Disputes

Summary: A common misconception is that arbitral tribunals must decide every jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the threshold before proceeding with the arbitration. This article explains why neither Section 16 nor the judicial precedents interpreting it mandate such a requirement and highlights the tribunal’s discretion to decide judicial issues when appropriate. Many jurisdictional challenges involve disputed facts or evidence, making an early determination impractical. Understanding this helps parties manage procedural expectations and avoid misplaced comparisons with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Continue Reading Raise the Objection, Not the Expectation: Arbitral Tribunal need not decide Section 16 application first
Right to Walk: A Constitutional Reckoning for Footpath on Indian Roads

Summary: The Supreme Court of India, in Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan, declared the right to walk on footpaths alongside roads a fundamental right under the Part III of the Constitution, prioritising pedestrian movement over vehicles. The case originated from a fatal accident on a road lacking pedestrian infrastructure, prompting the SC to mandate civic bodies to ensure demarcated footpaths. The SC recognised legislative gaps and called for statutory frameworks and a full-time regulator. While progressive, the ruling raises practical questions about implementation, enforcement, and balancing competing urban interests, emphasising that the real impact depends on tangible improvements to pedestrian safety.

Continue Reading Right to Walk: A Constitutional Reckoning for Footpath on Indian Roads
No such thing as innocent fraud: Key implications of the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. SEBI

Summary: The Supreme Court recently ruled[1] on SEBI’s case of fraud against Reliance Industries Ltd. (“RIL”) and twelve of its agents for trades in respect of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (“RPL”) in 2007. Its emphasis on establishing intent when determining the elements of fraud in Regulation 2 (1) (c) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (“PFUTP Regulations”), has implications for SEBI’s anti-fraud enforcement. This blog examines the fallout of the judgement.

Continue Reading No such thing as innocent fraud: Key implications of the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. SEBI
When the internet won’t let you move on: Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling on the Right to Be Forgotten

Summary: What happens when everyone, but the internet has moved on? In a landmark judgment delivered on May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court has addressed the growing problem of digital records that continue to haunt individuals, long after legal proceedings have concluded. Even after legal closure may be achieved through acquittal, discharge and settlement, a simple online search can still link a person with past allegations for years to come.

Continue Reading When the internet won’t let you move on: Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling on the Right to Be Forgotten
Miss the Deadline, Lose the Decree? SC clarifies effect of non-compliance and applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act

Summary: In its recent judgement dated May 6, 2026 in Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property are conditional and self-operative. The plaintiff’s failure to comply with timelines for deposit of balance sale consideration, without seeking extension, can render the decree inexecutable automatically. This consequence may follow even without a formal application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by the defendant. The rationale being, the relief of specific performance is equitable and the party that seeks equity, cannot act inequitably by not adhering to the terms of the decree.

Continue Reading Miss the Deadline, Lose the Decree? SC clarifies effect of non-compliance and applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act
Finality in PE/ VC Exits Across Borders: SC Endorses Transnational Issue Estoppel

Summary: The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I has charted out a clearer path for PE/ VC exits. It has held that a promoter responsible for providing exits to its investor cannot relitigate issues in an Indian court already decided by the seat court. By doing so, the court has formally embraced the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel.

Continue Reading Finality in PE/ VC Exits Across Borders: SC Endorses Transnational Issue Estoppel
Locus to Challenge Tender Conditions after Participation in Tender Process

Summary: As per settled legal jurisprudence, there are limited grounds available for a participating entity to raise challenges to a tender process and/ or its terms after participation. Barring such limited grounds, any challenge in respect of a tender must be raised before participation in the tender process. This blog focusses on the Supreme Court’s decision in National Highways Authority of India v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited (2018) 8 SCC 243, which, in a specific factual matrix, held that an entity which did not participate in the tender process, did not have the locus to challenge the tender and thereby claim a substantive right arising therefrom. However, in subsequent High Court decisions, the aforesaid rationale has been applied in an overbroad manner, dehors its underlying factual matrix, effectively treating it as a general rule that non-participating entities lack locus to raise challenges in respect of tenders.

Continue Reading Locus to Challenge Tender Conditions after Participation in Tender Process
Personality Rights in India in the Age of AI

Summary: In India, personality rights, protecting an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity, have primarily evolved through judicial pronouncements. However, the rise of artificial intelligence, including deepfakes and voice cloning, has significantly intensified the threat of identity misappropriation, prompting Indian courts to expand the scope of these rights. In recent times, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have granted injunctions restraining AI-driven misuse of celebrities’ names, images and likenesses. Yet, despite this judicial recognition, the existing statutory framework remains fragmented, and comprehensive legislative intervention has now become essential to ensure consistent and effective protection of personality rights in the AI age.

Continue Reading Personality Rights in India in the Age of AI
After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?

Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with the winning party, the Court held that even an unsuccessful party may seek interim measures after an arbitral award, provided the case is rare, compelling, and demands judicial restraint. By rejecting the “fruits of the award” doctrine and reaffirming the plain statutory language of “any party,” the judgment restores Section 9 to its full amplitude while carefully safeguarding arbitral finality. This decision marks a pivotal shift in Indian arbitration law, balancing textual fidelity with commercial and procedural realism.

Continue Reading After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?
Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Continue Reading Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration