Photo of Kapil Arora

Kapil Arora

Partner in the Disputes Resolution Practice at the Delhi office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Kapil’s expertise in dispute resolution ranges from the matters that are subject to both domestic and international commercial arbitration and litigation before the Supreme Court of India and High Courts. He has also successfully represented leading companies in corporate fraud and white-collar crimes. He can be reached  at kapil.arora@cyrilshroff.com

Contact:Read more about Kapil Arora
BNSS and the pre-cognizance imperative: Procedural safeguard u/s 223 applies even to PMLA Complaints

Summary: The proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, stipulates that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence without first affording the accused an opportunity to be heard. By its judgement in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement[1] (“Kushal Kumar”),the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that this safeguard under the BNSS shall also apply to complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), after July 1, 2024, viz. the date BNSS came into force. The ratio from Kushal Kumar has since been followed inter alia by the High Courts of Delhi and Kerala. These judgements reinforce a significant procedural safeguard for accused persons even under the stringent PMLA, while highlighting a marked departure from the regime under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). An associated issue is whether cognizance on a supplementary complaint under the PMLA, filed after July 1, 2024, will also be bound by the safeguard of Section 223(1) of the BNSS, if cognizance on the main complaint was taken prior to July 1, 2024.Continue Reading BNSS and the pre-cognizance imperative: Procedural safeguard u/s 223 applies even to PMLA Complaints

The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?

Summary: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) circular dated January 12, 2026, provides that arbitration will not be available for disputes exceeding INR 10 crore in BOT, HAM, and EPC contracts, purporting to replace existing dispute resolution clauses with immediate effect. This raises critical questions: Can a government circular unilaterally amend signed contracts that expressly require written consent for modifications? While prospective application may be defensible, retrospective substitution of dispute resolution mechanism, without mutual consent, presents serious enforceability concerns and challenges fundamental principles of contractual sanctity. The circular’s ambiguous carve-out for “ongoing arbitrations” adds further uncertainty, particularly about disputes at pre-arbitral stages. This development marks a significant departure from India’s pro-arbitration stance and warrants careful legal and policy scrutiny.Continue Reading The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?

No Turning Back: Supreme Court’s HCC v. BRPNNL Ruling Shuts the Door on Arbitration Sabotage

Summary: The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in HCC v. BRPNNL has reset India’s arbitration landscape by emphasising that Section 11 appointments are definitive and not subject to further review, thereby slamming the brakes on procedural sabotage. In a case where three years of hearings were derailed by a belated challenge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitration agreements must be honoured, defects in appointment mechanisms must be cured without killing the clause, and participation without timely objection amounts to waiver. By insulating advanced arbitrations from endless detours, the judgment restores speed, reliability, and commercial focus to India’s dispute resolution framework, especially vital for the construction sector where delays and escalation claims are endemic.Continue Reading No Turning Back: Supreme Court’s HCC v. BRPNNL Ruling Shuts the Door on Arbitration Sabotage

Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?

Summary: India and the UK have taken opposite paths on determining the law governing arbitration agreements. India’s Supreme Court has embraced the three-stage Enka framework in Disortho S.A. v. Meril Life Sciences (2025), while the UK’s Arbitration Act 2025 establishes a bright-line rule defaulting to the law of the seat. This article examines both approaches and why precise drafting of dispute resolution clauses has become essential risk management in cross-border arbitration.Continue Reading Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?

The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Summary: When a foreign arbitral award hits a snag, should the entire award sink or can the enforceable part still sail through? Indian law is clear on severability for domestic awards, but foreign awards remain in a grey zone. While global practice leans toward partial enforcement to protect legitimate claims, India risks being an outlier. It’s time for a pragmatic shift that aligns with international norms and safeguards commercial certainty.Continue Reading The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Milestone Payments vs Retention Money: The Fine Line That Can Decide Multi-Million Dollar Claims in Construction Disputes

Summary: Milestone payments and retention money serve distinct purposes in construction contracts—one drives progress, the other secures performance. Milestone payments become due only upon achieving defined stages, while retention is money already earned but withheld until final completion or defect rectification. Misconstruing these concepts can lead to costly disputes, making precise drafting and clear nomenclature critical for risk management and claim success.Continue Reading Milestone Payments vs Retention Money: The Fine Line That Can Decide Multi-Million Dollar Claims in Construction Disputes

Dissolved but Not Defeated: How Struck-Off Companies Enforce Arbitral Wins

Summary: When a company is struck off from the Register of Companies (ROC), it is deemed dissolved under the Companies Act, 2013, but this does not nullify its legal rights, including those arising from arbitral awards. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not recognise striking off as a ground to set aside or resist enforcement of an award. Section 250 of the Companies Act explicitly allows dissolved companies to continue operating for the purpose of realising dues and settling liabilities. Indian courts, including in Exotic Buildcon, Value Advisory, and AB Creations, have affirmed that arbitral awards remain enforceable even if the company is struck off, provided it is restored to the register. Restoration retroactively validates the company’s existence, enabling it to pursue claims and enforce awards, making dissolution a procedural pause rather than a termination of justice.Continue Reading Dissolved but Not Defeated: How Struck-Off Companies Enforce Arbitral Wins

Summary: The seat of arbitration determines the supervisory jurisdiction of courts over arbitral proceedings. But is the situation always so straightforward? More often than not, the seat is not specified and is coupled with vague references to venue or place, along with conflicting exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What happens in such cases? How is the supervisory jurisdiction of courts determined? Courts have developed nuanced approaches to resolve these conflicts, establishing clearer principles for determining supervisory jurisdiction. This article examines six key and frequently encountered scenarios with recent judicial trend to provide clarity on this complex area of law.Continue Reading Seat, Venue, Place, and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses: Analysing the Different Complex Combinations with Recent Judicial Trends

Lawful Silence, Unlawful Assumptions: Bail, Confession, and Constitutional Rights

Summary: The police are legally obligated to conduct investigations and gather evidence through lawful means. Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, an accused person cannot be compelled to confess, as the right against self-incrimination is a protected fundamental right. Therefore, choosing not to make self-incriminating statements or confessions cannot be construed as “non-cooperation” during a police investigation. Such refusal, being constitutionally valid, cannot be used by the police as grounds to oppose bail or anticipatory bail applications.Continue Reading Lawful Silence, Unlawful Assumptions: Bail, Confession, and Constitutional Rights

Arbitration Timelines in India “Justice delayed is justice denied — but what if delay is disguised as procedure?”

Summary: In Krishna Devi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award begins when a party becomes aware of the award — not when formal notice is received. This ruling curbs delaying tactics and prioritises substance over procedure. Though rooted in the 1940 Act, it signals a shift in interpreting timelines under the 1996 regime, urging parties to act on knowledge, not wait for paperwork.Continue Reading Knowledge Over Notice: Rethinking Arbitration Timelines in India “Justice delayed is justice denied — but what if delay is disguised as procedure?”