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

Miss the Deadline, Lose the Decree? SC clarifies effect of non-compliance and applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act

Summary: In its recent judgement dated May 6, 2026 in Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property are conditional and self-operative. The plaintiff’s failure to comply with timelines for deposit of balance sale consideration, without seeking extension, can render the decree inexecutable automatically. This consequence may follow even without a formal application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by the defendant. The rationale being, the relief of specific performance is equitable and the party that seeks equity, cannot act inequitably by not adhering to the terms of the decree.

Continue Reading Miss the Deadline, Lose the Decree? SC clarifies effect of non-compliance and applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act
Findings of a Civil Court binding on Criminal Court? SC clears the air

Summary: A persistent misconception in legal discourse is that findings or determinations of a civil court are binding on a criminal court, despite no such rule being codified in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or its successor statute, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This belief often leads to the argument that a civil judgment should conclusively govern subsequent criminal proceedings. However, this position does not reflect the true legal framework. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon & Anr., tracing the evolution of law on this point, provides much-needed clarity, reaffirming the distinct nature, standards of proof, and purposes of civil and criminal proceedings, and explaining the limited evidentiary value, rather than absolute binding effect, of civil court findings in criminal trials.

Continue Reading Findings of a Civil Court binding on Criminal Court? SC clears the air
Personality Rights in India in the Age of AI

Summary: In India, personality rights, protecting an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity, have primarily evolved through judicial pronouncements. However, the rise of artificial intelligence, including deepfakes and voice cloning, has significantly intensified the threat of identity misappropriation, prompting Indian courts to expand the scope of these rights. In recent times, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have granted injunctions restraining AI-driven misuse of celebrities’ names, images and likenesses. Yet, despite this judicial recognition, the existing statutory framework remains fragmented, and comprehensive legislative intervention has now become essential to ensure consistent and effective protection of personality rights in the AI age.

Continue Reading Personality Rights in India in the Age of AI
Liberty Ends Where Fraud Begins: Supreme Court Signals Recalibration of Standards for Bail for Habitual Economic Offenders

Summary: Bail is the rule, jail is the exception, is an axiom. A tight rope between individual liberty and public interest, bail jurisprudence in India has evolved to err on the side of liberty. However, heinous offences are a slight exception to this rule and bail is often denied in such matters, considering the nature of the offence and larger societal interest.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Rakesh Mittal v Ajay Pal Gupta and Anr., marks an interesting development in this exception to ordinary bail jurisprudence. Applying precedents dealing with bail in heinous offence matters, the Court held that the same principles would also apply to grave pecuniary offences, especially when committed by habitual offenders. Accordingly, overturning an order of bail granted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on the ground of parity with other accused, the Court also considered factors such as criminal antecedents of the accused, including a long history of fraud, absconding, and misuse of bail in other matters. Whether this is a unique exception or signals a change in jurisprudence remains to be seen.

Continue Reading Liberty Ends Where Fraud Begins: Supreme Court Signals Recalibration of Standards for Bail for Habitual Economic Offenders

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 forgets

Continue 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…