Dispute Resolution

Summary: As businesses become increasingly global, requests from foreign regulators, courts and law-enforcement agencies for information held in India are becoming a routine part of cross-border compliance. Businesses must now play the balancing act—comply with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”), and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), on the one hand, and the laws of the requesting jurisdiction on the other. The DPDP framework does not automatically exempt foreign regulatory requests. Business must, therefore, regularly assess the basis for processing and disclosure, cross-border transfer requirements and, determine whether such request should be routed through an Indian legal mechanism.

Continue Reading Foreign Regulatory Requests: Balancing Cooperation, Compliance and Data Protection

Summary: This article aims to analyse the Draft Reserve Bank of India (Know Your Customer) Amendment Directions, 2026 in light of the current legislative and judicial framework and practical challenges faced by entities and individuals upon debit-freezing of accounts in relation to financial crimes and cyber frauds.

Continue Reading Towards Certainty: RBI’s Draft Directions on Debit Freeze
No Shield For Directors? BHC Analyses The Applicability Of The Moratorium Under Sections 96 And 101 Of The IBC To Prosecutions Under Section 138 Of The NI Act

Summary: This blog analyses a recent BHC judgment that delineates the contours of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC vis-à-vis the initiation/ continuation of a prosecution under Sections 138 read with 141 of the NI Act against the directors of a company.

Continue Reading No Shield For Directors? BHC Analyses The Applicability Of The Moratorium Under Sections 96 And 101 Of The IBC To Prosecutions Under Section 138 Of The NI Act
Contours of Interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, 2016

Summary: This blog delineates the contours of interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC. It explores the provision’s interaction with the SARFAESI Act, 2002, its application to co-owned properties, the 2026 amendment to Section 96, and potential future legislative changes.

Continue Reading Contours of Interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, 2016
Beyond Trading: The Evolving Law on UPSI Communication

Summary: An allegation of communication of unpublished price sensitive information under Regulation 3 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, cannot be established merely basis proximity between parties or trading pattern. Balram Garg held that cogent material such as emails, letters, etc., will be required. The recent AGEL and RHI Magnesita orders sharpen this further, showing that a call or contact between parties, without more, will not suffice. Ultimately, the outcome of any allegation of UPSI communication is fact sensitive. Together, these rulings establish a clear evidentiary requirement: that SEBI must prove that UPSI was communicated, not merely that the parties had the opportunity to communicate it.

Continue Reading Beyond Trading: The Evolving Law on UPSI Communication
When Food-Safety Enforcement Reaches the Boardroom: Director Liability Under the FSS Act

Summary: Heightened food-safety enforcement is bringing renewed attention to the personal exposure of directors and senior management. A series of High Court decisions in 2026 illustrates the boundaries of liability under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The emerging position rejects both extremes: directorship alone does not establish criminal liability, while the appointment of a nominated food-safety officer does not necessarily insulate directors where the alleged contravention is attributable to their consent, connivance, or neglect. For boards, the significance increasingly lies in how responsibility is allocated, how significant food-safety concerns are escalated and how senior management eventually responds to these concerns.

Continue Reading When Food-Safety Enforcement Reaches the Boardroom: Director Liability Under the FSS Act
Gujarat High Court Upholds Supremacy Of Gujarat Public Works Tribunal Arbitration Act, 1992 Over Arbitration Act, 1996

Summary: What happens when a contract says “arbitration”, but the law says “tribunal”? The Gujarat High Court, on an issue of disputes arising from public works, gave precedence to the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (“Gujarat Public Works Tribunal Act”)over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”). This decision concerning the infrastructure sector, specifically public works contractors, clarifies that irrespective of a contractual obligation clause, state legislation shall prevail over the provisions of the contract, hence making dispute planning, and risk assessment critical for contractors as well as government bodies.

Continue Reading Gujarat High Court Upholds Supremacy Of Gujarat Public Works Tribunal Arbitration Act, 1992 Over Arbitration Act, 1996
Should cognizance be taken before or after examination of complainant on oath? Delhi High Court refers matter to larger bench

Summary: A magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a private complaint prior to examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC, 1973. However, BNSS, 2023, has upset this settled position. Like the erstwhile Section 200 of the CrpC, Section 223 of the BNSS too confers a similar duty on the magistrate to examine the complainant on oath. But the newly-introduced proviso to Section 223(1) (absent under Section 200 CrPC) mandates that the accused must be heard prior to the magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. This is the point at which divergence arises, raising the issue of whether cognizance is taken before or after the examination of the complainant? High Courts in India, including the Delhi High Court, have interpreted Section 223(1) of the BNSS to imply that the magistrate must firstexamine the complainant on oath, then issue notice to the accused, and only take cognizance at the time of hearing the accused. However, several Supreme Court judgements have held cognizance as already been taken if the magistrate proceeds to examine the complainant on oath. The Delhi High Court took note of this variance in its judgement in Dr Rita Bakshi v. Seema Bajaj and has further referred the issue for consideration by a larger bench.

Continue Reading Should cognizance be taken before or after examination of complainant on oath? Delhi High Court refers matter to larger bench
Enforcement vs. Due Process: Lessons from the FDA–Cadila Matter on Drug Regulation in Maharashtra

Summary – At a time when drug regulators are intensifying enforcement against the sector across India, this article examines the regulatory framework within which drug regulators are required to act in the wake of the Bombay High Court’s recent order in Cadila Pharmaceuticals’ writ petition challenging the Maharashtra FDA’s directions restraining sale and distribution of its ACILOC products.

Continue Reading Enforcement vs. Due Process: Lessons from the FDA–Cadila Matter on Drug Regulation in Maharashtra
Sanctions by Formula: What the Graham Act Means for India’s Trade and Businesses

Summary: The US Senate has passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which proposes to impose up to 100% secondary tariffs on countries importing significant volumes of Russian crude oil or natural gas, affecting all sectors regardless of goods. As one of the largest purchasers of Russian energy, India faces a significant risk of triggering this mechanism. This article examines the framework of the proposed legislation, its likely commercial impact on Indian trade, and the contractual and policy measures that Indian businesses must now consider.

Continue Reading Sanctions by Formula: What the Graham Act Means for India’s Trade and Businesses