Dispute resolution

Recognition of Indian CIRP in Singapore: A Step Forward for Cross-Border Insolvency

INTRODUCTION

    In Re Compuage Infocom Ltd[1] (“Judgment”), the Singapore High Court (“Court”) has recognized the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) of an Indian company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and granted assistance to the Resolution Professional (“RP”) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). Applying the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997)[2] (‘Model Law’), as adopted by Singapore by way of Section 252 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, 2018 (“IRDA”), the Judgment deals with several key issues, including whether the NCLT is a ‘foreign court’, whether RPs are ‘foreign representatives’, and whether repatriation of assets located in a foreign jurisdiction can be permitted for the benefit of creditors in other jurisdictions. This is the first such ruling in Singapore and is a welcome development. This piece discusses the key findings in the Judgment and their implications for all stakeholders involved in the CIRP of Indian companies.Continue Reading Recognition of Indian CIRP in Singapore: A Step Forward for Cross-Border Insolvency

    FCPA, FCA and the Trump Effect: What Indian companies need to know

    The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and the False Claims Act (“FCA”) are two pivotal legislations of the United States (“U.S.”) that significantly influence the operations of multinational corporations, including Indian entities. The most notable recent cases against Indian companies are: (i) the allegations on the Adani Group for orchestrating a bribery scheme thereby violating the FCA; and (ii) investigation of Azure Power Global on the allegations of improper payments and misrepresentation of the company’s anti-bribery practices to gain U.S. financing in violation of the FCPA.Continue Reading FCPA, FCA and the Trump Effect: What Indian companies need to know

    INTRODUCTION

    The evolution of arbitration in India has been marked by a steadfast judicial commitment to enhancing its merits, particularly its efficiency, speed, and limited judicial intervention. This development offers a credible alternative to the overburdened judicial system. However, courts have remained the cornerstone of supervisory jurisdiction, ensuring that arbitral awards adhere to the principles enshrined in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”).[2] Among the grounds for challenging awards, “patent illegality” under Section 34(2A) of the Act, initially conceived as a subset of “public policy”, was introduced as a distinct ground to address blatant legal errors visible on the face of an award by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.[3] Today, patent illegality stands as one of the widely employed grounds for challenge, yet its contours remain vague.Continue Reading DMRC V. DAMEPL and the 2024 Amendment Bill: Where Patent illegality stands in Arbitration?

    CCI Nod Mandatory Before Committee Of Creditors’ Approval Under The Code, Says Supreme Court

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”) recent judgment in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja, 2025 SCC Online Sc 181 is a landmark decision. It highlights the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), and the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”), in the context of resolution plans involving combinations that may have an appreciable adverse effect on competition (“AAEC”) in the relevant market.Continue Reading CCI Nod Mandatory Before Committee Of Creditors’ Approval Under The Code, Says Supreme Court

    Comprehending the World Bank’s Sanctions Regime: Guidance for Indian Companies, Banks and Financial Institutions

    As one of the foremost international financial institutions, the World Bank (“Bank”) aims to strengthen economic progress in middle- and lower-income nations by providing financial aid for various development projects.[1] However, in 2018, the Bank sanctioned an Indian enterprise which was engaged in executing a Bank-funded project[2], highlighting the accountability of these funds. Recipients of these funds are held accountable by the Bank for using the proceeds responsibly, which is where the Bank’s sanctions regime becomes relevant.Continue Reading Comprehending the World Bank’s Sanctions Regime: Guidance for Indian Companies, Banks and Financial Institutions

    Can housing societies withhold permission to install electric vehicle chargers?

    Maharashtra was among the inaugural states in the country to come up with an Electric Vehicle (“EV”) policy in February 2018, to promote sustainable and clean mobility solutions and to make it a top state in EVadoption. The EV Policy was updated on July 27, 2021, to push EV sales and encourage manufacturing within the State.Continue Reading Can housing societies withhold permission to install electric vehicle chargers?

    “Related Party” Creditor Under IBC: Making A Case For Purposive Interpretation

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same. For this purpose, the Code stipulates that “related parties” should not (i) regain control of the company either by means of submitting a resolution plan (Section 29A); or (ii) be allowed to influence the resolution process by participating and voting in CoC meetings (first proviso to Section 21(2)).Continue Reading “Related Party” Creditor Under IBC: Making A Case For Purposive Interpretation

    Is writ maintainable against an award passed under the MSME Act? – Part I

    Introduction:

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”)[1] debated on the seminal question of maintainability of writ petitions against an order/ award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”). In M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporate Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another[2] (“…

    WhatsApp Blocked: SC Directs Service of Section 41A CrPC Notice by Permissible Modes Only

    Introduction

    Electronic devices, mass media/ social media applications are now universally used for communications, collaboration and everyday work.

    The judiciary, too, has embraced such technological advances. E-filings and virtual hearings have become a regular part of legal practice in the country, and are not exceptions any longer.Continue Reading WhatsApp Blocked: SC Directs Service of Section 41A CrPC Notice by Permissible Modes Only

    Internal Investigations Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    Introduction

    The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“Act”), marked a pivotal development in India’s framework for data protection by addressing the longstanding need for safeguarding personal information, data protection, and data handling. Continue Reading Internal Investigations Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023