Photo of Shubham Mittal

Shubham Mittal

Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Delhi NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Shubham primarily deals with commercial & corporate litigation, civil litigation, and arbitration matters before courts, tribunals, and regulatory forums. He can be reached at shubham.mittal@cyrilshroff.com.

Transforming India’s Merger Landscape: How MCA’s Fast-Track Expansion Will Reshape Corporate Restructuring

Summary: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has significantly expanded India’s fast-track merger framework beyond small companies and wholly-owned subsidiaries to include unlisted companies with borrowings under INR 200 crore (with certain conditions). Additionally, demergers have also been brought under the ambit of the fast-track route. This will reduce NCLT’s burden, accelerate corporate restructuring timelines, and make restructuring more accessible to mid-sized companies across India.Continue Reading Transforming India’s Merger Landscape: How MCA’s Fast-Track Expansion Will Reshape Corporate Restructuring

Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence

Summary: This article examines the evolving jurisprudence on the interplay between “exclusive jurisdiction” and “seat of arbitration” clauses in Indian arbitration landscape. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Viva Infraventure v. NOIDA highlights that an express exclusive jurisdiction clause will override a seat determined by the arbitrator. The judgment underscores the primacy of party autonomy and contractual intent. It also reinforces the importance of precise drafting in arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring legal clarity.Continue Reading Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence

Interim Moratorium Not An Escape From Consumer Penalties: Supreme Court Clarifies

INTRODUCTION

While expanding the jurisprudence of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“IBC”), the Division Bench of the Supreme Court (“SC”), in Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth and Ors.,[1] held that an interim moratorium under the IBC does not apply to execution proceedings for penalties imposed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Consumer Protection Act”). Once an insolvency application is admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, moratorium under the IBC comes into effect, which is a temporary suspension of legal actions against the debtor. Continue Reading Interim Moratorium Not An Escape From Consumer Penalties: Supreme Court Clarifies

Court’s power to partially set aside arbitral awards: An Indian perspective

Recently, the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) has reiterated that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), empowers courts to partially set aside an arbitral award and it would not amount to a modification, as an arbitral award consists of distinct components independent of each other.Continue Reading Court’s power to partially set aside arbitral awards: An Indian perspective

Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law

The Supreme Court’s (“SC”) recent[1]interpretation of the intent and scope of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act” or “Arbitration Act”) has sent ripples through the Indian arbitration landscape. In this landmark verdict, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan have provided much-needed clarity and guidance on the extension of time limits for arbitral awards beyond the stipulated timeframe under Section 29A of the Act.Continue Reading Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law