![Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part II]](https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/894/2025/11/Blog-Image14-656x375.png)
Continuing the analysis presented in Part I of this blog, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), proposes incorporation of the rationale laid down by various judicial forums in the following judgments:Continue Reading Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part II]
Summary: This blog examines the October 2025 OFAC sanctions targeting Iranian oil trade, which included eight Indian nationals and nine Indian companies on the Specially Designated Nationals list. It analyzes the legal framework behind these sanctions, their practical implications for affected parties, available delisting options, and the broader risks facing Indian businesses engaged in cross-border trade.Continue Reading On the List: OFAC’s Iran Sanctions Impacting Indian Companies and Nationals
Summary: The SC has laid down the law on the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act and clarified that (a) once a bank publishes an auction notice under the SARFAESI Act, the borrower permanently loses the right to redeem the mortgage; (b) the amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act in 2016 applies to all the loans declared as non-performing assets after September 1, 2016, regardless of when the loan was availed; and (c) the term “publication” in Section 13(8) refers to a single composite notice that encompasses all modes including service of notice, newspaper publication, affixation, and uploading on the website, rather than merely newspaper advertisements.Continue Reading When Does the Door Close? Understanding The Right of Redemption of Borrowers Under SARFAESI Act
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
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
![Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part I]](https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/894/2025/10/Blog-Image-656x375.png)
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (“Bill”), introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 12, 2025, represents a significant legislative response to India’s evolving insolvency jurisprudence by codifying key judicial pronouncements and introducing global best practices. This two part blog elaborates upon the Bill that recommends comprehensive reform addressing critical ambiguities and operational challenges that have emerged through landmark judicial decisions, whilst strengthening India’s position as a jurisdiction conducive to business revival and creditor protection. Understanding the Bill is essential for insolvency practitioners, creditors, and corporate stakeholders to navigate the enhanced framework for value maximisation and timely resolution of corporate distress.Continue Reading Judicial Interplay with Legislation: Analysing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 [Part I]
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
Summary: In the case of Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether an unsigned arbitration agreement could bind parties based on their conduct and correspondence. Answering in affirmative, the Court held that such agreements are enforceable if parties are ad idem and have acted upon the contract terms, including arbitration clauses. The ruling affirms India’s pro-arbitration stance, ensuring legal certainty for modern commercial transactions involving conclusion via electronic communication and performance.Continue Reading Arbitration without signatures no bar to refer dispute to arbitration: Supreme Court reinforces enforcement of arbitration agreements through performance
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?”