Welcome to the 1st NLUJ-Khaitan & Co Corporate Law Review Summit, 2023 organized by the Journal on Corporate Law and Governance at National Law University, Jodhpur.

This event has been sponsored by the Reserve Bank of India, with the collaboration of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and Khaitan & Co, alongside SCC Online – Eastern Book Company as the knowledge partners for the summit.

This summit serves as a crucial platform for diverse perspectives and valuable insights to converge. It bridges the theory-practice gap, deepening our understanding of corporate law, a subject that shapes our academic voyage. Corporate law is the backbone of modern economies, and this summit seeks to explore its profound impact. It aims to bring academic scholarship and real-world application together, fostering a deeper understanding.

The objective of the Summit is to create an opportunity for students and young scholars to engage in intellectual conversations about corporate and commercial laws. The goal is to promote research and knowledge growth in emerging trends of corporate and commercial laws in India. Moreover, the Summit aims to enhance students’ awareness and expertise in these areas. The event assures a promising couple of days of rich discussions and valuable insights.

Everyone, mark your calendars from 14th October to 15th October 2023 and join us on our brainy journey. The summit would have a panel discussion of erudite personalities in the field of corporate governance on the first day, i.e. on 14th October. It would be followed by a paper presentation by 10 shortlisted candidates, out of 120 enthusiastic participants who submitted their insightful academic articles. The Organizing Committee invites all the readers to stay updated with the events.


October 14, 2023 at The Auditorium, NLU Jodhpur

Inaugural Ceremony (10:16AM) – 

The inaugural ceremony of the summit commenced with lighting the lamp by our guests and honourable Dean Prof. Dr. IP Massey. The latter then went on to welcome the guests and emphasized on the need for such collaborations to further holistic development of students.

Then the Editors-in Chief of the Journal, Ms. Deesha Reshmi and Mr. Ojasav Chitranshi reflected on the rigorous process of selecting the candidates and thanking the participants, guests, and attendants for making the Summit possible.

This was followed by Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Faculty Incharge and Chief Editor of the Journal who emphasized upon the importance of summits like these, which shows the university’s dedication to fostering academic excellence and pushing our boundaries of understanding. Summits such as this encourage the exchange of  ideas and knowledge, where we come together to have discussions on contemporary topics, which go beyond their academic value and go on to guide the economics of the country through times of change.

Subsequently, the Vice Chancellor, Professor Dr. Harpreet Kaur, congratulated everyone on the occasion and discussed the emerging challenges in the field of corporate law associated with Fintech companies, prepackaged insolvency in MSMEs, etc.

This was followed by a keynote address from Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, executive director of IBBI, who went to highlight the importance of research, referring to it as the ‘lifeblood of institutions’. He comprehensively elucidated upon the incorporation of SEBI in 1992, the Competition Act in 2000 and introduction of the IBC in 2016 as pillars of freedoms to start, compete and exit the business respectively. He elaborated on how traditionally, we have been trained to believe that insolvency is a stigma, but in reality it has been inherent in our culture. He also remarked that liquidation is not killing the business, it is a way of resolution, just like IBC which is a code of resolution.


“Court has made it clear time and again that the debtors’ paradise is lost, now the control is with creditors. It has brought about great behavioral change and default rates are going down.”

– Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Executive Director, IBBI


Prof (Dr.) I.P. Massey and the guests of honour inaugurating the event.


Panel Discussion 1


Regulation of Fintech Platforms: Balancing Innovation & Protection


Mr. Khabeer Ahmed, Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India; Ms. Vidushi Gupta, Partner Mumbai office, Khaitan & Co; Dr. Surbhi Kapur, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School.

Moderator: Mr. Sarthak Mishra, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National Law University, Jodhpur.


Mr. Khabeer Ahmed:

Mr. Ahmed is the Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India. He remarked on the significant changes that the RBI has undergone in its approach to digital lending since 1995. Initially, it tightly regulated various aspects of credit-related matters, but as credit growth surged, the RBI began to deregulate to prevent asset bubbles. He also discussed how fintech companies entered the market, and post-COVID, digital lending platforms experienced substantial growth, particularly targeting informal and marginalized sectors.

He highlighted the concerns that came with rapid expansion, leading to about 2000-2500 cases per month related to digital lending platforms. In response, he stated that the RBI established a fintech department and regulatory sandbox mechanisms to facilitate public discourse. He further emphasized that the rise of predatory lending also resulted in suicides, prompting interactions with state governments, law firms, and law enforcement agencies. He noted that around 600 of the 1000 digital lending apps were operating without authorization, necessitating regulation.

To maintain a balance between macro financial stability, consumer protection, and innovation, he discussed how the RBI introduced digital lending guidelines. He emphasized that these guidelines aim to regulate the relationship between regulated entities and loan service providers, ensuring that banks remain central to lending while the RBI continues to regulate them.

He addressed the commercial wisdom of wealth maximization and the liberalization principle of profit maximization, raising questions about the role of self-regulation and consumer welfare. He stated that the RBI is considering self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to address these issues, offering a platform for stakeholders to discuss policy issues and promote self-discipline among regulatory entities. He pointed out that multiple entities, including digital lending banks, NBFCs, and fintechs, are subject to RBI regulation, with the role of fintechs in the regulatory landscape being a point of contention.

He discussed how SROs play a crucial role in regulation, pattern-regulation, soft-regulation, and self-regulation. He mentioned that the RBI is planning to issue an omnibus approval framework for recognizing SROs, allowing them greater autonomy. He underlined that the extent to which fintechs should be regulated remains a contentious issue, with regulatory guidelines depending on market evolution. He also stressed the importance of considering cultural alignment and information technology in regulating self-regulatory bodies.

He noted that challenges include the overarching jurisdiction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) over other laws and potential conflicts between regulators and the government. However, he mentioned that avenues for resolution, such as the Insolvency Law Committee, are being explored to address these issues.


Ms. Vidushi Gupta:

As a law firm partner with experience in bridging the gap between new industry players and regulatory bodies, Ms. Vidushi Gupta provided insights on how fintech firms have evolved. They have transitioned from being largely unregulated in their early years to achieving a balance between liberalization and regulation.

She also emphasized the necessity of collaborations and mergers between established banks, which have the requisite customer base and resources, and fintech firms with innovative ideas and technological capabilities.

Regarding evolving laws on privacy and various regulatory requirements, she noted the importance of consent and transparency. She highlighted that in today’s world, banks often obtain implied consent from customers through the use of technology, which could potentially lead to issues in the future.

When discussing the future of fintech players, she expressed her belief that in a few years, we will witness better governance. There will be fewer new registrations of fintech companies but they will be more sustainable in nature.


Dr. Surbhi Kapur:

Academician Dr. Surbhi Kapur remarked how it is essential to look at the societal impact of any measure that is to be taken to solve the challenges faced by the emerging fintech industry and the industry regulators. She emphasized on the need for striking a balance in regulation, somewhere between a hands-off and a status quo approach, with a focus on the well-being of those who are affected by it.

She also emphasized the need for collaboration to leverage the strengths of both banks and fintechs. She stated that the negotiation process between them should aim to ensure that each party benefits. Banks can gain knowledge of modern IT from fintechs, while fintechs should have the necessary resources for compliance.

She also brought up the challenges that Insolvency Professionals may face with fintech platforms when it comes to accessing the data of the fintech firms undergoing resolution and proposed extending the pre pack insolvency resolution process to fintechs.

On the point of transparency highlighted by the moderator, she pointed out that established parameters and specific requirements must be established. Access to information should be equitable on both sides, consent mechanisms for customer data must be robust, and specific details, such as the source of funds, should be clearly disclosed. She remarked that with improved transparency and information flow, compliance can be enhanced.

Panel Discussion 1 by Mr. Khabeer Ahmed, Ms. Vidushi Gupta and Dr. Surbhi Kapur, moderated by Mr. Sarthak Mishra. 


Panel Discussion 2


Extending Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Package beyond the MSMEs


Mr. Abhishek Mukherjee, Partner, Mumbai office, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas; Dr. Risham Garg, Associate Professor, National Law University, Delhi; Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India; Dr. Surbhi Kapur, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School; Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Executive Director of IBBI.

Moderator: Dr. Anand Kumar, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law at National Law University, Jodhpur. 


Dr. Risham Garg:

Dr. Risham Garg noted the mixed impact of the Pre-pack Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP). He highlighted the significance of MSMEs for India’s GDP and their vulnerability due to COVID’s economic impact, which necessitated a distinct resolution mechanism. He proposed that extending this model to other sectors could be efficient, but raised concerns about Section 29A of IBC. He emphasized that IBC’s objective is to balance stakeholders’ interests.

Regarding banks’ reluctance to adopt PPIRP, he suggested that sensitization and showcasing success stories could encourage banks to use it. The debtor-friendly nature of the process raises concerns about scrutiny for their decisions.

He also mentioned the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (BLRC) and the debate surrounding the applicability of Section 29A in PPIRP cases. Clarity, transparency, access to information, and fairness of the process were emphasized as crucial.


Mr. Abhishek Mukherjee:

In agreement with Dr. Risham, Mr. Abhishek Mukherjee stressed the purpose of the PPIRP and noted that very few PPIRPs have occurred, with even fewer receiving approval, which is not the desired outcome. He emphasized the need for the legal community to push for PPIRPs to achieve the intended objectives and resolve current issues.

Regarding the application of section 29A of the IBC in PPIRP cases, he remarked that in India, as we follow the debtor-driven approach, the applicability could be relaxed. While serious defaults like fraud should still apply, non-performing asset-related defaults could be less stringent in PPIRP cases.

He also commented on a two-layered process involving PPIRP admission and NCLT approval, and recommended adopting a model similar to the US and UK, where debtors can file petitions without court involvement, thus reducing NCLT’s role to approval processes. This change would streamline and expedite the PPIRP proceedings.


Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla: 

Mr. Shukla remarked that IBC has facilitated something that market is not mature enough to take and how the Supreme Court on a number of occasions has supported the Parliament’s stance.

On the point of the interest of Financial Creditor being compromised for that of Operational Creditor [“OC”] under the current regime, he reiterated the objective of the law being value maximization and remarked how, although only few PPIRP have been carried out, a qualitative analysis of these instances shows that no such compromise has been made.

On expanding PPIRP to other sectors beyond MSMEs, he said the same may turn out to be successful, but for now it’s a policy decision on part of the government which may likely be altered in the future. He also highlighted the need for those taking the decision regarding the resolution process to do it bravely without any pressure.


Dr. Surbhi Kapur:

Dr. Surbhi emphasized the concept of ‘fait accompli’ in legal discourse, particularly within the context of the Pre-Packaged Resolution Process, which accelerates a stakeholder-centric approach. The report discusses the importance of the PPRIP and its impact on India’s economy, as well as the need for thoughtful implementation.

She also threw light on The IBC as a significant economic law since liberalization, however she also talked about the challenges it presents for small businesses. A comprehensive approach is required, involving not only the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) but also banking regulators to ensure its success.

Dr. Surbhi suggested that banking regulators should introduce soft-touch regulations in the complex insolvency and bankruptcy ecosystem to streamline processes and align banks with the IBC and PPRIP objectives.

While suggesting key considerations for the policy framework, she recommended inclusion of techno-economic feasibility before determining haircuts in the resolution process, exploring legal transplantation from international practices, and categorizing companies based on their unique needs.

Dr. Kapur concluded by remarking that the PPRIP and IBC are crucial in India’s legal and economic landscape. Effective implementation requires thoughtful policies, cooperation between regulators and institutions, techno-economic assessments, legal transplantation, and company categorization. This approach, she believes, will enhance the legal ecosystem benefiting India’s economic growth and stability.


Mr. Tahir Ashraf  Siddiqui

Mr. Tahir started with pointing at the issue of the entire scheme involves everyone giving up something to gain something more, particularly in the context of the IBC. Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), being small businesses, may not fully grasp the complexities of the IBC, including basic resolution plans and how to rescue their businesses.

In the IBC process, he stated that the adjudicating authority must confirm and appoint a new Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP), leading to a second chance for resolution. In Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), corporate debtors often challenge the existence of debt, and creditors in countries like Singapore and the UK have more say in deciding the fate of the business.

Mr. Tahir mentioned that the implementation of the IBC has been inconsistent, with a voluntary mechanism frequently preferred. This suggests that a voluntary approach, especially with a reduced voting share, may enhance efficiency and efficacy, potentially being more suitable for entities other than MSMEs.

He called for the dilution of Section 29A in the context of PPIRP, which would be a model where valuation is independent, as seen in the UK. It could be adopted to improve the chances of a successful resolution through this process.

Mr. Siddiqui emphasized on addressing concerns raised about inculcating a culture of financial creditors being willing to take haircuts. The law mandates payment of all confirmed operational debt, and stakeholders need to be sensitized, trained, and provided with guidelines. This transition should be process-based rather than individual-centric. The role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and public money deposited in financial institutions is discussed, and the need for objective criteria for demarcation is raised.

Lastly, he differentiated between valuation methods for electronic data-heavy companies and traditional firms is acknowledged as a challenge in implementing the IBC effectively.


DAY 2: October 15, 2023 at The Board Room NLU Jodhpur


We’re here at the 1st NLUJ-Khaitan & Co Corporate Law Review Summit, 2023, on its exciting second day, which features paper presentations from our short-listed candidates and the highly anticipated closing ceremony. The day kicked off with a warm welcome to our distinguished judges for the paper presentations, including Mr. Mohan VK, Deputy Legal Adviser at the Reserve Bank of India, Ms. Vidushi Gupta, Partner in M&A and private equity at Khaitan and Co, and Ms. Ruth Vaiphei, an Assistant Professor in the faculty of law at National Law University, Jodhpur. They set the stage before passing the microphone over to our eager participants. 

1st Presentation: Securitization of Stressed Assets: A Half-Baked Bread for the Indian Market?

In their presentation, the presenter discussed the non-performing asset (NPA) market in India, which stands at 15 billion US dollars, highlighting the potential for stressed assets and foreign investors. In the presentation, it was pointed out that while the Gross Non-Performing Assets (GNPA) ratio has improved, it’s still a concern due to inefficient schemes for handling stressed assets. Stressed assets, which fail to provide promised principal, lead to NPAs, burdening the Indian economy. India’s recovery methods for NPAs include the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), but there’s a need for alternative approaches outside the IBC framework, such as securitization because IBC focuses on resolution. The paper was divided into sections covering securitization, historical NPA recovery, the proposed SSAF, lessons from other countries, roadblocks in implementation, a suggestive framework for secured asset securitization, and conclusions about the scheme’s future. The presentation explored the proposed Securitization of Stressed Assets Framework (SSAF) by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and discussed concerns about including standard assets and minimum risk retention. 

2nd Presentation: Rightful Investors or a Rueful Fan Club? The Quandary of Regulating Community Stock Ownership Plans in India

The presenters discussed the growing popularity of Community Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs) in India, driven by the startup wave and investment-based content. They explored the concept of CSOPs, tracing their historical roots and how they have evolved, particularly as a tool for startups to raise funds. They highlighted concerns about the balance of benefits between startups and retail investors, pointing out issues with CSOP agreements offered by platforms like Tyke Invest. The lack of clear regulation for CSOPs, especially regarding Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) for unlisted entities, was addressed. The consumer-investor’s position in this framework was discussed, emphasizing the lack of due diligence and clarity. The presentation proposed solutions, including amending the Companies Act to include unlisted securities, creating a regulatory mechanism for platforms like Tyke, and establishing entry barriers while balancing regulatory oversight. In conclusion, they emphasized the need for a well-defined framework for CSOPs to maintain investor confidence and promote fairness.

Presentation 3: Mindful Machines and Financial Wisdom: Navigating AI and FinTech’s Responsible Journey Towards Modern Banking

In this presentation, the transformative impact of Financial Technology (FinTech) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the banking sector was highlighted. The presenters covered how AI collaborates with banks to improve predictive modeling, customer experiences, and operational processes, while FinTech offers user-friendly tools for transactions. They also emphasized the potential risks related to data privacy and security, the need for strong regulatory measures to protect personal data, and stressed the importance of cybersecurity defenses, ethical AI use, and addressing biases in AI decision-making. The presentation underscored the importance of integrating data governance and ethical strategies to create a balanced and just technologically progressive future for the banking industry.

Presentation 4: Rethinking the Moratorium Clause Under IBC: An Anatomization of Aviation Insolvency 

In this presentation, the presenters explored aviation insolvency and India’s strong preference for aircraft leasing. They argued that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) isn’t ideal for aviation insolvency. They examined how moratoriums affect leases and bank guarantees and analyzed the Cape Town Convention Bill, 2018. The presentation stressed the need for changes in handling aviation insolvency, especially concerning IBC’s Section 14(1)(d) and the IDERA process during a moratorium. The presenters advised financial creditors to include insolvency anticipation clauses and discussed the proposed ‘Protection and Enforcement of Interests in Aircraft Objects Bill, 2022.’ Balancing the waiting period and the CIRP period, aviation-specific IBC amendments, capital requirements for airlines, and AI in insolvency detection were suggested. The importance of balanced legislation was emphasized.

An ongoing paper presentation. 

Presentation 5: Ushering SEBI’s Prudential Norms to Maturity: Clearing the Way for Central Counterparties’ Investment Policy

In their presentation, the presenters discussed global efforts to regulate clearing corporations after the 2008 Lehman Brothers Crash. They highlighted the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures’ twenty-four principles for regulators, with a focus on Principle 16 concerning clearing corporations’ investment exposures. They argued that SEBI’s regulatory approach in India has been inconsistent and insufficient, particularly in comparison to the European Union and the United States. The presenters noted that SEBI’s recent Consultation Paper on Prudential Norms falls short in addressing evolving Indian Capital Market risks and the challenges posed by pledged instruments. They made several recommendations, including the inclusion of municipal bonds and secure instruments, addressing pledging and hedging issues, and refining percentage caps on exposure via fixed deposits relative to the investee bank’s net value.

Presentation 6: Shining a Light on RBI NBFC P2P Guidelines: Evolving a Model of Development for P2P Lending Firms

In their presentation, the presenters discussed peer-to-peer (P2P) lending as a significant alternative to traditional banking for loans. They explained that the RBI introduced NBFC P2P lending guidelines in 2017 to regulate registration and activities of P2P entities. The guidelines aimed to create fairness for lenders and borrowers while preventing P2P platforms from acting as shadow banks by limiting certain activities. However, the RBI noted that some platforms were not following these guidelines properly and that certain market practices were not adequately regulated. The presentation outlined the current P2P lending guidelines, discussed the RBI’s recent inquiry into NBFC P2P platforms, proposed potential guideline amendments, and advocated for mandatory winding down plans for P2P lending companies.

Presentation 7: A New Era of Digital Lending in India: Have the FinTech Players Become Compliant? 

The presentation focused on digital lending’s potential to boost convenience and productivity for financial organizations. They highlighted the RBI’s “Guidelines on Digital Lending” from September 2022, discussing their impact on banks, NBFCs, and control mechanisms. The presentation also covered the clarification of the First Loss Default Guarantee (FLDG) gray area by RBI in June 2023. It delved into the effects on FinTech companies, global trends, and consumer data protection. The guidelines were seen as a way to drive sustainable growth in lending, but potential FLDG limitations might prompt fintech companies to rethink their strategies. A case study assessed digital lending entities’ compliance with RBI regulations, concluding with suggestions for guideline improvement.

An ongoing paper presentation. 

Presentation 8: Decoding the proposed amendment to UPSI: Equitable or Archaic? 

In their presentation, the presenters discussed SEBI’s role as a securities market regulator and the issue of insider trading, which hinges on information reliability. SEBI’s goal is to create a level playing field and reduce information disparities. They highlighted SEBI’s recent proposal to broaden the definition of ‘material information’ in Insider Trading Regulations by incorporating LODR Regulation 30. This change has implications for corporations, increasing the disclosure burden and creating a dilemma between regulatory compliance and public influence. The presenters also mentioned the potential for a blackout period for designated persons, limiting their market participation. The presentation recommended a reconsideration of the proposed amendment, drawing insights from international jurisprudence to strike a balance and align with SEBI’s objectives.

Presentation 9: Attachment Of Unsecured And Secured Properties Of The Corporate Debtor: A Tussle Between PMLA & PBC 

In their presentation, the presenters discussed the challenges in harmoniously interpreting the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. They pointed out that courts have given a criminal character to civil attachment proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement. The courts also ruled that property attachment is allowed even before the approval of a resolution plan, giving the Directorate of Enforcement the right to attach and confiscate a corporate debtor’s assets during the insolvency resolution process. Secured creditors are the only ones allowed to exercise their rights over these attached properties if they prove their prior bona fide interest, which has been detrimental to the insolvency resolution process and the recovery of debt by unsecured creditors. This situation poses a risk of pushing the corporate debtor into liquidation and reduces the pool of assets available to unsecured creditors. To restore trust in the insolvency resolution law, the presenters argued that attachment proceedings should be considered as ‘civil’ and fall under the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Presentation 10:Investigating the Proposals for Early Liquidation and Resolution in Parts

In the presentation, the presenters discussed the IBC and its objectives. They highlighted issues where the Committee of Creditors (CoC) compromised stakeholder benefits or continued the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) unnecessarily. The presenters also pointed out challenges with Potential Resolution Applicants (PRAs). They discussed the proposal by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) regarding ‘Resolution in Parts’ and ‘Early Liquidation’ to address these problems and recommended implementing these proposals and making structural reforms, including cross-regulatory strategies and the appointment of an ‘Administrator’ by the Central Government, to balance the IBC’s objectives.

6:00 pm 


Now comes the time for the most awaited event of the summit, the valedictory ceremony. All participants are eagerly awaiting the declaration of results with anticipation. Following is the list of awards that all the ten participants are competing for:

The winner shall receive a cash prize of INR 20,000; internship opportunities with Khaitan & Co

and SCC-Online; along with certificates of merit.

The first runners-up shall receive a cash prize of INR 15,000; an internship with Khaitan & Co;

along with certificates of merit.

The second runners-up shall receive a cash prize of INR 10,000 along with certificates of merit.

The top six entries will be published in the upcoming volume of the Journal (Vol. VI, Issue 2).

The top 10 entries shall receive a certificate of merit from the organizers.

All the entries shall receive a certificate of participation.

The speaker introduced Deputy Legal Advisor at RBI, Mr. Mohan V.K., who was also one of the judges for the paper presentation. While addressing the audience, Mr. Mohan expressed gratitude to NLU, Jodhpur for having taken efforts to initiate the association with the RBI, thus also shedding light on RBI’s willingness to fund more such events. He enthusiastically remarked that the present summit has been the very first one that the RBI has sponsored. He eagerly commented, “I am going back to the office with a lot of feedback and insights. I will also discuss the summit with the Deputy Governor of RBI, in our meeting this coming week.”

The host speaker then addressed the assembly and expressed gratitude for the contributions of every participant, the faculty as well as the staff and members of the support staff. Then came the much-awaited declaration of results. They were announced as follows:

Winner: Apsara and Reema Jain [SLS, Hyderabad]

First runner-up: Jai Shah [GNLU] and Shivangi Desai [ILS, Pune]

Second runner-up: Ishwarya Manikandan and Aditya Hiremath [HNLU, Raipur]

Fourth place: Aditi Singh [NLU, Visakhapattanam]

Fifth place: Pooja Shukla and Mohammad Ateek [GNLU]

Sixth place: Tejas Kandalgaonkar [MNLU, Mumbai]

Prof. Dr.I.P.Massey facilitating one of the winning teams

The speaker then called upon stage, Prof. Dr. I.P. Massey who commended the efforts of the organizing committee, the board of JCLG for the success of the event. He further thanked the partners, the Reserve Bank of India, IBBI, Khaitan & Co, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company who helped the university organize the program at such a scale.

The Editors in Chiefs, Mr. Ojasav Chitranshi and Ms. Deesha Reshmi gave the closing address to the gathering, while commending the extension of the Journal’s mandate to beyond the four walls of NLU, Jodhpur. Moreover, they thanked everybody for their tireless efforts, for making this event a massive success.

The summit concluded with the participants greeting and interacting with the esteemed panelists and judges.

With this, the 1st NLUJ-Khaitan & Co Corporate Law Review Summit, 2023 has come to an end, but not the spirits of the participants, the organizing committee as also the audience. Everybody has experienced an intellectual academic summit that they shall cherish for years to come.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.