Summary: This blog aims to highlight the need for litigants seeking timely remedies to avoid protracted and stale litigation. It also focusses on adopting Alternative Dispute Resolution as an effective mechanism, wherever appropriate, for achieving faster and more effective remedies.
Continue Reading When Delay Defeats Justice
Summary: This article highlights the Bombay High Court’s reaffirmation of limited appellate review for temporary injunctions. For litigants, this means a clearer understanding of the narrow grounds for appeal, fostering more strategic and efficient approaches to dispute resolution involving interim reliefs.
Continue Reading Full Bench of Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review of Temporary Injunction Orders
Summary: This article aims to examine the contours of Section 223 of the BNSS, with a special focus on courts’ interpretation of the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS and its practical implications.
On December 25, 2023, India enacted a transformative triumvirate of laws – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These new criminal laws became effective on July 1, 2024, repealing and replacing the long-standing pillars of criminal law – Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.
Continue Reading Demystifying Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”), aims to promote, develop and enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs. To address the issue of delayed payments, several provisions of the MSME Act provide additional safeguards and benefits to MSMEs. One such safeguard is Section 15, which outlines the buyer’s liability to make payments due to MSMEs once the goods or services are accepted/ deemed to be accepted.[1] Similarly, Section 16, read with Section 17, states that delays in payments for goods supplied or services rendered by MSMEs, shall attract a compound interest rate of three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India.[2] Further, reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSEFC”) for any amount due under Section 17 can be made under Section 18. However, questions on the applicability of this statutory provision are raised, when parties to a dispute do not invoke the MSEFC mechanism and go under the pre-existing arbitration agreements.
Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements v. MSME Act: Can interest rates under MSME Act survive outside of Section 18 proceedings?
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.
Continue Reading IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (“FCRA/Act”), is an important piece of legislation that Parliament has enacted to prohibit acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for activities detrimental to national interest.
Continue Reading Navigating the Evolving FCRA Landscape: Enhanced Responsibility of Chartered Accountants
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), places proceeds of crime at the core of the offence of money laundering. Before delving into this article, it is imperative to understand the definition of proceeds of crime, which Section 2 (1) (u) of the PMLA[1] defines as “any property derived or obtained by any person, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence”.
Continue Reading Changing Landscape of Arrest Under the PMLA – Decoding Section 19 Through Jurisprudence
Emergency arbitration (“EA”) is a pre-cursory mechanism in the arbitration process that allows parties to seek urgent interim reliefs prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. To invoke EA, the party invoking the process must establish that it would face irreparable harm if the protection/ measures sought in the EA are not granted before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
Continue Reading Emergency Arbitration: A Legal Lifeline or a Paper Tiger?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 30 April 2025, in a landmark judgment in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited,[1] addressed questions surrounding the power of courts to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).
Continue Reading To modify or not – Supreme Court resolves quandary faced by 34 courts
In Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd.[1](“Judgment”), the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to implead parties to arbitration proceedings even where the said parties were neither issued an arbitration notice nor made party to court proceedings seeking appointment of arbitrators. The Judgment is significant because it holds that even if the claimant issues an arbitration notice to only one counterparty initially, it can subsequently include additional counterparties when filing its statement of claim before the arbitral tribunal. The Judgment reconciles the divergent views taken by the Delhi High Court[2] and the Bombay High Court[3] on the issue, but the implications for additional counterparties, who may be joined after the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, could be significant.
Continue Reading Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?