Dispute resolution

Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship. This landmark judgement reinforces the fundamental distinction between debt and equity, clarifying that IBC remedies are available only to creditors and not shareholders.Continue Reading Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?

Summary: India and the UK have taken opposite paths on determining the law governing arbitration agreements. India’s Supreme Court has embraced the three-stage Enka framework in Disortho S.A. v. Meril Life Sciences (2025), while the UK’s Arbitration Act 2025 establishes a bright-line rule defaulting to the law of the seat. This article examines both approaches and why precise drafting of dispute resolution clauses has become essential risk management in cross-border arbitration.Continue Reading Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?

Arif Azim or Offshore Infrastructures? Analysing SC’s Divergent Takes on Commencement of Limitation for Section 11(6) Applications

Summary: The Supreme Court has created an interesting puzzle over when limitation begins for applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of arbitrators. While in Arif Azim, the Supreme Court established that limitation begins only after the other party refuses the request for appointment, in Offshore Infrastructures it decided that limitation starts when the final bill becomes due, i.e., when the substantive cause of action arises, conflating two distinct limitation periods. The article analyses this judicial divergence and highlights the need for legislative clarity to resolve the uncertainty.Continue Reading Arif Azim or Offshore Infrastructures? Analysing SC’s Divergent Takes on Commencement of Limitation for Section 11(6) Applications

Appellate Restraint And Equity In Specific Performance: Key Takeaways From Annamalai V. Vasanthi

Summary: This article examines the Supreme Court’s reinforcement of strict limits on second appeals and the equitable principles governing specific performance. For litigants, this clarifies that courts prioritise parties’ conduct and contractual good faith over rigid procedural requirements, fostering the need for a strategic approach to property dispute resolution.Continue Reading Appellate Restraint And Equity In Specific Performance: Key Takeaways From Annamalai V. Vasanthi

The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Summary: When a foreign arbitral award hits a snag, should the entire award sink or can the enforceable part still sail through? Indian law is clear on severability for domestic awards, but foreign awards remain in a grey zone. While global practice leans toward partial enforcement to protect legitimate claims, India risks being an outlier. It’s time for a pragmatic shift that aligns with international norms and safeguards commercial certainty.Continue Reading The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

SEBI’s power to revisit penalty orders, including Nil penalties, under Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992

Summary: Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992, empowers SEBI to revisit and enhance penalties imposed by the adjudicating officer, including orders where no penalty is imposed, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. However, this power can be exercised only if the order passed by the adjudicating officer is erroneous and not in the interests of the securities market. This revisionary power represents a critical component of SEBI’s regulatory framework — it allows the market regulator to modify orders passed by the adjudicating officer.Continue Reading SEBI’s power to revisit penalty orders, including Nil penalties, under Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992

A closer look at whether tighter security means better roads or fewer bidders

Barriers or Bridges? Unpacking India’s 2025 APS Mandate and its Ripple Effect on Road Projects

Summary: India’s 2025 APS Circular marks a pivotal shift in public procurement, tightening financial safeguards against underbidding in road projects. By mandating tiered performance securities for bids even marginally below estimated costs, the policy aims to enhance accountability and execution quality. However, its one-size-fits-all approach risks sidelining efficient contractors, inflating bid prices, and dampening competition. A more calibrated framework—with capped guarantees, milestone-based deposits, and carve-outs for proven performers—could transform APS from a blunt compliance tool into a strategic enabler of innovation, fiscal discipline, and infrastructure excellence.Continue Reading Barriers or Bridges? Unpacking India’s 2025 APS Mandate and its Ripple Effect on Road Projects

Milestone Payments vs Retention Money: The Fine Line That Can Decide Multi-Million Dollar Claims in Construction Disputes

Summary: Milestone payments and retention money serve distinct purposes in construction contracts—one drives progress, the other secures performance. Milestone payments become due only upon achieving defined stages, while retention is money already earned but withheld until final completion or defect rectification. Misconstruing these concepts can lead to costly disputes, making precise drafting and clear nomenclature critical for risk management and claim success.Continue Reading Milestone Payments vs Retention Money: The Fine Line That Can Decide Multi-Million Dollar Claims in Construction Disputes

When Does the Door Close? Understanding The Right of Redemption of Borrowers Under SARFAESI Act

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

Dissolved but Not Defeated: How Struck-Off Companies Enforce Arbitral Wins

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