Photo of Raunak Dhillon

Raunak Dhillon

Raunak Dhillon is a Partner in the Disputes Resolution practice at the Noida office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Raunak has fifteen years of experience in the areas of litigation and arbitration. His area of expertise covers commercial, infrastructure and real estate disputes, criminal and white collar litigation, insolvency litigation and arbitration. He can be reached at raunak.dhillon@cyrilshroff.com

Summary: The article examines the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, which confirms that courts retain the power under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an award has been passed following the expiry of that mandate. Crucially, the Court clarified that such a post-mandate award is unenforceable, and any extension of the mandate does not validate the defective award. Instead, the tribunal may resume proceedings from the point at which the mandate expired and deliver a fresh, valid award within the extended period. The judgment clarifies that an award delivered after the expiry of mandate of the tribunal is not fatal to the arbitration itself, and procedural steps may be taken to revive and resume the arbitration so that a valid award may be delivered to bring the arbitration to conclusion.Continue Reading When the Clock Runs Out: The Supreme Court Reaffirms Courts’ Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate Post Award  

Beyond Approval: Decoding The Committee of Creditors’ Continuing Role Under the IBC

Summary: The article addresses a critical unanswered question in Indian insolvency law: whether the Committee of Creditors (CoC) becomes functus officio after NCLT approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC, a question with significant academic and practical implications. Through harmonious interpretation of existing provisions, the authors argue that the CoC remains in existence until the Supreme Court finally decides on any questions pertaining to the resolution plan, as the corporate insolvency resolution process continues through the appellate hierarchy. However, while inferential support exists for this position, urgent legislative intervention is needed to provide an explicit statutory framework defining the CoC’s post-approval powers and to eliminate the current legal uncertainty.Continue Reading Beyond Approval: Decoding The Committee of Creditors’ Continuing Role Under the IBC

The Right To Be Forgotten: Reclaiming Dignity In Digital Age

Summary: In today’s digital age, the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) is emerging as a vital extension of the right to privacy under Article 21. Sparked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment, RTBF seeks to protect individuals from lasting online stigma. While courts have offered relief in select cases, India’s legal framework remains incomplete. The Supreme Court now faces a pivotal decision: can dignity and privacy outweigh open justice in judicial archives? RTBF isn’t just an abstract legal right, it’s a call for redemption, and the right to move on in a world that never forgetsContinue Reading The Right To Be Forgotten: Reclaiming Dignity In Digital Age

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

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

Real Estate Insolvency: Waivers contemplated under approved resolution plan override transfer / change in shareholding charges demanded by Industrial Development Authorities

In a recent judgment[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the approval of a resolution plan which provided that there should be an exemption from payment of (i) any type of fees/ penalties for renewal of sub-lease; and (ii) transfer charges due to change in directorship/ shareholding in favour of the resolution applicant…

“Related Party” Creditor Under IBC: Making A Case For Purposive Interpretation

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same. For this purpose, the Code stipulates that “related parties” should not (i) regain control of the company either by means of submitting a resolution plan (Section 29A); or (ii) be allowed to influence the resolution process by participating and voting in CoC meetings (first proviso to Section 21(2)).Continue Reading “Related Party” Creditor Under IBC: Making A Case For Purposive Interpretation

Big win for PSBs: SC upholds arbitral award awarding damages for breach of substitution agreement, asks state agency to compensate lenders in full

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide an order dated December 01, 2023, dismissed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19675 of 2023 (“SLP”), filed by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (“HSIIDC”), a state government agency, against concurrent judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, upholding an arbitral award rendered in favour of a consortium of public sector banks, led by IDBI Bank Limited (“Senior Lenders”). The Ld. arbitral tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) R M Lodha, former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K S P Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) J Chelameswar (“Ld. Arbitral Tribunal”), finding favour with the case, pleaded on behalf of the Senior Lenders, awarded INR 1737.11 crore (plus additional interest and costs) as damages for HSIIDC’s breach of substitution agreement entered into between the Senior Lenders, HSIIDC and M/s KMP Expressways Limited, i.e. the concessionaire (“KMP”/ “Concessionaire”) (“Arbitral Award”).Continue Reading Big win for PSBs: SC upholds arbitral award awarding damages for breach of substitution agreement, asks state agency to compensate lenders in full

Extension under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not a possibility if application for extension is not made while mandate subsisted

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd v Berger Paints India Limited 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2645 recently deliberated on the issue of whether Courts can extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), after the mandate of the arbitral tribunal has been terminated.Continue Reading Extension under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not a possibility if application for extension is not made while mandate subsisted

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s Arupri Logistics Pvt. Ltd v Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors.[i], has held that an arbitral tribunal, in the absence of any specific power to implead, does not have the authority or jurisdiction to implead parties to arbitral proceedings. The power to implead cannot be inferred from Sections 16, 17 or 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). Further, the arbitral tribunal does not have any residual inherent powers under the Act either, which enables it to implead third parties in the interest of justice. The Hon’ble Court noted that the arbitral tribunal owes its origin principally to well recognised and identifiable sources such as the agreement between the parties, institutional rules or national statutes, therefore, the parties or the tribunal cannot vest itself with powers that are otherwise reserved to be exercised by courts and judicial institutions.Continue Reading Consent is King: Delhi HC Holds that Arbitral Tribunal Lacks Authority to Implead Third Parties