Listen to this post
Expanding the Regulatory Framework: Deep dive into SEBI’s new AML/CFT guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), through its Master Circular dated June 06, 2024, issued ‘Guidelines on Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) Standards and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (“CFT”)/ Obligations of Securities Market Intermediaries under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002,’ (“Master Circular/2024 Guidelines”),[1] emphasising the need for stricter AML/ CFT measures in the securities market, given global efforts against drug trafficking, terrorism, and other serious crimes. The 2024 Guidelines supersede the SEBI AML/ CFT Guidelines of February 03, 2023 (“2023 Guidelines”),[2] strengthening the obligations of market intermediaries and aligning with international standards from the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”).

Continue Reading Expanding the Regulatory Framework: Deep dive into SEBI’s new AML/CFT guidelines
Listen to this post
Tariffs, Trade, and Troubles: Compliances for Indian companies

The recent imposition of “reciprocal tariffs” by the United States (“US”) and the potential reaction/retaliation from trade partners is indicative of global trade dynamics entering an era of aggressive tariff enforcement and geopolitical recalibration.

Continue Reading Tariffs, Trade, and Troubles: Compliances for Indian companies
Listen to this post

Arbitration jurisprudence in India continues to vacillate when it comes to the interplay between exclusive jurisdiction clause and arbitration clause, particularly in the realm of domestic arbitration. A key challenge lies in determining which Court will have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings — especially when the arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause are not in harmony.

Continue Reading Reconciling Conflict in Arbitration Clause and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
Listen to this post
U.S. Spotlight on Pharma Imports: What does this mean for Indian Pharma?

The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), on April 14, 2025, announced the initiation of an investigation into the imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients as well as semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment in the context of U.S. national security. This move could affect India’s USD 10 billion annual pharmaceutical exports to the U.S.

Continue Reading U.S. Spotlight on Pharma Imports: What does this mean for Indian Pharma?
Listen to this post
Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?

Introduction:

It is settled law under the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that maximum 120 days will be provided for filing of a written statement in a commercial suit. On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement, and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record[1]. For regular or non-commercial civil suits, the period for filing the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of summons[2], however, it can be extended at the discretion of the Court.

Continue Reading Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?
Listen to this post
Recognition of Indian CIRP in Singapore: A Step Forward for Cross-Border Insolvency

INTRODUCTION

    In Re Compuage Infocom Ltd[1] (“Judgment”), the Singapore High Court (“Court”) has recognized the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of an Indian company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and granted assistance to the Resolution Professional (“RP”) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). Applying the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997)[2] (‘Model Law’), as adopted by Singapore by way of Section 252 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, 2018 (“IRDA”), the Judgment deals with several key issues, including whether the NCLT is a ‘foreign court’, whether RPs are ‘foreign representatives’, and whether repatriation of assets located in a foreign jurisdiction can be permitted for the benefit of creditors in other jurisdictions. This is the first such ruling in Singapore and is a welcome development. This piece discusses the key findings in the Judgment and their implications for all stakeholders involved in the CIRP of Indian companies.

    Continue Reading Recognition of Indian CIRP in Singapore: A Step Forward for Cross-Border Insolvency
    Listen to this post
    FCPA, FCA and the Trump Effect: What Indian companies need to know

    The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and the False Claims Act (“FCA”) are two pivotal legislations of the United States (“U.S.”) that significantly influence the operations of multinational corporations, including Indian entities. The most notable recent cases against Indian companies are: (i) the allegations on the Adani Group for orchestrating a bribery scheme thereby violating the FCA; and (ii) investigation of Azure Power Global on the allegations of improper payments and misrepresentation of the company’s anti-bribery practices to gain U.S. financing in violation of the FCPA.

    Continue Reading FCPA, FCA and the Trump Effect: What Indian companies need to know
    Listen to this post
    Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act

    INTRODUCTION

    The intersection between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), has caused significant judicial deliberation, particularly concerning creditor rights, financial discipline, and the resolution of financial distress. Section 138 of the NI Act holds the drawer of the cheque liable in case of dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The provision imposes penal consequences on the drawer, serving as a deterrent against indiscriminate issuances of cheques and safeguarding creditors’ interests.[1]

    Continue Reading Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act
    Listen to this post

    INTRODUCTION

    The evolution of arbitration in India has been marked by a steadfast judicial commitment to enhancing its merits, particularly its efficiency, speed, and limited judicial intervention. This development offers a credible alternative to the overburdened judicial system. However, courts have remained the cornerstone of supervisory jurisdiction, ensuring that arbitral awards adhere to the principles enshrined in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”).[2] Among the grounds for challenging awards, “patent illegality” under Section 34(2A) of the Act, initially conceived as a subset of “public policy”, was introduced as a distinct ground to address blatant legal errors visible on the face of an award by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.[3] Today, patent illegality stands as one of the widely employed grounds for challenge, yet its contours remain vague.

    Continue Reading DMRC V. DAMEPL and the 2024 Amendment Bill: Where Patent illegality stands in Arbitration?
    Listen to this post
    CCI Nod Mandatory Before Committee Of Creditors’ Approval Under The Code, Says Supreme Court

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”) recent judgment in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, 2025 SCC Online Sc 181 is a landmark decision. It highlights the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), and the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”), in the context of resolution plans involving combinations that may have an appreciable adverse effect on competition (“AAEC”) in the relevant market.

    Continue Reading CCI Nod Mandatory Before Committee Of Creditors’ Approval Under The Code, Says Supreme Court