Summary: This article examines the Bombay High Court’s ruling that foreign decrees from reciprocating territories are executable as domestic decrees, provided they satisfy Section 13 of the CPC, affirming the position that executing courts retain discretion to permit evidence in ‘exceptional’ cases.
Continue Reading Efficiency Versus Procedural Fairness – Bombay High Court Reaffirms Governing Principles for Execution of Foreign Decrees
The Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”), and the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 (“2016 Rules”), allow companies to jointly or separately file an application for merger or amalgamation before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). However, companies with registered offices in two different States must file two separate applications (unless a specific exemption has been obtained to file a joint petition) as the scheme will have to be approved by the two NCLTs having jurisdiction over the companies.
Continue Reading Two States: Stamp Duty On Merger Orders Passed By Two Different Tribunals
Summary: This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd., which reiterates the limited role of courts under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that substitution of an arbitrator does not permit courts to revisit or nullify prior arbitral proceedings, reaffirming the Act’s self‑contained structure and its emphasis on minimal judicial intervention.
Continue Reading Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction
Summary: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nabha Power v. PSPCL makes a clear distinction: government press releases and policy clarifications, even if they affect project economics, do not qualify as “Change in Law” under Power Purchase Agreements. Only formal legal instruments like statutes, rules, regulations, or gazette notifications carry the weight needed to trigger compensation. This brings greater certainty for regulators and distribution companies, but it also means developers must be more cautious when bidding, since informal policy signals can no longer be relied upon for relief. The decision ultimately reinforces contractual discipline while reminding the sector that policy announcements must be formally notified to have legal effect.
Continue Reading When Policy Isn’t Law: Why Press Releases Don’t Trigger “Change in Law” Compensation
Summary: The Supreme Court has addressed a long-standing issue in arbitration law, holding that the receipt of the arbitration notice marks the commencement of arbitral proceedings for the purposes of limitation period, interim reliefs, and procedural laws.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies the Trigger Point for Commencement of Arbitration under Indian Laws
Summary: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) circular dated January 12, 2026, provides that arbitration will not be available for disputes exceeding INR 10 crore in BOT, HAM, and EPC contracts, purporting to replace existing dispute resolution clauses with immediate effect. This raises critical questions: Can a government circular unilaterally amend signed contracts that expressly require written consent for modifications? While prospective application may be defensible, retrospective substitution of dispute resolution mechanism, without mutual consent, presents serious enforceability concerns and challenges fundamental principles of contractual sanctity. The circular’s ambiguous carve-out for “ongoing arbitrations” adds further uncertainty, particularly about disputes at pre-arbitral stages. This development marks a significant departure from India’s pro-arbitration stance and warrants careful legal and policy scrutiny.
Continue Reading The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?
Summary: The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in HCC v. BRPNNL has reset India’s arbitration landscape by emphasising that Section 11 appointments are definitive and not subject to further review, thereby slamming the brakes on procedural sabotage. In a case where three years of hearings were derailed by a belated challenge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitration agreements must be honoured, defects in appointment mechanisms must be cured without killing the clause, and participation without timely objection amounts to waiver. By insulating advanced arbitrations from endless detours, the judgment restores speed, reliability, and commercial focus to India’s dispute resolution framework, especially vital for the construction sector where delays and escalation claims are endemic.
Continue Reading No Turning Back: Supreme Court’s HCC v. BRPNNL Ruling Shuts the Door on Arbitration Sabotage
The interplay between civil procedure and arbitration law often raises nuanced questions related to jurisdiction and maintainability. A recurring concern is the attempt to seek rejection of a plaint on the ground that the dispute is governed by a legally valid and subsisting arbitration agreement.
Continue Reading Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?
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
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?