Dispute Resolution

U.S. Tariff and Sanctions Actions Target Indian Trade: Key Considerations for Businesses

On July 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would impose a 25 per cent tariff on all goods imported from India. This announcement was first made via a social media post[1] and triggered widespread concern among Indian exporters and multinational stakeholders with supply chain links to India. On July 31, 2025 it was formalised by an executive order[2] which imposed varying ‘reciprocal tariffs” on a range of goods from 69 countries and European Union, including India. For countries not listed, a default rate of 10 per cent will apply. This order will be effective on August 7, 2025.

Continue Reading U.S. Tariff and Sanctions Actions Target Indian Trade: Key Considerations for Businesses

Summary: This blog examines the increased compliance challenges faced by Indian companies due to the introduction of EU sanctions. European financial institutions and trading partners strictly enforce these measures, often adopting a zero-tolerance approach to secondary exposure. Consequently, Indian businesses with links to European markets must conduct rigorous due diligence as they face the risk of being cut off from euro-denominated transactions or even delisted from European stock exchanges.

Continue Reading Emergence of the EU sanctions regime and their wide-reaching cross-border impact
Waste of an ODR process

Summary: The methods for appointment of arbitrators, as laid down by the Supreme Court, namely, mutual consent of the parties or pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were reiterated by the Bombay High Court in a Section 34 challenge. The petition relates to a financial institution unilaterally appointing arbitrator(s) through an ODR platform. The Bombay High Court sought statements from two ODR platforms, namely, Presolv360 and ADReS Now, on steps taken to ascertain whether the request for the appointment is lawful. It is imperative to have a carefully drafted arbitration clause to ensure that the outcome of arbitral proceedings involving an ODR platform aren’t nullified.

Continue Reading Waste of an ODR process
Is SEBI obligated to provide only the documents it relies upon?

Summary: This blog analyses the duty of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) to disclose documents during regulatory proceedings. It traces the judicial evolution of SEBI’s disclosure obligations and discusses contrasting judicial views on the extent and limits of such obligation.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), as a regulator and a quasi-judicial body, is dutybound to act fairly and adhere to the principles of natural justice while conducting proceedings against parties. One such duty is to grant noticees access to the material that form the basis of the findings/ allegations made against them in the show cause notice.

Continue Reading Is SEBI obligated to provide only the documents it relies upon?
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

Summary: This article highlights the Bombay High Court’s reaffirmation of limited appellate review for temporary injunctions. For litigants, this means a clearer understanding of the narrow grounds for appeal, fostering more strategic and efficient approaches to dispute resolution involving interim reliefs.

Continue Reading Full Bench of Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review of Temporary Injunction Orders

The present US administration signed an Executive Order (“EO 14209”) in February, halting the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), pending new guidance to prosecutors. On June 10, 2025, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new guidelines (“Guidelines”) on the enforcement of the FCPA, marking a significant shift in its approach to combating foreign bribery. These changes are a part of a broader strategy to recalibrate US anti-corruption efforts in line with national security interests and economic competitiveness.

Continue Reading Global, India implications of US DOJ resuming scaled-back enforcement against foreign bribery

Introduction

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”), aims to promote,  develop and enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs. To address the issue of delayed payments, several provisions of the MSME Act provide additional safeguards and benefits to MSMEs. One such safeguard is Section 15, which outlines the buyer’s liability to make payments due to MSMEs once the goods or services are accepted/ deemed to be accepted.[1] Similarly, Section 16, read with Section 17, states that delays in payments for goods supplied or services rendered by MSMEs, shall attract a compound interest rate of three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India.[2] Further, reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSEFC”) for any amount due under Section 17 can be made under Section 18. However, questions on the applicability of this statutory provision are raised, when parties to a dispute do not invoke the MSEFC mechanism and go under the pre-existing arbitration agreements.

Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements v. MSME Act: Can interest rates under MSME Act survive outside of Section 18 proceedings?