The recent imposition of “reciprocal tariffs” by the United States (“US”) and the potential reaction/retaliation from trade partners is indicative of global trade dynamics entering an era of aggressive tariff enforcement and geopolitical recalibration.
Continue Reading Tariffs, Trade, and Troubles: Compliances for Indian companies
Arbitration jurisprudence in India continues to vacillate when it comes to the interplay between exclusive jurisdiction clause and arbitration clause, particularly in the realm of domestic arbitration. A key challenge lies in determining which Court will have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings — especially when the arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause are not in harmony.
Continue Reading Reconciling Conflict in Arbitration Clause and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
It is settled law under the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that maximum 120 days will be provided for filing of a written statement in a commercial suit. On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement, and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record[1]. For regular or non-commercial civil suits, the period for filing the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of summons[2], however, it can be extended at the discretion of the Court.
Continue Reading Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?
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
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
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?
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
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
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?
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