Summary: Part I examines OFAC’s Advisory and the fundamental shift it signals in sanctions compliance — moving from a mechanical application of 50% ownership rule towards a substance-over-form analysis. It covers the expanded interpretation of “property interest”, the red flags identified by OFAC, and the resulting compliance implications for businesses operating across sectors.
Continue Reading How OFAC’s Latest Guidance Changes the Sanctions Compliance Landscape – Part I
Summary: The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I has charted out a clearer path for PE/ VC exits. It has held that a promoter responsible for providing exits to its investor cannot relitigate issues in an Indian court already decided by the seat court. By doing so, the court has formally embraced the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel.
Continue Reading Finality in PE/ VC Exits Across Borders: SC Endorses Transnational Issue Estoppel
Summary: As per settled legal jurisprudence, there are limited grounds available for a participating entity to raise challenges to a tender process and/ or its terms after participation. Barring such limited grounds, any challenge in respect of a tender must be raised before participation in the tender process. This blog focusses on the Supreme
Summary: China’s recent invocation of its Blocking Rules against U.S. sanctions marks a significant moment in the evolving landscape of global sanctions law. As nations increasingly push back against the extraterritorial reach of unilateral sanctions, the question arises: What does this mean for India? This article examines China’s move, its implications for the global
Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with the winning party, the Court held that even an unsuccessful party may seek interim measures after an arbitral award, provided the case is rare, compelling, and demands judicial restraint. By rejecting the “fruits of the award” doctrine and reaffirming the plain statutory language of “any party,” the judgment restores Section 9 to its full amplitude while carefully safeguarding arbitral finality. This decision marks a pivotal shift in Indian arbitration law, balancing textual fidelity with commercial and procedural realism.
Continue Reading After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?
Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Continue Reading Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration
Summary: A key procedural question in Indian arbitration law concerns the trigger for the commencement of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, where a party files a Section 33 application before challenging an arbitral award. Conflicting judicial precedents had created uncertainty on whether an application that was misconceived in scope, or unsuccessful in outcome, could nonetheless shift the limitation trigger from the date of receipt of the award to the date of disposal of the Section 33 request. The Supreme Court in Geojit Financial Services v. Sandeep Gurav (2025) has resolved this conflict by holding that any proper and timely Section 33 application, regardless of outcome or scope, defers limitation to the date of its disposal.
Continue Reading When Does the Clock Start? Section 33 Applications and the Limitation Trigger Under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act
Summary: The Securities Appellate Tribunal and Supreme Court recently had the occasion to examine what amounts to securities fraud. While in BDMCL, the SAT examined whether the essential ingredients of fraud were satisfied, in Terrascope, the Supreme Court ruled that false promises in fundraising documents amount to fraud and the same cannot be ratified subsequently by shareholders. Together, these rulings highlight the critical role of transparency and accountability in corporate disclosures.
Continue Reading Where Does Indian Law on Securities Fraud Stand?
Summary: The Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule resolved conflicting High Court views on whether Section 29A application to extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate lies before the High Court or the Civil Court. Drawing a clear and principled distinction between appointment jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction, it held that jurisdiction under Section 29A rests exclusively with the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e), irrespective of whether the tribunal was appointed under Section 11(2) or 11(6). Rejecting a hierarchy‑based reasoning, the judgment affirms statutory text as the sole determinant of jurisdiction, thereby bringing clarity and consistency to Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The Court invoked Dicey’s enduring dictum: “however high you may be, the law is above you.”
Continue Reading Statutory Interpretation versus Hierarchical Presumptions: Supreme Court Settles Section 29A Jurisdiction
Summary: The article examines the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, which confirms that courts retain the power under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an award has been passed following the expiry of that mandate. Crucially, the Court clarified that such a post-mandate award is unenforceable, and any extension of the mandate does not validate the defective award. Instead, the tribunal may resume proceedings from the point at which the mandate expired and deliver a fresh, valid award within the extended period. The judgment clarifies that an award delivered after the expiry of mandate of the tribunal is not fatal to the arbitration itself, and procedural steps may be taken to revive and resume the arbitration so that a valid award may be delivered to bring the arbitration to conclusion.
Continue Reading When the Clock Runs Out: The Supreme Court Reaffirms Courts’ Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate Post Award