Listen to this post
Treatment of Recoveries from Avoidance Transactions under the Resolution Plan

Introduction

In a landmark decision[i] rendered on April 1, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held (“Supreme Court”)that the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) transgressed its jurisdiction by interfering with the resolution plan clause pertaining to the treatment of recoveries from fraudulent and wrongful trading applications filed under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) .

Continue Reading Treatment of Recoveries from Avoidance Transactions under the Resolution Plan
Listen to this post
To modify or not - Supreme Court resolves quandary faced by 34 courts

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 30 April 2025, in a landmark judgment in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited,[1] addressed questions surrounding the power of courts to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).

Continue Reading To modify or not – Supreme Court resolves quandary faced by 34 courts
Listen to this post
Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?

In Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd.[1](“Judgment”), the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to implead parties to arbitration proceedings even where the said parties were neither issued an arbitration notice nor made party to court proceedings seeking appointment of arbitrators. The Judgment is significant because it holds that even if the claimant issues an arbitration notice to only one counterparty initially, it can subsequently include additional counterparties when filing its statement of claim before the arbitral tribunal. The Judgment reconciles the divergent views taken by the Delhi High Court[2] and the Bombay High Court[3] on the issue, but the implications for additional counterparties, who may be joined after the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, could be significant.

Continue Reading Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?
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