands Fully Reasoned Decisions

Calcutta's newly established IP Division set aside unreasoned Deputy Registrar of Trademarks orders that had allowed registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark for eight product categories. The IP Division stressed the critical importance of procedural fairness, detailed consideration of all material facts (including fraud allegations), and the necessity of comprehensive reasoned decisions in trademark adjudication.

Key Takeaway — Trademark applicants and opponents can now challenge summarily granted registrations — the IP Division demands the same rigour as judicial proceedings from the Registrar's office.

Supreme Court2025

K. Mangayarkarasi v. N.J. Sundaresan — 2025 INSC 687 : (2025) 8 SCC 299

Trademark Disputes Arising From Contractual Obligations (Assignment Deeds, Licences) Are Arbitrable

The Supreme Court held that not all trademark disputes are non-arbitrable. Disputes in personam arising from contractual obligations under a trademark licence or assignment deed are arbitrable. Allegations of fraud or statutory violations do not preclude arbitration where the dispute stems from an arbitration agreement in the underlying contract. The referral court's role under Section 8 is limited to verifying the existence of a valid agreement.

Key Takeaway — Parties to trademark licences and assignment deeds with arbitration clauses must proceed to arbitration — invoking civil court jurisdiction in such matters will result in compulsory referral.

Delhi High Court2025

Amazon Technologies v. Lifestyle Equities CV — E-Commerce Platform Liability

E-Commerce Platforms Face Trademark Liability for Hosting Infringing Third-Party Listings

The Delhi High Court examined Amazon's intermediary defences against the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark owner's claims for counterfeit listings. The Court scrutinised the adequacy of notice-and-takedown mechanisms, setting important standards for the proactive obligations of online marketplaces in removing infringing product listings after being put on notice.

Key Takeaway — Brand owners should establish formal brand registry programmes on major e-commerce platforms — this creates an enforceable basis for takedown demands and reinforces liability on the platform if it fails to act.

Delhi High Court2025

Pidilite v. Sanjay Jain — 'KWIKHEAL' Mark

Monopoly Over Common/Descriptive Terms in Trademarks Cannot Be Claimed

The Delhi High Court refused Pidilite's application to cancel the 'KWIKHEAL' trademark, holding that Pidilite could not claim monopoly over the term 'Kwik' or its variations as a generic or descriptive element common to the adhesive trade. The ruling clarified that exclusivity cannot extend to generic elements of a brand that are common to the trade.

Key Takeaway — Trademark owners must build distinctiveness in non-generic elements — descriptive or common components of a brand cannot be exclusively controlled.

Supreme Court2025

Copyright Protection Ceases for Artistic Works Industrially Reproduced More Than 50 Times

The Supreme Court laid down a twin test: copyright protection for an artistic work ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act when the work is (a) registrable as a design under the Designs Act, 2000, (b) has not been registered under that Act, and (c) has been industrially reproduced more than 50 times. Once all three conditions are met, the work falls outside copyright into the Designs Act domain.

Key Takeaway — Product manufacturers using artistic designs on products at scale must register them under the Designs Act — reliance on copyright protection alone is legally fragile beyond 50 reproductions.

Delhi High CourtApr 16, 2025

Royal Challengers Sports v. Uber India Systems — RCB Trademark

Sports Franchise Trademark Rights Examined Against Commercial Partnership Usage

The Delhi High Court examined the scope of trademark protection available to the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) IPL franchise in a dispute with Uber India over alleged unauthorised use of RCB branding in a promotional campaign, setting important parameters for brand licensing rights in Indian sport and the intersection of trademark law with commercial partnerships.

Key Takeaway — Sports franchises must have clear contractual frameworks governing brand usage rights in commercial partnerships — informal arrangements readily invite trademark disputes.

Delhi High CourtMar 2025

Johnson & Johnson v. Pritamdas Arora — IP Division

₹3.34 Crore Damages Awarded for Counterfeit Medical Devices — Public Health Aggravation

The Delhi High Court awarded ₹3.34 crore (approx. US$400,800) to Johnson & Johnson against a manufacturer of counterfeit medical devices. The Court emphasised that counterfeiting of medical devices that could physically harm patients is treated with particular severity — aggravated damages are available in pharmaceutical and medical device IP infringement cases.

Key Takeaway — Medical device and pharma companies should pursue summary IP judgments even where defendants fail to appear — courts will award significant damages given the public health dimension.

Delhi High CourtMar 2025

AbbVie Biotherapeutics v. Controller of Patents — 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2384

Post-Filing Patent Claim Expansion Is Impermissible Under Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970

The Delhi High Court rejected AbbVie's post-filing amendment seeking to expand from a method-specific antibody claim to a broader product-level claim. The Court held that while Section 59 permits amendments to narrow or clarify the patent's scope, it cannot be used to transform the nature of the claimed invention from a method to a product patent.

Key Takeaway — Patent applicants must draft comprehensive product and method claims at the application stage — post-filing amendments are available only to narrow or clarify, not to expand scope.

Delhi High CourtMar 2025

Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Natco Pharma — 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1826

Interim Injunction Denied on Lifesaving SMA Drug Despite Valid Patent — Public Health Prevails

The Delhi High Court denied Roche an interim injunction against Natco's generic version of Risdiplam (for Spinal Muscular Atrophy) despite Roche holding a granted Indian patent. The Court found a credible patentability challenge and, critically, balanced the public health need of SMA patients against patent protection — the access-to-medicine consideration tilted the balance of convenience against the patentee.

Key Takeaway — Patent holders in life-saving drug categories face a heightened bar for interim injunctions — public health access is a significant countervailing factor courts will weigh.

Bombay High CourtJan 2025

Aventis LLC — Contempt Proceedings (Decided Feb 3, 2025)

₹5 Lakh Fine + Imprisonment for Wilful Violation of Injunction in ALLEGRA Trademark Case

The Bombay High Court held Healing Pharma and DM Pharma in contempt for violating a prior injunction protecting Aventis LLC's ALLEGRA antihistamine trademark. The defendants had been marketing 'ALLERGEGRA' on near-identical packaging. The Court imposed a ₹5 lakh fine with four weeks' imprisonment in case of non-payment.

Key Takeaway — Rights holders should pursue contempt proceedings immediately where injunction violators persist — courts will impose personal liability including imprisonment for wilful disobedience.

Ministry of Labour & EmploymentApr 1, 2026

Code on Wages, Industrial Relations Code, Social Security Code & OSH Code — Full Enforcement

India's Four New Labour Codes Come Into Full Force, Repealing 29 Central Labour Statutes

Following notification on 21 November 2025, the Code on Wages 2019, Code on Social Security 2020, Industrial Relations Code 2020 and Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code 2020 rolled out to full enforcement from 1 April 2026, consolidating 29 central labour statutes. The Social Security Code extends formal EPF/ESI-equivalent coverage to gig and platform workers for the first time, while the Wages Code fixes strict payment-timeline rules — same-day for daily wage workers, within two days of the fortnight for fortnightly-paid staff, and by the 7th of the following month for monthly-paid employees.

Key Takeaway — Employers across Delhi NCR and Kolkata must re-audit wage structures, aggregator/gig-worker engagement models and compliance registers against all four Codes — the transition period is over and enforcement is now live.

Supreme Court — 2026 INSC 523May 2, 2026

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam

Arbitrary Denial of Regularisation to Similarly Situated Workers Violates Article 14

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of equality, holding that the State of Assam could not arbitrarily deny regularisation benefits to a group of muster-roll and work-charged employees who were similarly situated to thousands of workers already regularised. Differential treatment among an otherwise homogenous class of long-serving employees was held to be unconstitutional.

Key Takeaway — Government and PSU employers must apply regularisation criteria uniformly across similarly placed employee classes — selective regularisation invites an Article 14 challenge.

Kerala High CourtApr 2026

M.K. Suresh Kumar v. Union of India — Challenge to the Four Labour Codes

Kerala HC Delivers First Reported High Court Ruling on the Four Labour Codes' Validity

In the first reported High Court judgment testing the constitutionality of the Labour Codes since their November 2025 implementation, the Kerala High Court applied the manifest-arbitrariness test from Shayara Bano v. Union of India in upholding aspects of the Codes' rule-making and inspection framework, while leaving the door open for further Supreme Court examination of the right-to-strike and inspection regime.

Key Takeaway — The ruling is expected to be appealed and is being read as a doctrinal floor for the anticipated consolidated Supreme Court challenge to the Labour Codes — employers should track this litigation closely.

Supreme Court — POSH Act2026

Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors.

Delayed POSH Complaints Are Time-Barred and Cannot Be Examined on Merits

The Supreme Court addressed the limitation period for filing complaints under the POSH Act, holding that a complaint filed well beyond the prescribed period was time-barred and could not be examined on merits — while directing, as a separate matter, that the judgment itself form a permanent part of the respondent's résumé.

Key Takeaway — Complainants and Internal Committees alike must be scrupulous about limitation timelines under the POSH Act — delay can extinguish an otherwise meritorious complaint at the threshold.

Supreme CourtJan 2026

Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India

Temporary Employees in Continuous Service for 25+ Years Must Be Regularised

The Supreme Court directed regularisation of temporary accounts clerks who had worked for over 25 years on the same duties as permanent employees, noting the similarity in selection, duties, and promotion procedures. Back wages were also directed to be paid.

Key Takeaway — Government and quasi-government employers must audit all long-service temporary staff — courts are increasingly ordering regularisation where temporary employees perform permanent duties for extended periods.

Bombay High CourtDec 2025

Full and Final Settlement — Preclusion of Termination Challenge

Acceptance of Full and Final Settlement Bars Subsequent Challenge to Termination Legality

The Bombay High Court held that an employee who accepts full and final settlement of dues upon termination cannot subsequently challenge the validity or legality of termination in a labour forum. The settlement operates as a binding compromise of all claims arising from the employment relationship, including unlawful termination claims.

Key Takeaway — Employers offering F&F settlements must ensure the deed expressly covers all claims including unlawful termination — a comprehensive release prevents future litigation.

Delhi High Court — Division BenchDec 2025

EPF International Workers Provisions — Constitutional Validity

Delhi HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of EPF Provisions for International Workers

The Delhi High Court Division Bench upheld the constitutional validity of paragraphs 83 and 69 of the EPF Scheme relating to mandatory PF contributions for international workers (IW), reversing a Karnataka Single Judge decision that had struck down the IW provisions. The Bombay High Court's earlier ruling upholding validity was followed.

Key Takeaway — Multinational employers must ensure EPF contributions for international workers deployed in India — the constitutional validity of these obligations is now settled.

Central GovernmentNov 21, 2025

Four Labour Codes — Implementation Notification

Central Government Notifies Unified Implementation of All Four Labour Codes Effective November 21, 2025

The Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the implementation of all Four Labour Codes — Code on Wages 2019, Code on Social Security 2020, Industrial Relations Code 2020, and Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions 2020 — with effect from November 21, 2025. This is a historic consolidation of 29 central labour laws into four codes.

Key Takeaway — All employers must immediately audit compliance obligations under the Four Labour Codes — the consolidated framework changes wage definitions, working hours, social security contributions, dispute resolution, and retrenchment procedures.

Karnataka GovernmentNov 2025

Karnataka Mandatory Menstrual Leave Policy

Karnataka Introduces Mandatory Paid Menstrual Leave for Women Employees

The Karnataka government introduced a policy mandating paid menstrual leave for women employees in the state, joining a small number of states offering such statutory protection. Employers operating in Karnataka must implement and communicate this leave entitlement as part of their HR framework.

Key Takeaway — Karnataka-based employers must update leave policies to incorporate mandatory menstrual leave — HR teams must be briefed on eligibility, documentation, and implementation procedures.

Supreme Court — POSH ActOct 2025

POSH Act — IC Jurisdiction Against Perpetrator From a Different Organisation

Internal Committee of Aggrieved Woman's Workplace Has Jurisdiction Against Perpetrators From Different Organisations

The Supreme Court clarified that an Internal Committee (IC) constituted at the aggrieved woman's workplace is empowered to inquire into a complaint even where the respondent is an employee of a different department or organisation. The IC's jurisdiction follows the complainant, not the perpetrator.

Key Takeaway — Organisations must not refuse to constitute IC inquiries on the ground that the perpetrator belongs to another organisation — the complainant's employer's IC has full jurisdiction.

Supreme CourtAug 2025

Union of India v. Ex. Lt. Selina John

Dismissal of Female Employee for Marital Status Is Unconstitutional Gender Discrimination

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that dismissing a female employee based solely on her marital status constitutes unconstitutional gender discrimination, violating the fundamental right to equality under Article 14. Service rules and contracts that impose differential marital-status conditions exclusively on female employees are invalid.

Key Takeaway — All service rules and employment policies imposing marital status conditions on women must be immediately reviewed and amended — they are unconstitutional and void.

Supreme CourtAug 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union

Contract Workers Performing Permanent/Perennial Work Must Be Regularised

The Supreme Court ruled that workers assigned to tasks of a permanent or ongoing nature cannot lawfully be classified as contract workers under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Denial of regularisation to workers performing the same duties as regular employees — especially under an existing settlement — amounts to wrongful denial of employment.

Key Takeaway — Employers cannot use the contract labour route to avoid regularisation where the work is perennial and core to business operations — such workers are entitled to regular employment status.

Ministry of Labour & EmploymentJul 2025

EDLI Amendment Scheme 2025

Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme Amended — Enhanced Death Benefit Coverage

The Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance (Amendment) Scheme, 2025 (effective July 19, 2025), significantly enhancing insurance coverage available to EPF members and providing increased death benefit coverage to nominees.

Key Takeaway — Employers must immediately update payroll teams on revised EDLI benefits — employees and their nominees should be notified of the enhanced insurance entitlement.

Karnataka High Court — InterimJun 2025

X v. Internal Complaints Committee & Ors.

POSH Act Applicable to Gig Workers — Platform Aggregators Must Ensure Safe Environment

The Karnataka High Court upheld the applicability of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, to gig workers, and emphasised the obligation of platform aggregators to ensure a safe working environment for such workers. A final ruling is awaited and is expected to be landmark in gig economy labour rights.

Key Takeaway — Platform companies and aggregators must establish POSH-compliant internal complaints mechanisms for gig and delivery workers — not just for direct employees.

Supreme Court2025

Maternity Benefit Act — Contract Employees

Contract Employees Entitled to Full Maternity Benefits Even If Benefits Exceed Contract Duration

The Supreme Court held that once entitlement criteria under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are fulfilled, an employee is entitled to full maternity benefits even if those benefits exceed the duration of her contract. Terminating or declining to renew the contract during the maternity period constitutes prohibited 'discharge' under Section 12(2)(a) of the Act.

Key Takeaway — Temporary and contract employees enjoy identical maternity protection to permanent staff — contract duration is irrelevant once maternity benefit entitlement attaches.

Supreme Court2025

Dushyant Janbandhu v. Hyundai Autoever India — 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3691

Labour Disputes Including Non-Payment of Wages and Termination Are Non-Arbitrable

The Supreme Court held that disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality of termination — governed by statutory labour authorities — are non-arbitrable. An employer cannot compel an employee to arbitrate these statutory labour rights even if the employment contract contains an arbitration clause.

Key Takeaway — Statutory labour disputes remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour courts and tribunals — contractual arbitration clauses cannot override these statutory remedies.

Supreme CourtApr 2025

Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank / HDFC Bank v. Deepti Bhatia

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in Employment Contracts Are Valid and Enforceable

The Supreme Court upheld exclusive jurisdiction clauses in private employment contracts, holding that parties may contractually agree to confer exclusive jurisdiction on a specific court for employment-related disputes, provided that court has inherent territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC and the clause clearly and expressly excludes all other courts.

Key Takeaway — Employers with pan-India workforces can designate a single court for employment disputes — this significantly streamlines dispute management for multi-location organisations.

Ministry of LabourMar 2025

Code on Wages 2019 — Implementation Watch

Four Labour Codes — Central Government Finalises Implementation Readiness Ahead of November 2025

The Central Government in early 2025 continued finalisng state-level rules under all Four Labour Codes — Code on Wages, Code on Social Security, Industrial Relations Code, and the Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions — in preparation for unified implementation across states.

Key Takeaway — Employers must prepare for significant changes to wage definitions, working hour rules, social security contributions, and retrenchment procedures — HR policies need comprehensive auditing against all four codes.

Supreme CourtJan 2025

Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware

Employment Bonds and Minimum Service Clauses Are Valid Liquidated Damage Provisions

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of an indemnity bond requiring payment of ₹2 lakh upon resignation before completing three years, holding that restrictive covenants operative during the employment term (as opposed to post-employment restraints) do not constitute restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Contract Act. The objective is to protect the employer's recruitment and training investment.

Key Takeaway — Employers may include minimum service conditions with liquidated damages in offer letters — the bond amount must bear a reasonable nexus to the employer's actual training and recruitment costs.

FSSAI NotificationApr 1, 2026

Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Amendment Regulations, 2026

FSSAI Licences Become Perpetually Valid — Renewal Cycle Scrapped, Street Vendors Get Deemed Registration

Notified on 10 March 2026 and effective 1 April 2026, the amendment grants perpetual validity to FSSAI licences and registrations issued thereafter, ending the one-to-five-year renewal cycle; introduces deemed registration for street food vendors; brings in a risk-based inspection and food-safety-audit framework; and revises turnover thresholds — basic registration up to ₹1.5 crore, State Licence between ₹1.5 crore and ₹50 crore, and Central Licence above ₹50 crore.

Key Takeaway — Renewal deadlines disappear, but the trade-off is strict — a single missed annual fee payment now triggers automatic suspension without notice, so FBOs need a disciplined annual compliance calendar in place of the old renewal reminder.

Parliamentary Standing CommitteeJul 2026

Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution — Report to Parliament

House Panel Presses FSSAI to Notify Front-of-Pack Labelling Rules After Four-Year Delay

A parliamentary standing committee report tabled in Parliament expressed being "dismayed" that the draft Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) Regulations — first notified in September 2022 and attracting over 14,000 stakeholder comments — remain pending, and recommended clear, colour-coded "at-a-glance" warning labels for products high in sugar, salt, or fat, together with tighter monitoring of packaged foods sold via e-commerce.

Key Takeaway — FBOs should prepare now for interpretative front-of-pack warning labels — both legislative and judicial pressure are converging to force FSSAI's hand on a long-delayed reform.

FSSAI — First Amendment RegulationsMar 30, 2026

Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) First Amendment Regulations, 2026

FSSAI Tightens Rules on "Natural" Claims, Nutrition Disclosures and Infant Nutrition Labelling

Notified on 24 March 2026 and set to take force from 1 July 2027, the amendment revises the 2020 Labelling and Display Regulations across several fronts: infant nutrition products are exempted from disclosing per-serve %RDA contribution and servings-per-pack; packages up to 100 sq. cm no longer require the FSSAI logo (though multi-unit packs still must carry it); and limits are reinforced on misleading "100% natural" and similar marketing claims.

Key Takeaway — FBOs have until July 2027 to align packaging and labelling systems — but should begin artwork and claims audits now given the breadth of the changes.

FSSAI — Affidavit to Supreme CourtMar 13, 2026

In re: Front-of-Pack Labelling for HFSS Foods — SC Supervision

FSSAI Tells SC It Is Still Weighing Pictorial vs. Tabular Warning Label Formats

Responding to a 10 February 2026 Supreme Court order urging it to mandate front-of-pack labels on packaged foods high in fat, sugar, or salt, FSSAI filed an affidavit stating it was still evaluating tabular versus pictorial warning formats and sought a further six weeks to submit a detailed proposal. The Court had earlier expressed dissatisfaction that FSSAI's compliance efforts "had not yielded any positive or good result."

Key Takeaway — The Supreme Court is actively monitoring FSSAI's compliance timeline — repeated extensions raise the risk of firmer judicial directions or contempt proceedings if the regulator continues to stall.

Supreme Court2026 — Active

FSSAI — Contempt Warning; Continued Judicial Monitoring

FOPL and Nutraceutical Regulations Under Active SC Monitoring — Contempt of Court Threshold Approaching

The Supreme Court continues to monitor FSSAI's compliance with its directions on front-of-pack labelling and nutraceutical regulation. Repeated failures to meet court deadlines have brought the matter close to the contempt threshold. The Court has indicated that further delay will attract personal liability of senior FSSAI officials.

Key Takeaway — FOPL regulations are expected to be notified in 2026 under judicial pressure — food businesses must treat this as a live, imminent compliance obligation and not a deferred concern.

Supreme Court — Bench of Justices Pardiwala & ViswanathanFeb 2026

FSSAI Warning Labels — Packaged Foods

SC Asks FSSAI to Evaluate 'Warning Label' Model for High Sugar, Salt and Fat Packaged Foods

The Supreme Court's bench directed FSSAI to evaluate whether packaged food items with excessive sugar, salt, and saturated fat should carry prominent front-of-pack warning labels — potentially modelled on Chile's 'black octagons' system. FSSAI was given time to consult stakeholders and present an action plan, in a PIL citing the rising prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

Key Takeaway — Packaged food companies in the snack, confectionery, and beverage segments should begin proactive reformulation reviews — products consistently bearing warning labels will face significant consumer rejection and reputational risk.

FSSAI — ProcurementFeb 2026

FSSAI Mobile Food Testing Laboratory Expansion — GeM Bids

FSSAI Expands Field Enforcement Capacity Through Mobile Food Testing Laboratories Nationwide

FSSAI issued procurement bids in early 2026 for Mobile Food Testing Laboratories (MFTLs) at regional and branch offices, enabling on-the-spot field testing at markets, warehouses, and transport hubs. MFTLs allow near-immediate test results — significantly improving FSSAI's capacity to initiate enforcement action at any point in the food supply chain without waiting for fixed-lab results.

Key Takeaway — The MFTL expansion means that seizures and prosecutions can now be initiated at any supply chain node with near-real-time evidence — supply chain quality controls must be robust at every tier.

FSSAIJan 2026

NABL-Accredited Laboratories List Updated — Import Testing Enhanced

FSSAI Notifies Updated List of NABL-Accredited Laboratories; Food Import Rejection Notices Increased

FSSAI updated and gazetted its list of NABL-accredited laboratories under Section 43(1) FSSA in January 2026. Import testing at ports of entry is now exclusively through certified labs. Food Import Rejection Orders have increased significantly, particularly for products with non-conforming pesticide or contaminant levels, published on the Food Import Rejection Alert (FIRA) portal.

Key Takeaway — Food importers must conduct pre-shipment testing at NABL-accredited labs and maintain complete FSSAI documentation — port-rejected consignments are destroyed at the importer's cost.

FSSAI — 49th MeetingNov 2025

Draft FOPL Regulations Deferred for Further Consultation

FSSAI's 49th Central Advisory Committee Defers Final FOPL Regulations — Implementation Window Extended

The FSSAI's 49th Central Advisory Committee meeting deferred final notification of FOPL regulations pending further stakeholder consultation and technical review. Major food industry players including ITC, Nestlé, Britannia, and HUL engaged actively in the consultation process. The Supreme Court has continued monitoring FSSAI's compliance.

Key Takeaway — The deferral does not signal abandonment of FOPL — regulations will be notified under judicial pressure. Companies should use the consultation window to engage with the process and prepare compliance roadmaps.

FSSAIOct 14, 2025

ORS Brand Name Order — Issued and Subsequently Withdrawn

FSSAI Issues and Then Revokes Prohibition on Using 'ORS' Alongside Brand Names

FSSAI's October 14 order prohibiting the use of the term 'ORS' alongside brand names caused significant market disruption in the oral rehydration salt category. Following intensive industry representations, FSSAI subsequently withdrew the order. The episode underscores the importance of active surveillance of FSSAI gazette notifications by manufacturers.

Key Takeaway — Healthcare and FMCG companies selling ORS and related products must maintain active monitoring of FSSAI notifications — regulatory changes affecting product branding can take effect immediately upon gazette notification.

Supreme CourtJul 2025

FSSAI — Court Monitoring; One Final Extension Granted

SC Grants Final Extension to October 2025 on FOPL Regulations — Contempt Warning Issued

After FSSAI failed to meet the April 2025 FOPL deadline, the Supreme Court granted a final extension to October 2025 to notify front-of-pack labelling regulations, issuing a strong warning that further non-compliance would result in contempt proceedings against FSSAI officials.

Key Takeaway — Treat October 2025 as the de facto FOPL compliance deadline — food businesses should accelerate label redesign and internal compliance preparation immediately.

Courts — MultipleJun 2025

FSSAI Commissioner — Section 30 Emergency Orders Must Be Evidence-Based

Emergency Prohibition Orders Under Section 30 Set Aside for Lack of Evidence-Based Foundation

Courts consistently held in 2025 that the Commissioner of Food Safety must rely on objective evidence and a Designated Officer's report confirming a health risk before issuing emergency prohibition orders under Section 30 FSSA. Orders issued on suspicion without the requisite report — even for high-profile cases — were set aside as procedurally defective.

Key Takeaway — Food business operators facing emergency prohibition orders should immediately examine whether Section 30 procedure was followed — procedurally defective orders can be challenged and set aside.

Courts — Multiple2025

FSSA Section 59 — Life Imprisonment for Adulteration Causing Death Confirmed

Life Imprisonment Under Section 59 FSSA for Fatal Food Adulteration Is Enforceable

Courts confirmed in 2025 that Section 59 FSSA provides a graduated penalty scheme up to life imprisonment (minimum 7 years) where adulterated or sub-standard food results in death. Following Ram Nath (2024), simultaneous IPC prosecution is barred — but this does not diminish FSSA penalties. The FSSA penalty framework is among India's most stringent regulatory deterrents.

Key Takeaway — Every food supply chain node — manufacturer, distributor, retailer — must maintain documentary quality testing and traceability records as protection against Section 59 prosecution.

FSSAIMay 31, 2025

FSSAI Advisory — Prohibition of '100%' Claims on Food Labels

FSSAI Prohibits Use of '100%' Claims Such as '100% Natural' or '100% Juice' on Labels

FSSAI issued a formal advisory prohibiting food businesses from using absolute '100%' claims (e.g., '100% Natural', '100% Juice', '100% Pure') on food labels, finding such claims mislead consumers by creating unrealistic expectations about product purity. Food businesses were directed to amend labels accordingly.

Key Takeaway — All packaged food brands using '100%' absolute claims must immediately review and amend packaging — non-compliant labels attract action under the FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulations 2011.

FSSAIMay 2025

FSSAI Directive — Illegal Fruit Ripening and Synthetic Coatings

FSSAI Directs States to Intensify Crackdown on Illegal Calcium Carbide Fruit Ripening

FSSAI directed all states and UTs to intensify inspections against illegal fruit ripening using calcium carbide and prohibited synthetic coatings on produce. Permitted alternatives such as ethylene gas at permissible concentrations were listed. Courts upheld significant penalties — including prosecution of owners and managers — for use of prohibited ripening agents.

Key Takeaway — Fruit traders and wholesale market operators must cease use of calcium carbide immediately and train staff on permitted ripening alternatives — enforcement inspections have been substantially intensified.

Supreme Court — Bench of Justices Pardiwala & MahadevanApr 9, 2025

WP(C) — FSSAI Regulatory Inaction

Supreme Court Issues 3-Month Ultimatum to FSSAI on Nutraceutical Rules and Front-of-Pack Labelling

The Supreme Court issued a stern 3-month deadline to the Centre and FSSAI to notify pending food safety rules — particularly regarding front-of-pack nutrition labelling and regulation of health supplements and nutraceuticals (a ₹30,000 crore market with largely unregulated health claims). The Court emphasised urgency given the growing public health hazard from unsubstantiated product claims.

Key Takeaway — Nutraceutical and health supplement brands must immediately audit all product claims — the Supreme Court's ultimatum signals imminent enforcement against unsubstantiated 'immunity-boosting', 'probiotic', and 'fortified' claims.

Supreme CourtMar 2025

FSS Act Overriding Effect — Ram Nath v. State of UP Applied

FSSA Overrides IPC — Simultaneous Food Adulteration Prosecution Under IPC Barred

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Ram Nath v. State of UP [(2024) 3 SCC 502] that the FSSA has overriding effect over all other laws including the IPC under Section 89, multiple courts applied this principle in 2025 to quash parallel IPC food adulteration prosecutions. Charges under IPC Sections 272 and 273 cannot run alongside FSSA Section 59 proceedings.

Key Takeaway — All pending IPC food adulteration prosecutions must be reviewed — charges under IPC Sections 272/273 are liable to be quashed where corresponding FSSA proceedings are pending.

FSSAIFeb 2025

FSS (Labelling & Display) Draft Amendment Regulations, February 2025

FSSAI Issues Draft Front-of-Pack Labelling Regulations — Bold Nutritional Disclosure Required

FSSAI notified Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations in February 2025 requiring nutritional information in bold text on the front of pack for all packaged food products. The draft was placed before the 49th FSSAI Central Advisory Committee meeting for stakeholder consultation.

Key Takeaway — Food businesses must commence label redesign now — the draft FOPL regulations are expected to be finalised with a short implementation window and non-compliant labels will attract enforcement action.

Various High CourtsJan 2025

FSSAI Platform Liability — Multi-Court Confirmation

Online Food Platforms Are Food Business Operators — Co-Liable for Unlicensed Seller Violations

Multiple High Courts confirmed that online food delivery platforms (Zomato, Swiggy, etc.) qualify as Food Business Operators under Section 3(1)(o) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, bearing co-liability for food safety violations by sellers on their platform. Platforms onboarding sellers without verifying FSSAI licences are directly exposed to prosecution under the FSSA.

Key Takeaway — All food aggregator platforms must implement mandatory FSSAI licence verification at seller onboarding — failure to do so attracts direct criminal liability under the FSSA.

Supreme Court2026

M.R. Vasumathi & E. Muthurathinasabathy — SARFAESI Rule 9 Judgments

Rule 9 Payment Timelines Under the SARFAESI Enforcement Rules Are Mandatory, Not Directory

The Supreme Court held that the payment timelines prescribed under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — governing deposit of sale consideration following a SARFAESI auction — are mandatory. A secured creditor's failure to strictly enforce these timelines, or a purchaser's failure to comply with them, can vitiate the auction sale, directly affecting borrowers' redemption rights under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

Key Takeaway — Banks, ARCs and auction purchasers must treat Rule 9 deposit deadlines as strict and non-negotiable — non-compliance now carries a real risk of the entire sale being set aside.

Supreme CourtJul 2026

PIL on Public Sector Bank-ARC Settlements — Notice Issued

SC Flags Bank–ARC–Borrower Nexus Over Deep-Discount Loan Settlements

A bench led by the Chief Justice issued notice to the Centre, the RBI, and other respondents on a plea alleging that ₹1,537 crore owed to public sector banks was settled through two asset reconstruction companies for only ₹73.50 crore. The Court flagged mis-utilisation of public money as its central concern while acknowledging limits on its role in second-guessing banks' commercial wisdom on stressed-loan resolution.

Key Takeaway — Banks and ARCs handling stressed public-sector debt should expect intensified scrutiny of settlement valuations and haircuts going forward.

RBI — Second AmendmentJun 15, 2026

RBI (NBFC — Responsible Business Conduct) (Second Amendment) Directions, 2026

RBI Introduces Comprehensive New Chapter Governing NBFC Marketing & Third-Party Product Sales

The RBI notified a new chapter under its 2025 Directions governing how NBFCs (including housing finance companies) advertise, market, and sell both their own and third-party financial products and services — tightening disclosure, suitability, and conduct standards for cross-selling arrangements.

Key Takeaway — NBFCs and HFCs must urgently review third-party product distribution and marketing arrangements for compliance with the new conduct standards.

Supreme CourtMay 2026

Fraud Account Classification — Forensic Audit Disclosure Requirement

Banks Need Not Grant a Personal Hearing Before Classifying an Account as Fraud, But Must Share the Forensic Audit Report

The Supreme Court held that banks are not obligated to grant customers a personal oral hearing before classifying their accounts as fraud, accepting submissions that individual hearings are impractical given the scale of fraud cases. However, before such classification, banks must furnish the customer with the forensic audit report underlying the decision.

Key Takeaway — Banks must build forensic-audit-report disclosure into fraud classification workflows even though oral hearings remain optional — omission of disclosure risks the classification being struck down.

RBI — April 2026 PackageApr 1, 2026

RBI Digital Payments & Loan Recovery Conduct Package, 2026

Mandatory Additional Factor of Authentication for All Digital Payments Takes Effect

RBI's sweeping April 2026 regulatory package mandates Additional Factor of Authentication (AFA) across every digital payment channel, introduces a restructured digital fraud compensation framework with revised customer-liability limits, and tightens the code of conduct for loan recovery agents, including mandatory training certification and grievance-escalation protocols.

Key Takeaway — Banks, PSPs, and recovery agencies needed a coordinated 90-day implementation plan spanning payments, fraud compensation, and recovery-agent conduct — non-compliance carries direct customer-liability consequences.

RBI2026 — Active

LCR Framework Revision — Digital Banking Run-Off Factors

RBI's Revised Liquidity Coverage Ratio Framework Expected to Implement From April 2026

RBI's draft circular (released July 2024) revising the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) framework — proposing additional run-off factors for digitally-enabled deposits that can be rapidly withdrawn via mobile banking — is expected to be finalised and implemented from April 2026. Banks with high digitally-enabled deposit bases will face increased liquidity buffer requirements.

Key Takeaway — Banks must model the impact of revised LCR run-off factors on their high-quality liquid asset portfolios now — compliance from April 2026 requires significant advance preparation.

RBI — DeadlineMar 31, 2026

Banking Group Compliance Plans — Submission Deadline March 31, 2026

Banks Must Submit Group-Level Compliance Plans to RBI by March 31, 2026

Under the RBI's December 5, 2025 group-level regulation circular, all banking groups must submit plans for compliance with investment restrictions, AIF/REIT/InvIT caps, and overlapping product elimination to the RBI by March 31, 2026. No new overlapping product business may be commenced between the bank and its group entities after April 1, 2026.

Key Takeaway — Banking group compliance teams must treat March 31, 2026 as a hard deadline — late or non-submission of RBI compliance plans attracts supervisory escalation.

NCLATFeb 27, 2026

IBBI v. Truvisory Insolvency Professionals — Section 198 IBC

Section 198 IBC Cannot Condone NCLAT Appeal Delays Beyond Section 61(2) Outer Limit

The NCLAT held that Section 198 IBC — empowering condonation of delays in IBBI's statutory functions — cannot be invoked to condone delays in filing NCLAT appeals beyond the Section 61(2) outer limit of 45 days. The IBBI's 103-day delay was held un-condonable. The NCLAT is a creature of statute and cannot assume equitable jurisdiction.

Key Takeaway — Even the IBBI is subject to the mandatory 45-day appeal limit under Section 61(2) — no statutory authority can use Section 198 to rescue time-barred NCLAT appeals.

Supreme CourtFeb 24, 2026

Catalyst Trusteeship v. Ecstasy Realty — ₹600 Crore Insolvency

Informal Restructuring Negotiations Cannot Override Binding Debenture Trust Deed Obligations

The Supreme Court set aside NCLT/NCLAT rulings that had rejected Catalyst Trusteeship's Section 7 IBC petition on grounds of ongoing restructuring negotiations, restoring the ₹600 crore CIRP. Informal restructuring talks cannot override binding contractual obligations under a Debenture Trust Deed. Tribunal findings based on speculation and assumptions were described as perverse.

Key Takeaway — Debenture trustees must act on DTD default clauses without waiting for informal negotiations to run their course — the DTD is a binding contract and courts will enforce it.

Kerala High CourtJan 2026

SARFAESI Pre-Deposit — Must Be Deposited With DRAT, Not With Bank

Section 18 SARFAESI Pre-Deposit for Appeal Must Be Made Directly With DRAT

The Kerala High Court clarified that the mandatory pre-deposit required under Section 18 SARFAESI for filing an appeal must be deposited directly with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) — not with the lending bank. Deposits made directly with the bank do not satisfy the Section 18 pre-condition for appeal admission.

Key Takeaway — Borrowers filing SARFAESI appeals under Section 18 must deposit the pre-deposit directly with DRAT — administrative deposits with the bank will not be accepted for appeal admission.

ParliamentJan 2026

Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Insurance Amendment) Bill, 2025 — Passed

Parliament Passes Major Insurance Reform Bill — Wide-Ranging Statutory Changes to Insurance Laws

Parliament passed the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha Bill in January 2026, introducing wide-ranging reforms to India's insurance framework including revised capital requirements for insurers, expanded bancassurance and composite insurance licences, revised product and distribution norms, and enhanced policyholder protection provisions.

Key Takeaway — Banks, NBFCs, and insurance companies must audit product distribution arrangements and capital adequacy positions against the new Insurance Amendment Act requirements immediately.

Delhi High CourtJan 2026

RBI Ombudsman Second Review Direction — Stayed

Delhi HC Stays Order Directing Second Level Human Review for RBI Ombudsman-Rejected Complaints

The Delhi High Court stayed a single judge's order that had directed a mandatory second level of human review for complaints rejected by the RBI Integrated Ombudsman. The stay leaves banks' existing complaint resolution processes intact pending further adjudication on whether the Ombudsman process meets natural justice requirements.

Key Takeaway — Banks should monitor this litigation closely — if the second-review direction is ultimately upheld, complaint handling procedures will require significant operational changes.

SEBIJan 2026

SME Pump-and-Dump — 26 Individuals Barred from Securities Markets

SEBI Bars 26 Individuals for Coordinated Price Manipulation in SME-Listed Company

SEBI barred 26 individuals from securities markets for coordinated price manipulation in DU Digital Technologies, an SME-listed company. Structured buying inflated prices, followed by coordinated selling at the peak. The case reinforces SEBI's intensifying surveillance of the SME IPO and listing segment.

Key Takeaway — SME-listed company promoters and connected persons must ensure all trading complies strictly with SEBI insider trading and PFUTP regulations — the SME segment is now under active real-time SEBI surveillance.

RBIDec 5, 2025

RBI Group-Level Regulation Circular — December 5, 2025

RBI Imposes Major Group-Level Regulatory Restrictions on Banks and Their Group Entities

The RBI issued a significant circular imposing group-level regulatory restrictions on banks and their subsidiaries, associates, and JVs. Key changes include: the 'exclusivity principle' prohibiting product duplication between a bank and its group entities (effective April 1, 2026); investment restrictions on Category III AIFs; and new group-wide capital and risk management requirements. Compliance plans must be submitted by March 31, 2026.

Key Takeaway — Banking groups must submit detailed RBI compliance plans by March 31, 2026 and ensure no new overlapping business is commenced after April 1, 2026 — non-compliance attracts supervisory action.

Kerala High CourtSep 2025

OTS Scheme — Borrower Entitlement

Writ Dismissed — Borrowers Cannot Claim One Time Settlement as a Matter of Legal Right

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal where borrowers claimed entitlement to the benefit of a bank's One Time Settlement scheme. The Court held that OTS schemes are discretionary instruments — banks retain the right to reject applications that do not meet eligibility criteria. There is no vested legal right to an OTS, and judicial review of OTS rejection is limited.

Key Takeaway — Borrowers seeking OTS should present comprehensive repayment proposals and engage proactively with lenders — courts will not compel banks to grant OTS as a matter of right.

Supreme Court2025

SBI v. Pallabh Bhowmick — Unauthorised Digital Transactions

Bank Fully Liable for Unauthorised Digital Transactions Where Its Own Technology Safeguards Failed

The Supreme Court upheld that a bank bears full liability for unauthorised digital transactions where the breach occurred due to the bank's own technology failure — not customer negligence. The RBI Circular of July 6, 2017 imposes zero liability on account holders in such cases. The Court rejected the bank's attempt to attribute losses to customer OTP sharing where the bank's authentication layer had already failed.

Key Takeaway — Banks cannot routinely blame customers for digital fraud losses — where the bank's security systems failed, the RBI zero-liability framework places the full loss on the bank.

Supreme CourtMay 23, 2025

Bank of India v. Sri Nangli Rice Mills — 2025 INSC 765

Section 11 SARFAESI Creates Statutory Mandatory Arbitration for All Inter-Creditor Disputes

The Supreme Court definitively held that Section 11 SARFAESI creates a statutory mandatory arbitration for all disputes between banks, financial institutions, ARCs, and qualified buyers involving securitisation, reconstruction, and non-payment of dues. No written arbitration agreement is required — the Act creates a statutory deemed consent. The DRT has no jurisdiction over such inter-creditor disputes.

Key Takeaway — Banks with competing claims over the same secured asset must proceed to Section 11 arbitration — filing before the DRT in inter-creditor SARFAESI matters is now clearly impermissible.

Supreme CourtApr 17, 2025

M/s Sunshine Builders v. HDFC Bank — CA No. 5290/2025

Section 18 SARFAESI Pre-Deposit Not Mandatory for Procedural/Interim DRT Orders

The Supreme Court held through purposive interpretation that Section 18 SARFAESI's pre-deposit requirement is not triggered by procedural or interim DRT orders — such as rejection of delay condonation or impleadment applications. Only substantive orders determining liability attract the pre-deposit condition. This prevents mechanistic denial of appellate access for procedural challenges.

Key Takeaway — Borrowers challenging procedural DRT orders may appeal to DRAT without the 50% pre-deposit — significantly reducing the cost barrier to appellate access.

Supreme CourtJan 29, 2025

M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank — 2025 INSC 177

30-Day Gap Between SARFAESI Sale Notice Publication and Auction Is Mandatory Under Rule 9

The Supreme Court confirmed that the 30-day notice period between publication of the SARFAESI sale notice and the auction under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is mandatory and not directory. Auctions conducted without observing this gap are void. The amended Rule 9(1) providing a 15-day period for re-auction does not apply retrospectively.

Key Takeaway — Banks must strictly observe the 30-day notice gap before auction — void auctions expose the bank to liability for recovery shortfalls and require fresh SARFAESI proceedings from scratch.

Supreme CourtJan 9, 2025

Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain — 2025 SCC OnLine SC 121

Civil Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Property Title Disputes Notwithstanding Active SARFAESI Enforcement

The Supreme Court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction over property ownership and title disputes even during SARFAESI enforcement proceedings. The DRT's powers under Section 17 are strictly limited to examining the validity of Section 13(4) enforcement measures — it cannot adjudicate title or validity of pre-existing sale or mortgage deeds. The Court also directed RBI and banks to develop standardised Title Clearance Report (TCR) frameworks, warning that bank officials approving loans on faulty TCRs face personal criminal liability.

Key Takeaway — Third-party property claimants retain civil court remedies notwithstanding active SARFAESI enforcement — banks must urgently improve TCR due diligence to protect their approving officers from personal liability.

Supreme Court2026

ITC Ltd. — ITC Maurya Hotel Haircut Compensation Matter

Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹2 Crore NCDRC Compensation Order for Want of Proof of Loss

The Supreme Court set aside an NCDRC order directing ITC Maurya Hotel to pay ₹2 crore compensation to a model over a salon haircut, holding that the Commission had failed to assess how the complainant actually suffered a loss of that magnitude before fixing the award. The ruling reinforces that consumer compensation must be tethered to demonstrated loss, not awarded as a round-figure penalty.

Key Takeaway — Service providers facing large consumer compensation claims should press consumer fora to justify quantum with evidence of actual loss — the Supreme Court will intervene where awards are disproportionate to proven harm.

Supreme CourtMar 5, 2026

M/s Kabra and Associates v. Rekha & Raj Kumar Hemadev

Homebuyers Cannot Switch From RERA to a Consumer Forum for the Same Grievance

The Supreme Court held that once a homebuyer elects to proceed under RERA for a possession-delay grievance, the doctrine of election bars a subsequent approach to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for compensation on the identical cause of action. The Court set aside the NCDRC's order entertaining a parallel claim after RERA proceedings had already been invoked.

Key Takeaway — Homebuyers must choose their forum carefully at the outset — RERA and consumer fora are not interchangeable or cumulative remedies for the same grievance.

Supreme CourtFeb 2026

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naresh Sharma — RERA Office Relocation Appeal

SC Sharply Criticises RERA's Functioning, Says It May Be 'Better to Abolish' the Regulator

Hearing an appeal on the relocation of the Himachal Pradesh RERA office, a bench led by the CJI observed that RERA appears to serve builders more than homebuyers, and remarked that it may be better to abolish the regulator altogether if it continues to fail in protecting consumer interests — echoing 2025 observations that RERA's functioning was "disappointing." The Court clarified that RERA remains valid law; only Parliament can amend or repeal the Act.

Key Takeaway — While RERA remains fully operative, the increasing judicial and political scrutiny of its effectiveness signals that states should expect pressure to strengthen enforcement and grievance redressal.

Prime Minister/MoHUA2026

RERA Pragati Review — PM Scrutiny

PM Modi Scrutinises RERA at Pragati Meeting — Questions Whether 'Disposed' Means Real Relief

At a Pragati meeting in 2026, Prime Minister Modi questioned whether RERA complaints marked 'disposed' actually result in compensation or possession for homebuyers. He urged states to ensure genuine relief delivery over mere statistical disposal counts, emphasising strict compliance with RERA rules.

Key Takeaway — Developers and RERA registrants must ensure actual on-ground compliance with RERA orders — the political and judicial focus on RERA's delivery of real relief signals intensified enforcement.

Various Courts2026

Consumer Forum — Significant Damages in Telecom and Banking Deficiency

Consumer Fora Award Significant Exemplary Damages for Telecom and Banking Service Deficiency

Consumer fora across India consistently awarded significant exemplary damages in 2025-26 for deficiency of service by telecom operators and banks, including awards for mental agony and litigation costs well above the principal claim. Courts held that large corporate service providers must not treat consumer litigation as a negligible cost.

Key Takeaway — Telecom operators and banks should implement proactive customer grievance resolution — systemic deficiency of service now attracts exemplary damages that significantly exceed the principal claim amount.

Supreme CourtFeb 12, 2026

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naresh Sharma — SLP(C) 5835/2026

Supreme Court Criticises RERA: 'Better to Abolish This Institution' if It Only Serves Defaulting Builders

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued strong observations questioning RERA's national effectiveness while considering an HP RERA office relocation matter. The Court observed that RERA authorities seem to serve defaulting builders rather than homebuyers — CJI Surya Kant stated it may be 'better to abolish this institution' if this continues.

Key Takeaway — RERA authorities across India face heightened judicial scrutiny — these observations are expected to accelerate state-level RERA reforms and improve enforcement against defaulting builders.

Supreme CourtFeb 12, 2026

RERA Appellate Jurisdiction — Co-Location With Administrative Office

SC Directs RERA Appellate Powers May Shift Alongside Office Relocation for Access to Justice

While permitting Himachal Pradesh to shift its RERA office to Dharamshala, the Supreme Court directed that appellate powers may simultaneously shift to ensure litigants are not required to travel long distances to challenge RERA orders. The ruling reflects judicial awareness of access-to-justice concerns in regulatory appeals.

Key Takeaway — RERA complainants in HP should verify current appellate jurisdiction before filing statutory appeals — the Court's direction may shift the appellate forum in tandem with the administrative office.

Ministry of Housing & Urban AffairsSep 2025

Unified RERA Portal — National Launch

MoHUA Launches Unified National RERA Portal — All State Data Consolidated on One Platform

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs launched a unified RERA portal in September 2025, consolidating data from all state and UT RERA authorities on a single national platform. The portal enables homebuyers to check project registrations, complaint status, and developer compliance records across states from a single interface.

Key Takeaway — Homebuyers must use the unified RERA portal for due diligence before booking any property — verified project registration, escrow compliance, and complaint history are now searchable in one place.

Delhi High CourtJun 2025

Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. CBI — Digital Forensics

Article 20(3) Protects Accused From Being Compelled to Disclose Digital Device Passwords

The Delhi High Court held that an accused cannot be coerced by investigative agencies to disclose passwords, PINs, or access credentials for digital devices. The right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution extends to compelled digital disclosure — investigators cannot use contempt or legal compulsion to obtain device access from the accused.

Key Takeaway — This ruling materially affects digital forensics in medico-legal, corporate fraud, and white-collar cases — investigators must obtain digital evidence through independent means.

National Commission (NCDRC)2025

NCDRC — Informed Consent Standards in Medical Cases

NCDRC Tightens Scrutiny of Hospital Consent Forms — Blanket Generic Consent Is Insufficient

The NCDRC in multiple 2025 decisions heightened scrutiny of hospital consent forms, holding that blanket generic consent forms failing to disclose the specific risks of the actual procedure to be performed constitute evidence of negligence. Hospitals must demonstrate procedure-specific informed consent — identifying the exact risks of the operation performed.

Key Takeaway — Healthcare providers must implement procedure-specific informed consent protocols — generic surgical consent forms no longer provide an adequate defence in NCDRC negligence proceedings.

Supreme Court2025

Consumer Protection — Mental Agony and Litigation Costs

Consumer Compensation Must Genuinely Account for Mental Agony and Litigation Costs

In multiple 2025 consumer matters, the Supreme Court reinforced that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act must genuinely account for mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs — not merely the actual financial loss. Consumer fora were directed to award realistic, deterrent compensation that discourages repeat defaults by large service providers.

Key Takeaway — Consumers pursuing claims should specifically plead and quantify mental agony compensation and litigation costs as standalone heads of claim — courts are receptive to these as independent relief heads.

Courts2025

Consumer and Competition Act — Dual Remedies Available

Consumer Forum and CCI Offer Concurrent Remedies for Unfair Trade Practices

Courts confirmed that the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the Competition Act 2002 offer overlapping but distinct remedies for unfair trade practices. Consumers affected by anti-competitive conduct by dominant players may simultaneously pursue consumer forum compensation claims and file information before the CCI.

Key Takeaway — Consumers and their advocates should consider dual-track enforcement strategy — the CCI remedy adds systemic deterrence beyond the individual monetary relief available from consumer fora.

Multiple High Courts2025

Medical Negligence — Post-COVID Documentation Standards

Courts Apply Heightened Documentary Scrutiny in Post-COVID Medical Negligence Cases

Courts in 2025 applied heightened scrutiny to hospital documentation in post-COVID medical negligence cases — particularly ICU protocols, ventilator management, and medication records. Gaps in documentation were increasingly treated as an adverse inference of negligence rather than mere administrative oversight.

Key Takeaway — Hospitals must maintain comprehensive electronic medical records with complete documentation of all clinical decisions — evidentiary standards in medical negligence proceedings have materially increased.

Supreme CourtJun 4, 2025

GMADA v. Anupam Garg — 2025 INSC 808

No Double Compensation in Homebuyer Claims — Contractual Interest and Loan Interest Cannot Both Be Awarded

The Supreme Court held that homebuyer compensation must not result in double recovery. Where an allotment letter provides an 8% compound interest remedy on delay, consumer fora cannot additionally award interest on the buyer's home loan. The contractual interest already compensates the financial cost of the investment.

Key Takeaway — Consumer fora must apply the contractual interest remedy before awarding additional compensation — double-counting of financial loss creates unjust enrichment at the builder's expense.

Supreme CourtApr 2025

BNSS Transition — PMLA Post-July 2024 Complaints

PMLA Complaints Filed After July 1, 2024 Must Comply With BNSS Section 223 Pre-Cognisance Hearing

Courts confirmed that PMLA complaint proceedings filed after July 1, 2024 must comply with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) pre-cognisance hearing requirement under Section 223. A cognisance order passed without affording the accused such a hearing was set aside as invalid.

Key Takeaway — Prosecutors and practitioners must audit all PMLA proceedings initiated post-July 2024 for BNSS compliance — cognisance orders passed without the Section 223 hearing are vulnerable to challenge.

Karnataka RERAApr 3, 2025

Abhishek Reddy Gujjala v. M/S Ozone Urbana Infra — CMP/00754/2024

Karnataka RERA Orders Full Refund With Interest for Delayed Possession Under Section 18 RERA

Karnataka RERA ordered a developer to refund homebuyers with interest for delayed possession of a plot in the 'Southend' project, applying the unconditional refund right under Section 18 of the RERA Act. The ruling reinforces that any delay beyond the agreed possession date triggers the absolute right to seek a refund — without needing to establish the developer's fault or cause of delay.

Key Takeaway — Homebuyers facing delayed possession can invoke their absolute Section 18 RERA refund right immediately — the right is triggered by delay alone, without requiring proof of developer fault.

Supreme CourtMar 2025

PMLA — Continuing Offence Doctrine Applied

Money Laundering Is a Continuing Offence Persisting as Long as Proceeds of Crime Are Held

The Supreme Court held that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA is a continuing offence that persists as long as proceeds of crime remain in possession, use, or are projected as untainted funds. The timing of the predicate offence is irrelevant where possession and concealment continue. Aggregate transaction values — not individual transactions — must be considered for threshold purposes.

Key Takeaway — Entities that receive, hold, or transact in funds that constitute proceeds of crime remain exposed to PMLA prosecution at any time — the limitation clock does not start until the proceeds are disgorged.

Supreme CourtJan 2025

IBC Homebuyer Matters — Consolidated Directions

RERA Is the Primary Forum for Homebuyers; IBC Must Not Be Used as a Debt Recovery Tool

The Supreme Court confirmed across multiple homebuyer CIRP matters that RERA is the primary and appropriate forum for homebuyer grievances. The IBC should be invoked only for genuine project revival — not as debt recovery. The Court directed filling of NCLT/NCLAT vacancies on priority, creation of dedicated IBC benches for real estate, and formation of a high-level committee for systemic real estate sector reforms.

Key Takeaway — Homebuyers facing builder defaults should first approach RERA — using IBC as a recovery tool is increasingly being treated by the Supreme Court as an abuse of process.

Supreme CourtFeb 2026

RERA Institutional Effectiveness — Himachal Pradesh Relocation Matter

Supreme Court Bench Says It May Be "Better to Abolish RERA" Than Let It Keep Favouring Defaulting Builders

Hearing an appeal concerning relocation of the Himachal Pradesh RERA office, a bench led by the Chief Justice remarked that state RERAs appear to be "doing nothing but providing convenience to defaulting builders," and questioned whether the institution should be reconsidered altogether. The Court clarified that any actual abolition would require Parliament to amend or repeal the RERA Act — the remarks operate as institutional pressure, not a binding directive.

Key Takeaway — Developers should expect state RERAs to tighten enforcement in response to this judicial scrutiny — homebuyers pursuing possession-delay or refund claims have real momentum behind stronger grievance redressal.

Jan Vishwas Amendment2026

RERA Section 68 — Decriminalisation Amendment

RERA Decriminalisation Amendment Narrows — But Does Not Eliminate — Penal Exposure for Developers

The Jan Vishwas amendment to Section 68 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 converts a defined set of criminal penalties into monetary ones, easing compliance friction for developers on procedural defaults. The reform is targeted rather than sweeping — RERA retains its penal character for substantive violations such as diversion of homebuyer funds and non-registration of projects.

Key Takeaway — Developers should not read the amendment as blanket decriminalisation — fund-diversion and non-registration exposure remain fully prosecutable, only a defined band of procedural defaults has been civilised.

Government of India2026

GIDC Leasehold Rights — GST Exemption Confirmed

Supreme Court Confirms Assignment of Industrial Leasehold Rights Is Not Subject to GST

The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's Special Leave Petitions against a Gujarat High Court ruling that assignment, sale and transfer of leasehold rights in industrial plots allotted by state industrial development bodies are not a supply of service exigible to GST — settling a recurring point of dispute for industrial and warehousing transactions.

Key Takeaway — Buyers and sellers of industrial plot leasehold rights across NCR and West Bengal industrial estates can now structure assignments without a GST overhang on the transfer itself.

Joint Parliamentary Committee — Bill PendingApr 2026

Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026

Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill 2026 Set to Overhaul NCLT Scheme-of-Arrangement Procedure

Now before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the Bill proposes sweeping changes to Sections 230–233 of the Companies Act, 2013, streamlining NCLT scheme-of-arrangement procedures, revising creditor/shareholder meeting-class thresholds, clarifying cross-border merger rules for foreign companies, decriminalising a swathe of provisions, and removing the IBC cross-reference from Section 230(1). Multi-bench NCLT schemes that previously took 12–14 months are expected to complete materially faster once the reforms are notified.

Key Takeaway — Deal teams should build the Bill's phased notification timeline into scheme-of-arrangement planning now — CP language and expected timelines in transaction documents may need revision once provisions come into force.

CCI — Clarificatory Guidance2026

Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 — Deal Value Threshold Guidance

CCI Issues Fresh Clarificatory Guidance on Deal Value Threshold Filings

Building on the Deal Value Threshold introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, the CCI in early 2026 published further clarifications addressing on-market share purchases, open offers, filing timelines and penalty methodology, prompting a fresh wave of compliance reviews across PE and strategic deal teams for asset-light, digital-economy targets that previously escaped scrutiny under the old asset/turnover tests.

Key Takeaway — Acquirers of digital and asset-light targets must re-run DVT analysis under the updated CCI guidance even where classic asset/turnover thresholds are not met.

NCLT — Amendment Rules2026

National Company Law Tribunal (Amendment) Rules, 2024 — 2026 Roll-Out

NCLT Benches Directed to Dispose of Merger Petitions Within 90 Days

NCLT benches nationwide have been directed to dispose of merger and amalgamation petitions within 90 days of filing, a significant compression compared to earlier practice where scheme approvals commonly took 8–12 months or longer, particularly where multiple benches had jurisdiction over different transacting entities.

Key Takeaway — Deal timelines for NCLT-sanctioned mergers should be recalibrated — but practitioners should confirm bench-level compliance with the 90-day directive before committing to aggressive closing dates in transaction documents.

CCIMar 2026 — Active

CCI Digital Market Merger Surveillance — Ongoing Enforcement

CCI Actively Reviewing Digital Market Acquisitions Under Deal Value Threshold

The CCI in early 2026 is actively reviewing multiple digital sector acquisitions and investements under the new deal value threshold framework. Several pre-merger filings have been scrutinised for potential anti-competitive effects in data markets, platform economies, and digital financial services — signalling the CCI's intent to be an active regulator in the digital economy.

Key Takeaway — All venture capital investments, startup acquisitions, and digital asset purchases must be assessed for CCI deal value threshold filing obligations — the ₹2,000 crore trigger applies even to seed and growth-stage transactions in digital sectors.

Supreme CourtFeb 2026

NCLT Trademark Jurisdiction Without Insolvency Link

NCLT Cannot Exercise IBC Jurisdiction Over Pure IP Ownership Disputes Without Direct Insolvency Link

The Supreme Court ruled that the NCLT lacks jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC to adjudicate trademark or IP ownership disputes that have no direct connection with the ongoing insolvency proceedings. IP ownership is not 'arising out of or in relation to' insolvency merely because the IP is an asset of a corporate debtor.

Key Takeaway — Parties claiming IP ownership against a company in insolvency must initiate proceedings in civil courts or IP Divisions — NCLT jurisdiction does not extend to pure IP ownership questions.

SEBIFeb 2026

SME IPO Tightened Norms — Following Market Manipulation Concerns

SEBI Tightens SME IPO Norms After Widespread Manipulation Concerns in the Segment

SEBI announced tightened norms for SME IPOs following widespread regulatory concerns about price manipulation, inflated valuations, and governance deficiencies in the SME listing segment. Key changes include enhanced due diligence requirements for merchant bankers, stricter promoter lock-in provisions, and more rigorous disclosure standards.

Key Takeaway — Companies considering SME IPOs must engage experienced legal and financial advisors to navigate the significantly enhanced regulatory requirements — the old permissive regime for SME listings no longer applies.

SEBIJan 2026

SEBI Board Meeting December 2025 — Major Regulatory Pipeline

SEBI December 2025 Board Meeting Announces Significant 2026 Regulatory Changes

SEBI's December 2025 Board meeting announced a pipeline of significant regulatory changes: revised Small and Medium REIT regulations, tightened SME IPO norms following manipulation concerns, revised Alternative Investment Fund regulations, and further LODR amendments affecting related-party transactions. Implementation timelines extend through mid-2026.

Key Takeaway — Corporate finance teams and investment bankers must track the SEBI 2026 regulatory pipeline — IPO, REIT, and AIF structuring decisions must account for the forthcoming changes.

Supreme CourtDec 2025

Madras Bar Association v. Union of India — 2025 INSC 1330

SC Strikes Down Tribunals Reforms Act Provisions — Orders Constitution of National Tribunals Commission

The Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1330) struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, reiterating that executive dominance over tribunal appointments violates judicial independence. The Court ordered the constitution of a National Tribunals Commission. This directly affects NCLT, NCLAT, SAT, and other commercial tribunal appointment processes.

Key Takeaway — Companies engaged in significant NCLT matters should track the National Tribunals Commission's constitution — it will reshape how NCLT and other commercial tribunal members are appointed and serve.

Supreme CourtJun 2025

Vedanta Demerger — Scheme of Arrangement Scrutiny

Vedanta's Six-Way Demerger Faces NCLT Scrutiny Over Minority Shareholder Consent and Disclosure

Vedanta's proposed six-way demerger faced significant procedural challenges before the NCLT regarding adequacy of minority shareholder consent, disclosure requirements under the Companies Act, 2013, and compliance with fair treatment obligations to retail investors. NCLT scrutiny of complex multi-entity restructurings has intensified significantly.

Key Takeaway — Promoters planning complex demergers or restructuring schemes must invest heavily in minority shareholder communication and disclosure — NCLT will not sanction schemes where retail investor interests have been inadequately addressed.

SEBI2025

SEBI v. Arshad Warsi — Social Media Pump-and-Dump

SEBI Bans Actor Arshad Warsi for Social Media-Driven Securities Market Manipulation

SEBI issued a prohibitory order against actor Arshad Warsi and related parties following an investigation into pump-and-dump manipulation of small-cap listed companies through social media influencer networks. The order marks a significant extension of SEBI's PFUTP enforcement into social media-driven market manipulation.

Key Takeaway — Social media promotions of listed stocks without SEBI-mandated disclosures may constitute market manipulation — both influencers and the companies that engage them are within SEBI's enforcement ambit.

SEBI2025

SEBI Insider Trading — Intensified Disgorgement Enforcement in 2025

SEBI Issues Multiple Disgorgement Orders Against Insider Trading Using UPSI in 2025

SEBI significantly intensified enforcement against insider trading in 2025, issuing multiple disgorgement orders requiring traders to surrender all profits from price-sensitive information. SEBI's expanded surveillance — including social media monitoring and advanced data analytics — identified trading patterns previously undetectable.

Key Takeaway — Listed company management must ensure robust UPSI classification, insider trading windows, and communication protocols — SEBI has near-real-time monitoring capability for abnormal trading patterns.

MCA2025

Companies (Accounts) Rules — POSH Disclosure Now Mandatory in Board's Report

MCA Formalises Mandatory POSH Case Disclosure in Company Board's Report

The MCA formalised requirements for companies to report on Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act compliance in the Board's Report under the Companies Act, 2013. Companies must now disclose the number of POSH complaints filed, pending, and disposed of in the annual Board's Report — making POSH compliance a corporate governance accountability matter.

Key Takeaway — Companies must establish a POSH case tracking and reporting system for the Board's Report — non-disclosure is a Companies Act violation attracting regulatory penalties.

Calcutta High Court2025

LPA Not Maintainable Against Single Judge IP Tribunal Orders

LPA Is Not Maintainable Against Single Judge Orders in Trademark Appeals Under Section 91 TM Act

The Calcutta High Court clarified the appellate framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999: a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against a Single Judge's order in an appeal under Section 91 of the Act. The IP Division's role in the trademark appeals hierarchy was clarified — direct challenges to IP tribunal rulings require fresh proceedings.

Key Takeaway — Trademark applicants and opponents must choose their appellate strategy carefully from the outset — LPAs against IP Division Single Judge orders are not available under the TM Act.

Bombay High Court — Division BenchMay 2025

IMAX Corp v. E-City Entertainment

Corporate Veil Pierced at Award Enforcement Stage to Implead Related Beneficiary Entities

The Bombay High Court held that where an affiliate or related entity benefited from a contract subject to an arbitral award, non-parties to the arbitration may be impleaded at the enforcement stage by piercing the corporate veil. Evasion of legal obligations through separate corporate structures is not permitted.

Key Takeaway — Group companies cannot assume protection from arbitral awards by being separate legal entities — enforcement courts will pierce the veil where affiliated entities have benefited from the underlying contract.

Competition Commission of IndiaApr 2025

CCI Deal Value Threshold — Fully Operational

CCI's New Deal Value Threshold for Merger Notifications Fully Operational From 2025

The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023's new deal value threshold became fully operational in 2025, requiring CCI pre-clearance for acquisitions of companies with substantial domestic market impact — even where they lack significant Indian assets. Digital economy M&A, data-rich startup acquisitions, and platform transactions now require CCI review.

Key Takeaway — M&A advisors must assess CCI deal value threshold applicability in all technology and digital sector transactions — the ₹2,000 crore deal value trigger applies regardless of Indian asset presence.

NCLT — New DelhiMar 19, 2025

Escientia Life Sciences v. Escientia Advanced Sciences

NCLT Directs Structured Buy-Out for 50:50 JV Shareholder Deadlock Under Sections 241–242

The NCLT directed a structured buy-out mechanism under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 to resolve a shareholder deadlock in a 50:50 JV, ordering the majority shareholder to acquire the minority's shares at fair value determined by an independent valuer. The tribunal preferred judicially supervised commercial resolution over winding up.

Key Takeaway — Oppression and mismanagement proceedings under Sections 241-242 are a viable tool for resolving JV deadlocks — the buy-out at fair value remedy is increasingly preferred over winding up.

SEBIMar 19, 2025

SBO (Significant Beneficial Owner) Framework Revised

SEBI Revises SBO Identification and Disclosure Framework for Listed Companies

SEBI issued a revised circular tightening the Significant Beneficial Owner identification and disclosure framework, including stricter reporting timelines for indirect shareholding changes and an expanded definition of 'control' for SBO purposes — with significant implications for PE investors and promoter groups restructuring listed company holdings.

Key Takeaway — PE investors and promoter groups with listed entity stakes must immediately audit SBO disclosures against the revised framework — non-compliance attracts SEBI enforcement action and stock exchange penalties.

SEBIFeb 2025

SEBI LODR Amendment — Material Event Disclosure Within 30 Minutes

SEBI Tightens Material Event Disclosure — Listed Companies Must Disclose Within 30 Minutes of Occurrence

SEBI's amended Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations reduce the material event disclosure window to 30 minutes from occurrence for certain categories of events (previously 24 hours). The amendments also tightened related-party transaction frameworks, revised director appointment norms, and expanded the definition of events requiring immediate disclosure.

Key Takeaway — Listed companies must establish real-time material information protocols with a pre-configured internal escalation process and designated disclosure officers — the 30-minute window allows no margin for delay.

Supreme Court2026

Validity of Section 16(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017

Input Tax Credit Is Available to a Buyer Only If the Supplier Has Actually Paid Tax to the Government

The Supreme Court affirmed a Gujarat High Court ruling upholding the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, dismissing challenges that sought to decouple a buyer's Input Tax Credit entitlement from actual tax payment by the supplier. ITC remains conditional on the supplier discharging its tax liability, regardless of the buyer's own compliance.

Key Takeaway — GST-registered businesses must actively vet and monitor supplier tax-filing compliance — ITC exposure from a defaulting vendor cannot be cured by the buyer's own good-faith compliance.

Supreme CourtMay 2026

Online Gaming — 28% GST on Full Face Value of Bets

Supreme Court Upholds 28% GST on Full Value of Bets Placed on Online Gaming Platforms

The Supreme Court upheld the levy of 28% GST on the full face value of bets placed through online gaming platforms, holding the levy valid even where the underlying game involves skill rather than chance, rejecting industry arguments that tax should apply only to platform commission or gross gaming revenue.

Key Takeaway — Online gaming, fantasy sports and betting-adjacent platforms operating out of or serving customers in NCR and Kolkata must price and account for GST on full bet value, not net revenue — the 2026 ruling forecloses the narrower revenue-based argument.

APTELMay 11, 2026

NTPC Ltd. v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.

Force Majeure Clauses in Power Contracts Are Construed Strictly — Foreseeable Events Do Not Qualify

APTEL reinforced that force majeure clauses in power purchase and supply agreements must be construed strictly, holding they cannot be invoked to excuse non-performance where the triggering event was reasonably foreseeable or where the affected party failed to take adequate mitigating steps before and during the event.

Key Takeaway — Discoms and generators in West Bengal and across the power sector should audit force majeure clauses and mitigation obligations in existing PPAs — foreseeability will defeat a force majeure defence at APTEL.

Supreme CourtMay 8, 2026

Indian Railways Cross-Subsidy Surcharge Appeals

Indian Railways Remains Liable for Cross-Subsidy Surcharge on Open-Access Power Procurement

A two-judge bench dismissed all appeals filed by Indian Railways, upholding APTEL's February 2024 order that Railways must pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge when procuring power through open access, rejecting Railways' claim to a blanket exemption from these regulatory charges.

Key Takeaway — Large open-access power consumers, including quasi-governmental entities, cannot assume exemption from CSS/additional surcharge — liability turns on the regulatory framework, not the consumer's public character.

Supreme Court2026

M/S Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. GSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd.

Judicial Restraint Reaffirmed in Reviewing Technical Evaluation of Infrastructure & EPC Tenders

Reviewing an operation-and-maintenance contract dispute over a gas-based power plant, the Supreme Court set aside High Court interference and held that evaluation and award of complex, technically specialised infrastructure contracts falls within the domain of the procuring authority — judicial review is confined to illegality, mala fides or irrationality, not a re-run of the technical merits.

Key Takeaway — Bidders challenging infrastructure and EPC tender outcomes need a genuine illegality or perversity ground — disagreement with the technical evaluation on the merits will not sustain a challenge.

Delhi High CourtFeb 24, 2026

Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services v. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Delhi High Court Adjudicates Contractor Dispute Arising From a National Highway Infrastructure Contract

The Delhi High Court dealt with a contractual dispute between a works contractor and the National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation, part of a continuing line of Delhi HC rulings on EPC and works-contract disputes arising out of national highway and public infrastructure projects awarded and administered from Delhi.

Key Takeaway — Infrastructure contractors and government corporations executing NHAI/NHIDCL contracts should expect the Delhi High Court and Delhi Commercial Courts to remain the primary forum for works-contract disputes — dispute resolution clauses should be drafted with that forum in mind.

Supreme Court — 2026 INSC 6982026

Mahinder & Others v. Puran Singh

Class-I Heirs Have a Preferential Right to Acquire Inherited Agricultural Land Before It Passes to Outsiders

The Supreme Court reinforced the legislative intent behind Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confirming that where inherited agricultural land is to be transferred, Class-I heirs enjoy a preferential right to acquire it ahead of any sale to an outside purchaser, protecting family land holdings from fragmentation via third-party sale.

Key Takeaway — Purchasers of agricultural land from a co-heir must verify that the Section 22 preferential-purchase right has been properly offered to and waived by other Class-I heirs — failure to do so exposes the sale to challenge.

Supreme Court2025 – 2026

Land Acquisition Compensation & Reversion Jurisprudence

Unutilised Acquired Land Must Be Returned Proportionately — Eminent Domain Is Not an Indefinite Land Bank

Across a series of 2025–2026 rulings, the Supreme Court has held that the State's power of eminent domain must be exercised fairly and strictly for the stated public purpose, that compensation must reflect the highest bona fide comparable sale exemplar rather than a diluted averaging method, and that agricultural land acquired but left unutilised for a public purpose must, in appropriate cases, be returned proportionately to the original owners.

Key Takeaway — Farmers and landowners whose acquired land remains undeveloped years later have a strengthening line of Supreme Court authority to seek reversion or enhanced, exemplar-based compensation.

Important Disclaimer & Notice

India's Full-ServiceLaw Firm

A Single-WindowLegal Partner

Integrity, Knowledge and Commitment — In Every Matter

Commercial Litigation & Corporate Counsel —Delhi NCR & Kolkata

Commercial Litigation Lawyers in Noida & Delhi NCR

Corporate & Commercial Dispute Resolution in Kolkata

Pan-India Reach Through Associate Counsel

Serving Businesses Across NCR & East India

Commercial Litigation & Corporate Law —Frequently Asked Questions

Which courts do S&S Co.'s commercial litigation lawyers appear before in Delhi NCR and Kolkata?

Does S&S Co. handle arbitration as well as court litigation?

Which industries and clients does the firm represent?

Can S&S Co. represent clients outside Delhi NCR and Kolkata?

Areas ofPractice

Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Commercial Litigation — Delhi NCR & Kolkata

Corporate Advisory & M&A

Insolvency & Bankruptcy (IBC)

Employment & Labour

Intellectual Property Rights

Real Estate & Property Law

Food Safety & Standards

Consumer & Medico-Legal

Power, Energy & Mining

Banking & Finance

Tax Advisory

Infrastructure Development

Agricultural Industries

Legal Updates

Courts Must Exercise Restraint Reviewing Technical Tender & Contract-Award Decisions

Participation in Proceedings Without Objection Waives Challenge to Arbitrator's Mandate

Section 9 Interim Relief Is Available Post-Award, Even to a Non-Award Holder

Seat of Arbitration Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction — Venue Is Merely a Convenient Location

Section 37 Appellate Scrutiny Cannot Exceed the Grounds Available Under Section 34

Constitution Bench in Gayatri Balasamy Urges Expedited Passage of Arbitration & Conciliation Bill 2024

Holding Hearings at a Location Does Not Fix It as the Seat of Arbitration

Writ Under Article 226 Maintainable Against MSEFC Where Order Is Passed Without Jurisdiction or Is a Nullity

Non-Parties Impleaded at Enforcement Stage — Corporate Veil Pierced to Prevent Award Evasion

Rare Anti-Arbitration Injunction Granted Against Foreign Arbitration for Undisclosed Conflict

Unsigned Arbitration Agreement Is Binding if Parties Act on It Through Correspondence and Conduct

Arbitral Tribunal Can Itself Implead a Non-Signatory Under the Group of Companies Doctrine

IBC Section 61(2): NCLAT Has No Jurisdiction to Condone Delay Beyond the 45-Day Outer Limit

Constitution Bench Holds: Courts Have Limited Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Sections 34 & 37

Whether a Non-Signatory Is Bound by an Arbitration Agreement Is for the Tribunal to Decide Conclusively

Contractual Bar on Interest Operates Differently Under the 1996 Arbitration Act vs. 1940 Act

Venue of Arbitration Does Not Determine the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement

5-Judge Constitution Bench Commences Hearing on Whether Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards

Section 37 Appellate Jurisdiction Cannot Exceed the Scope Prescribed Under Section 34

HC Writ Interference With Arbitral Orders Requires Perversity Staring on the Face of the Record

Commercial Courts Act Is Meant for Expediency — Voluminous Evidence Cannot Dilute Its Rigours

Calcutta HC Recalls Its Own Jurisdictional Finding After a Binding Supreme Court Precedent Went Unconsidered

Commercial Division Directs Sale of Mortgaged Property in Execution of a Money Decree

Wider Summary-Judgment Powers and Mandatory E-Filing Take Hold in Commercial Litigation

Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Insolvency Order Built on Fabricated, AI-Generated Case Law

SC Flags Nexus Between Banks, ARCs and Borrowers Over Steep Haircut Settlements

SC Flags Nearly Two-Year NCLT Delay in Approving Resolution Plans, Seeks Nationwide Data

100-Allottee Threshold Under Section 7 Is Fixed at Date of Petition Registration

Section 198 IBC Cannot Be Used to Condone Delay in NCLAT Appeals Beyond Section 61(2) Limit

SC Restores ₹600 Crore Insolvency Plea — NCLT/NCLAT Findings Called Perverse and Unsustainable

CIRP Terminated and SCN Issued Under Section 65 IBC for Collusive, Malicious Application

RERA Is Primary Forum for Homebuyers; IBC Should Not Be Used as a Recovery Tool

Consortium Lender Cannot Claim Priority Over Pre-Existing Charge Without NOC

Supreme Court Recalls Liquidation Order — CoC Is Not Functus Officio After Plan Approval

NCLT Cannot Ignore a Rejoinder Affidavit After It Has Already Condoned the Delay in Filing It

JSW Steel Resolution Plan Set Aside — CIRP 330-Day Limit Violated; Liquidation Ordered

CCI Approval Under Section 31(4) IBC Before CoC Resolution Plan Approval Is MANDATORY

Service of Section 8 Demand Notice on KMP at Registered Office Constitutes Valid Service

NCLAT Cannot Condone Appeal Delay Beyond the Mandatory 45-Day Outer Limit Under Section 61(2)

Section 18 SARFAESI Pre-Deposit Is Not Mandatory for Procedural or Interim DRT Orders

Power of Attorney by Officer's Designation (Not Name) Is Valid for IBC Filings

Mandatory 30-Day Gap Between SARFAESI Sale Notice Publication and Auction Under Rule 9

IBC's Statutory Timelines Are Mandatory, Not Directory — Strict Compliance Required

'Uniqueness' Is Not the Test for Trademark Registration — Distinctiveness Under Section 9(1)(a) Suffices

Delhi HC Clarifies Power to Direct Pro Tem Security in SEP & FRAND Disputes

Bolar Exception Is Narrowly Construed — Burden Is on the Party Invoking Section 107A

NCLT Has No Power to Decide Trademark Ownership Disputes Without a Direct Insolvency Link

Landmark Policy Moment: SC Ruling to Define Whether FRAND Disputes Go to Patent Courts or CCI

John Doe Order Restrains AI-Generated Deepfakes and Fake Endorsements of Public Figures

International Reputation Alone Cannot Establish Protectable Goodwill in India

India's Full-Service
Law Firm

A Single-Window
Legal Partner

Commercial Litigation & Corporate Counsel —
Delhi NCR & Kolkata

Commercial Litigation & Corporate Law —
Frequently Asked Questions

Areas of
Practice