Summary: This blog clarifies the prior steps that must be taken before approaching a magistrate with an application under Section 156(3) CrPC- with reference to a recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Anurag Bhatnagar. We explain how the judgement in Anurag Bhatnagar ought not to be taken as a blanket exemption from the pursuing the prior steps.
Continue Reading Steps under Section 154 CrPC no longer mandatory? Judgment in Anurag Bhatnagar-unique outlier or shift in jurisprudence?
Summary: In a recent ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that (a) non-signatories cannot attend arbitration proceedings, re-affirming the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”); and (b) a court becomes functus officio once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act. With Section 42A as its shield and the doctrine of functus officio as its sword, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again underscored that arbitration is not a spectator sport.
Continue Reading Beyond the Signature: Who Gets a Seat at the Arbitration Table?
Summary: The article highlights the powers of statutory auditors following the recent judgment, clarifying that statutory auditors cannot be held liable for money laundering solely because of lack of due diligence or negligence. The article also emphasises that criminal liability under PMLA requires clear evidence of collusion and that auditors are not expected to probe beyond their professional auditing role.
Continue Reading Absence of Due Diligence Not Money Laundering
Summary: At a recent thought leadership session on “Navigating Change: A Strategic Overview on Geopolitics, Regulation & AI”, our partner Ankoosh K. Mehta engaged in a lively conversation about New Age Disputes with Bhart Forge President and Group Counsel Vikram Munje. The article below is a synopsis of that discussion.
Continue Reading From Contracts to Chatbots: Navigating Justice in New-Age Disputes
Summary: The United States has recently imposed an additional 25% ad valorem tariff on Indian imports, raising the total tariff to 50%. Positioned as a “penalty” for India’s continued trade in Russian oil, this measure marks a shift from purely reciprocal trade action to an instrument of foreign policy enforcement. In this article, we discuss the key features of the new order, its commercial and compliance implications for Indian exporters, and the steps businesses can take to manage legal and operational risks in light of these developments.
Continue Reading U.S. Doubles Down: Tariffs on Indian Imports Surge from 25% to 50%
Summary: In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. MSA Global LLC clarified that Indian civil courts retain limited but real jurisdiction to stay foreign-seated arbitrations if the proceedings are shown to be vexatious or abusive. The decision strengthens procedural safeguards for parties, by reaffirming the courts’ power to intervene in cases of deliberate non-disclosure and procedural misconduct, notwithstanding the “minimal intervention” principle under Indian arbitration law.
Continue Reading Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Foreign-Seated Proceedings
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
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
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?