Summary: This article is the second part of a two-part series, examining the implications of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, on internal investigations conducted by organisations and their legal counsel. While Part I addressed the foundational framework and the applicability of exemptions under the DPDP Act, particularly Section 17(1)(c); Part II focuses on the practical compliance obligations that Data Fiduciaries must navigate during internal investigations, including security requirements, breach notification protocols, data retention and erasure mandates, and cross-border transfer complexities.Continue Reading Implications Of The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025: Stoking Internal Investigations – Part II
Implications Of The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025: Stoking Internal Investigations – Part I
Summary: India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, effective November 13, 2025, have fundamentally transformed the regulatory landscape for internal investigations. This analysis is the first part in a two-part series examining the critical compliance challenges facing organisations and law firms navigating data-sensitive proceedings under the new regime.Continue Reading Implications Of The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025: Stoking Internal Investigations – Part I
Navigating the MSME Minefield: When Party Autonomy Meets Statutory Reality
Summary: The recent decision in GEA Westfalia highlights the importance of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in contracts involving MSMEs, particularly for determining the court with the jurisdiction to hear challenges to awards passed as part of the mandatory statutory arbitration under the MSMED Act.Continue Reading Navigating the MSME Minefield: When Party Autonomy Meets Statutory Reality
Waste of an ODR process
Summary: The methods for appointment of arbitrators, as laid down by the Supreme Court, namely, mutual consent of the parties or pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were reiterated by the Bombay High Court in a Section 34 challenge. The petition relates to a financial institution unilaterally appointing arbitrator(s) through an ODR platform. The Bombay High Court sought statements from two ODR platforms, namely, Presolv360 and ADReS Now, on steps taken to ascertain whether the request for the appointment is lawful. It is imperative to have a carefully drafted arbitration clause to ensure that the outcome of arbitral proceedings involving an ODR platform aren’t nullified.Continue Reading Waste of an ODR process