Corporate & Commercial Law 2025: How Courts, Regulators and Lawmakers reinforced accountability and curbed abuse

This roundup presents the key India Corporate & Commercial Law Developments 2025,, featuring landmark rulings from the Supreme Court, High Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, SEBI, and CCI spanning Adani’s HDIL resolution plan, Vedanta’s demerger setback, SEBI’s insider trading crackdowns, Google’s competition settlement, and the pump-and-dump ban against actor Arshad Warsi.

TOP STORIES:

• Can Arbitration Be Invoked After Full and Final Settlement? Supreme Court Clarifies

• SC reiterates narrow scope of appellate court’s power under S. 37 of A&C Act

• Limitation for filing S. 17 application under arbitration Act, 1940 begins from awareness of award’s availability, Supreme Court reaffirms

• SC with 2:1 ratio, holds AGI Greenpac’s Resolution Plan for HNGIL as unsustainable

• Supreme Court urges courts to exercise suo motu powers in cases involving misleading arbitration clauses by lawyers

• Gujarat HC: ICAI’s proposal of 5 years debarment of CA in MMCB Scam case quashed for non-application of mind

• Breakdown of SC’s 4:1 Verdict on Court’s limited power to modify Arbitral Awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

• Claims can’t be bisected into arbitrable and non-arbitrable at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of A&C Act: Supreme Court

• ‘No exclusivity between Dreamfolks and its clients’: Delhi HC declines to pass restraining order against Encalm in airport lounge case

• Port’s authority, for recovery of dues, has right over other secured and unsecured creditors: Bombay High Court

Arbitration & Conciliation

SUPREME COURT | ‘Arbitral award must be within parameters of arbitration agreement’; Supreme Court upholds setting aside of award granted in favour of SEPCO Electric Power

The present appeal challenged the judgment dated 27-09-2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court (‘High Court’), contending that it ought not to have interfered with the arbitral award. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside both the arbitral award and the earlier judgment dated 17-06-2022 passed by the Single Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’). [Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. v. GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2088] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT| Limitation Act is not applicable to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act

While considering an appeal, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., had to decide whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to conciliation and arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). Further, even if the Limitation Act is not applicable, whether a supplier can recover a time-barred debt by taking recourse to the remedies provisioned under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. [Sonali Power Equipments (P) Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1467] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT | ‘No agreement on choice of appointing authority’; SC directs parties to approach Secretary General of Permanent Court of Arbitration

While considering the instant arbitration petition, the 3-Judge Bench of Sanjiv Khanna, CJ., Sanjay Kumar and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., pointed out that there was there was no agreement on the choice of the appointing authority after the petitioner, Tata Communications Limited, issued notice dated 28-01-2021. [Tata Communications Ltd. v. Aurora Engineering Co., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 632] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT | Non-issue of notice to certain parties under S. 21 of A&C Act does not strip the Arbitral Tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead

The issue instant appeal was whether service of notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) on a person and joinder of such person in the application under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrator are prerequisites for an arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over him, and further, when can an arbitral tribunal implead a person to the arbitration proceedings. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the A&C Act is mandatory as it fixes the date of commencement of arbitration, which is essential for determining limitation periods and the applicable law, and it is a pre-requisite to filing an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act. [Adavya Projects (P) Ltd. v. Vishal Structurals (P) Ltd., (2025) 9 SCC 686] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT | ‘Use of ‘may’ in alleged arbitration clause doesn’t indicate clear intention to refer dispute to arbitration’; SC upholds Calcutta HC’s verdict

While considering an appeal revolving around existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra*, JJ., upheld Calcutta High Court’s impugned judgment wherein it had held that, when there is use of “may” in a supposed arbitration clause, there is no clear intention of the parties to refer the dispute between them to arbitration. [BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1471] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT| Whether a non-signatory to an agreement can be allowed to remain present in arbitration proceedings? Supreme Court Answers

While considering the present matter, the Court had to answer whether it is permissible for a non-signatory to an agreement leading to arbitration proceedings to remain present in such arbitration proceedings. The Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar*, JJ., held that when arbitration proceedings can take place only between parties to an arbitration agreement and Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not make the arbitral award binding on non-signatories to such agreement, therefore, there can be no legal right conferred by the A&C Act that would enable a non-party to the agreement to remain present in arbitration proceedings between signatories to the agreement. [Kamal Gupta v. L.R. Builders Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1691] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT| Whether non-operation of arbitration clause due to statutory amendments would negate the entire arbitration mechanism? Supreme Court explores

While considering the present appeal challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court’s refusal to appoint an arbitrator and dismissal of the Application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) by the Appellant on the ground of limitation; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih*, JJ., perusing the arbitration mechanism between the parties, held that merely because the procedure to appoint an arbitrator provided in the arbitration clause has become inoperative due to subsequent changes in statutory provisions, the same would not mean that the core of the contract referring the dispute for adjudication to arbitrator would be rendered nugatory. [Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2147] Read more HERE

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Interim attachment of Iron Ore upheld in arbitration dispute based on prima facie case and balance of convenience

An appeal was filed by Tuff Metallurgical Private Limited (appellants) under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order dated 12-09-2024 passed by the Single Judge which directed the attachment of 50,000 WMT of iron ore as a precautionary measure to protect the interests of the Respondent in an ongoing arbitration. A division bench of Ninala Jayasurya and Nyapathy Vijay, JJ., upheld the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing the adequacy of the prima facie case and the sufficiency of the procedure followed. [Tuf Metallurgical (P) Ltd. v. BST HK Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 13] Read more HERE

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Simply because application to refer parties to arbitration is rejected, right to file written statement cannot be forfeited on same date

In an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 27-08-2024, the Division Bench of Ravi Nath Tilhari* and V. Srinivas, JJ., found force in the submission that by the order dated 27-08-2024, the appellant’s right to file a written statement could not be forfeited, as they did not file the written statement within the time provided by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). From the perusal of the forfeiture order of filing the written statement, it appeared that because of rejection of application seeking to refer the parties to arbitration, the right to file the written statement was also forfeited on the same date. [Brothers Engineering & Erectors Ltd. v. Zorin Infrastructure LLP, 2025 SCC OnLine AP 311] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Amazon directed to delist Victorinox products sold by former dealer Gute Reise

The petitioner-Victorinox India (P) Ltd., filed a commercial arbitration petition seeking urgent relief against its former dealer Respondent 1-Gute Reise India (P) Ltd. for continuing to display and sell Victorinox branded products as being sold by Gute Reise, through Respondent 2-Amazon Seller Services (P) Ltd., despite an interim arbitral order dated 9-7-2025 restraining such sales. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., directed Amazon to immediately take down and delist all listings of Victorinox branded products being offered for sale by Gute Reise India (P) Ltd. [Victorinox India (P) Ltd. v. Gute Reise India (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2639] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Anything the Court can see; the opposing party must be allowed to see’; Arbitral Award set aside over redacted disclosures

In a matter related to a multi-crore property development dispute over 12.5 acres of land in Malvani, Mumbai, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., allowed the appeal filed by Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. (‘Atul Projects’), setting aside the arbitral tribunal’s order that had denied interim protection concerning its development rights. The Court held that the Tribunal had failed to consider critical material, including the unredacted Oberoi MoU central to determining third-party rights and the sequence of events relating to title clearance. [Atul Projects India (P) Ltd. v. Nima Developers (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2725] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral awards carry increased credence when a detailed pre-arbitral process has already been contracted

The present interim application was filed seeking a stay on the arbitral award dated 16-06-2025, till the Commercial Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was disposed of. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., while dismissing the application, held that no such case was made out for an unconditional stay as there was nothing to show that the award was tainted by such perversity that it brooked no deposit for stay on its execution. [Mumbai Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. L&T-STEC JV Mumbai, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4018] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral award granting Rs 5.37 crore to TCS over cancelled recruitment examination, upheld

In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), wherein the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (‘UPLA’) Secretariat assailed the arbitral award dated 24-11-2023, which declared termination of the agreement between UPLA Secretariat and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (‘TCS’), as illegal and directed payment of Rs 5.37 crore with interest and costs to TCS. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., after noting that the tribunal had found that the examinations were successfully conducted and services were substantially complete, upheld the award in favour of TCS, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable. [State of U.P. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4744] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arbitral Award against TCS upheld; Rs. 96 Lakh Compensation ordered to Inspira for Failed Edge Servers Delivery

In two cross petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the arbitral award directing Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) to compensate Inspira IT Products Private Ltd. (Inspira) for loss on failed supply of 207 Edge Servers, a single-judge bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., upheld the arbitral award and rejected TCS’s challenge and Inspira’s limited claim for support charges. [Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Inspira IT Products (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4832, Decided on 02-12-2025] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of interest claims; fresh arbitration impermissible after arbitral award

In a case revolving around whether computation of interest amounts, received after conclusion of arbitration, could be made the subject of a fresh reference under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., held that such an attempt was barred by constructive res judicata. [AAI v. Lite Bite Foods (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5230] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Courts can decide arbitrability of disputes under Section 8 Arbitration Act; Redemption of Mortgage disputes held non-arbitrable

The present interim application was filed by Defendants 1 to 4 (collectively ‘appellants’), in a commercial suit relating to money recovery and the enforcement of mortgage, for reference to arbitration, but the plaintiff contended that since the enforcement of a mortgage could be tried only by a Civil Court, the said application should be rejected. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., while rejecting the application, observed that the Court had the power under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), to decide whether the subject-matter of the suit was arbitrable or not. [Divya Enterprise v. Capri Global Capital Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3783] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Entirely based on false foundation’; Condonation of delay application by National Highway Division in arbitration appeal, dismissed

In a condonation of delay application filed by the National Highway Division of Maharashtra Government in an arbitration appeal, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., dismissed the application, holding that the entire application was based on a false foundation. The Court also held that Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’) would apply to arbitration appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’). [Executive Engineer National Highway Division v. Sanjay Shankar Surve, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 339] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT |LLP bound by arbitration proceedings relating to its operations/governance, despite not being signatory to LLP Agreement

In the present case, an application was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act’), wherein the issue that arose for consideration was “whether disputes between partners of a limited liability partnership (‘LLP’) and the LLP could at all be covered by the arbitration agreement contained in a LLP agreement to which the LLP was not a signatory?”. A Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., opined that the subject matter of the LLP Agreement included duties owed by partners to the LLP and duties owed to the partners by the LLP. [Kartik Radia v. BDO India LLP, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 445] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Petition for substitution of ODR-appointed arbitrator misconceived; Parties directed to mediation before Court’s Mediation Centre

In an arbitration petition seeking substitution of an arbitrator appointed through an Online Dispute Resolution (‘ODR’) platform, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., upheld the validity of the arbitration clause, which expressly provided for resolution through a designated ODR agency. The Court found that the appointment of the arbitrator was in line with the contractual terms and held that the challenge based on alleged lack of consensus was misconceived. [Amit Chaurasia v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5259] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Petition seeking substitution of Arbitrator over independence and impartiality dismissed; highlighted Arbitrator’s impeccable conduct

In a petition filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), seeking substitution of the Sole Arbitrator (‘the Arbitrator’) on grounds of lack of independence and impartiality, Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., stated that the conduct of Arbitrator was impeccable, in accordance with the law while approaching the stamping authority. [Uvik Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Nearby Technologies (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2741] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Question regarding substance of existence of agreement can only be determined by Arbitral Tribunal Read

In a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) seeking reference of the disputes that had arisen between the parties regarding an agreement dated 19-02-2007 (‘the agreement’) and a deed dated 14-08-2015 which cancelled the agreement (‘cancellation deed’) to an Arbitration Tribunal, a Single Judge Bench of Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., allowed the petition holding that the agreements existed despite not being executed by a validly authorised person. [Shreegopal Barasia v. Creative Homes, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 42] Read more HERE

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Rs 14.49 crore arbitral award to Sourav Ganguly in Termination of Player Representation Agreement Case upheld

The present petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner- Percept Talent Management Ltd. (‘Percept’) challenging an award dated 9-12-2018, read with the supplementary award dated 8-03-2019 (collectively referred to as “the award”) which had granted former cricketer Sourav Ganguly Rs 14.49 crore with interest and costs. A Single Judge Bench of Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., dismissed the challenge, holding that an arbitral award could not be interfered unless it was perverse or had been passed in violation of grounds enumerated under section 34 of the Act. [Percept Talent Management Ltd. v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6036] Read more HERE

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Arbitrator cannot be impleaded in proceedings under S. 36(2) of A&C Act until prima facie case of fraud/corruption is established

While adjudicating upon an interlocutory application seeking impleadment of arbitrator to the proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Aniruddha Roy, J*, held that where allegations of fraud or corruption have been raised against an arbitrator, the arbitrator cannot be impleaded to the proceedings until a prima facie case of fraud or corruption is established against him. [W.B. Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. TATA Motors Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4969] Read more HERE

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Sole arbitrator appointed to resolve a dispute over unpaid bills following revised menu directions by IRCTC

An arbitration application was filed by a service provider seeking appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes regarding the interpretation of a contract for the supply of meals, logistics support, and transportation services provided by the petitioner to IRCTC, which subsequently led to claims for unpaid dues following an alteration in menu requirements imposed by IRCTC. Shampa Sarkar, J., appoints Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, Bar Association, as the sole Arbitrator, to arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties. [Doon’s Caterers v. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3423] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Arbitrator’s discretion to fix venue/seat of arbitration cannot override parties’ exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement

While determining the maintainability of a petition filed under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (Arbitration Act), seeking to extend the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J*, opined that the arbitrator’s discretion to fix venue/seat of arbitration must be construed strictly in the context of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and it could not override parties’ exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement. [Viva Infraventure (P) Ltd. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4684] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | BSNL’s appeal dismissed; ₹43.52 cr. arbitration award in favour of Vihaan Networks for pre-contractual work on 2G Network in Northeast, upheld

An appeal was filed by BSNL under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03-10-2023 passed by the Single Judge of this Court wherein the petition was dismissed under Section 34 of the Act and upheld the award dated 16-06-2023 whereby the Sole Arbitrator was awarded ₹33.69 plus ₹9.83 crores along with interest in favour of the respondent. A division bench of Vibhu Bhakru and Tejas Karia*, JJ., dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitral award had taken a plausible and reasonable view after appreciation of material and evidence on record. [BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2670] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Civil suit cannot vitiate arbitral awards on grounds of fraud; Single Judge’s order upheld

While hearing an appeal against an order dated 29-7-2025 (‘impugned order’), passed by a Single Judge Bench of the Court rejecting a challenge against an arbitral award, the Division Bench of Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, J and Anish Dayal, J.*, held that the alleged fraud pertained to internal relations between the parties and not fraud on the Court. [MMTC Ltd. v. Anglo American Metallurgical Pty. Ltd., RFA(OS)(COMM) No. 28 of 2025] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Disputes arising after execution of settlement agreement remain arbitrable

While hearing an arbitration petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes arising out of a settlement agreement, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J, held that the mere execution of a settlement agreement does not render subsequent disputes between the parties non-arbitrable. [Ashutosh Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Pebble Downtown India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8864, decided on 4-12-2025] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Duty of Referral Court in post-award stage to prevent misuse of arbitration’; Plea by Jaiprakash Associates rejected for second arbitration in Rs. 360 Crores claim

In an arbitration petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) by Jaiprakash Associates Limited (‘JP Associates’) seeking recommencement of the arbitration and appointment of nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the NHPC Limited (‘NHPC’) for adjudication of their disputes, the Single Judge Bench of Subramonium Prasad, J., dismissed the petition holding that the present case was demonstrably ‘non-arbitrable’ as there was no live dispute between the parties and re-adjudication of JP Associates’ claim would be a waste of resources and an improper use of the arbitration process. [Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. NPHC Ltd., (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 39] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Insurance policies issued after IRDAI’s 2023 circular containing arbitration clause constitute a valid arbitration agreement

In a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, a Singe Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., held that where an insurance policy issued after the IRDAI Circular dated 27-10-2023 (‘Circular’) continues to incorporate an arbitration clause, the insurer cannot later invoke the Circular to contend that no arbitration agreement exists. The Court accordingly allowed the petition and stated that there was no reason for the respondent, United India Insurance, to enter into the Insurance Policies with the petitioner, Numero Uno Clothing Ltd., containing the arbitration clauses, as the Circular was in existence on 31-1-2024, when the two insurance policies were issued. [Numero Uno Clothing Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8704, decided on 10-11-2025] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Jurisdiction under S. 11 Arbitration Act must be determined by the CPC if the parties haven’t agreed on the arbitration seat or venue

A petition was filed by Faith Constructions (petitioner) under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a construction agreement dated 06-07-2022 pertaining to the construction of the Bishop’s Residence Ground Floor Building for NWGEL Church in Odisha. Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., held that no part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within Delhi, ousting this Court’s territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. [Faith Constructions v. N.W.G.E.L Church, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1746] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Justice Arvind Sangwan appointed as sole arbitrator in a petition filed by Dixon Technologies

In a petition filed by the petitioner under 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’), seeking appointment of an arbitrator, Subramonium Prasad, J., appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Court appointed Justice Arvind Sangwan, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. [Dixon Technologies (India) Ltd. v. JAIICO, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 893] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Letter consenting to unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator doesn’t constitute waiver under Sec. 12 (5) of Arbitration Act’

In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging an interim award dated 6-9-2019 (‘impugned award’) wherein the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for impleadment of Respondent 2, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, held that a letter consenting to the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator does not amount to waiver under Section 12(5) of the Act. [Alpro Industries v. Ambience Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8373] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Migrated Gas’ extraction by Reliance Industries violated Public Trust Doctrine; Arbitral award, set aside

An appeal was filed Union of India through the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas of the Government of India under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 assailing the order dated 09-05-20233 passed by the Single Judge, whereby the application under Section 34 of Act preferred by it, against the Arbitral Award dated 24-07-2018. Saurabh Banerjee, J., held that the impugned order dated 09-05-2023 passed by the Single Judge and the Arbitral Award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dated 24-07-2018, being contrary to the settled position of law, are set aside as there was a ‘patent illegality’ on the face of the Arbitral Award. [Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 841] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Non-Filing of Arbitral Award renders Section 34 petition ‘non-est’; Limitation continues

A Full Bench was constituted questioning whether non-filing of the Arbitral Award itself would render a petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as ‘non-est’. A full bench of Rekha Palli, Navin Chawla and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ., held that non-filing of the Arbitral Award along with an application under the Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act would make the said application liable to be treated and declared as non-est, and the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall continue to run in spite of such filing. [Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 636] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Objections under S. 47 CPC not allowed in enforcement proceedings of arbitral award, allowing such objection undermines S. 34 A&C Act

In a petition filed by the decree holder under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) seeking enforcement of award dated 12-5-2014, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (‘AT’), Jasmeet Singh, J.*, stated that if the objections under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), were allowed to be entertained during the enforcement proceedings of an award, it would effectively open a second round for challenging the award which the legislature did not intend to do, as allowing the same would undermine the provision of Section 34 of A&C Act. [Anglo-American Metallurgical Coal (P) Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3201] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Order terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 25 (a) of the Arbitration Act is not an ‘Award’

In petitions filed under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), seeking substitution or appointment of an arbitrator and/ or to pass an order enabling the arbitrator to continue proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Arora, J, allowed the petitions. The Court further held that an order passed under Section 25(a) of the Act would not qualify as an ‘arbitral award’ and therefore the parties would not be required to challenge the same under Section 34 of the Act. [Mecwel Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. G.E. Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7138] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | OYO v Zostel | Arbitral Award set aside citing public policy violation and non-adjudication of core claims on unenforceable Term Sheet

In a petition filed under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act by Oravel Stays Private Limited (petitioner) seeking to assail an arbitral award dated 06-03-2021 (impugned award) passed by an arbitral tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator, Sachin Datta, J. set aside impugned award being in in conflict with the “public policy of India”. [Oravel Stays (P) Ltd. v. Zostel Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3377] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Petition for extension of Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate non-maintainable once Award is delivered and challenged; Tribunal becomes ‘functus officio’

In a petition filed by Desire Infrabuild Pvt Ltd. (petitioner) under Section 29-A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 15 months i.e. from 14-01-2024 to 14-04-2025. Jasmeet Singh, J., held that the present Section 29A petition is belated and an attempt to cure an incurable defect. [Desire Infrabuild (P) Ltd. v. Oyo Apartments Investments LLP, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5929] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Unilateral arbitrator appointment invalid without express written waiver under Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act

The present appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) challenging the order dated 23-5-2023 passed by the Commercial Court. By the said order, the Arbitration Award dated 12-10-2020 granting the appellant Rs. 1,76,01,359, was set aside on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the State of Delhi (‘Respondent’), and the Award by a person ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator under Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act, was against public policy of India. The Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia*, JJ., while dismissing the present appeal observed that any proceedings conducted before unilaterally appointed Arbitrator were a nullity and could not result into an enforceable award being against Public Policy of India and could be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and/or refused to be enforced under Section 36. [Mahavir Prasad Gupta & Sons v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4241] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | WhatsApp and email exchanges between parties constitutes valid arbitration agreement

In a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) wherein the petitioner sought an interim order for attachment of properties of respondents to the tune of Rs 23.34 Crores, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J*, opined that since orders of attachment affect the financial health of the company, they are not passed as a routine and thus, dismissed the petition. [Belvedere Resources DMCC v. OCL Iron & Steel Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4652] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Vedanta’s cost recovery deductions in Rajasthan oil block arbitration dispute

In an appealfiled by Union of India (‘appellant’) under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), challenging the order dated 29-4-2024, wherein the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the government of India’s plea for stay on implementation of the Final Partial Award (‘FPA’) passed in an arbitration concerning the Rajasthan oil block, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., held that Vedanta’s cost recovery deductions were not unilateral but rather contractually obligated conduct. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal. [Union of India v. Vedanta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4808] Read more HERE

GAUHATI HIGH COURT | Retd. District and Sessions Judge, Nagaland appointed as an arbitrator in lottery printing dispute with Nagaland Government

In a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator, Yarenjungla Longkumer, J., opined that the dispute between the parties was arbitrable in nature. Therefore, the Court referred parties to the arbitration and accordingly, appointed Khape Koza, Retired District and Sessions Judge of Nagaland, as an arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties, subject to his consent and disclosure. [Druckgrafen India Ltd. v. State of Nagaland, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 3126] Read more HERE

GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Delay in curing registry defects under Section 34 and its impact on arbitration applications

In a batch of appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) against the setting aside of the arbitral award passed in favour of the appellants, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal*, CJ. and Pranav Trivedi, J., partly allowed the appeals, holding that a delay in curing registry defects under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not render the application time-barred, provided the application was initially filed within the statutory limitation period. [Manbhupinder Singh Atwal v. Neeraj Kumarpal Shah, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 2200] Read more HERE

GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Novel plea of non-receipt of signed award copy cannot be raised in appeal’; NHAI’s appeals against dismissal of S. 34 applications due to delay, rejected

In a batch of appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’) against orders passed by the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), rejecting NHAI’s applications filed under Section 34 for being beyond the limitation prescribed in Section 34(3), the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal*, CJ., and Pranav Trivedi, J., rejected the appeals holding that the contention that NHAI never received the signed copy of the award, should have been raised before the Civil Court on the first instance when the Section 34 application was being decided, but since NHAI did not do so, such novel plea could not be appreciated in appeal under Section 37. [National Highways Authority of India v. Kishorbhai Valjibhai Jethani, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 714] Read more HERE

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Arbitrator appointed in dispute between State and OASYS Cybernetics for violation of S. 12(5) of A&C Act

In a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the unilateral appointment of Director, Department of Digital Technologies and Governance, Himachal Pradesh (‘Director of DTG’), as the sole arbitrator by the State, the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan* and Sushil Kukreja, JJ., allowed the petition holding that the statutory bar under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) would squarely be applicable as the Director of DTG could not be held to be an independent and impartial arbitrator because he could be a consultant or an advisor of the State. [Oasys Cybernetics (P) Ltd. v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1812] Read more HERE

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | ‘Merely because arbitrator was appointed by Orissa HC is no ground for Ranchi Court to not have jurisdiction’; Order dismissing S. 34 arbitration application, set aside

The present petition was filed under Article 227 of Constitution to quash the order dated 30-11-2023, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) was dismissed, on the ground that since sole arbitrator was appointed by Orissa High Court, the Commercial Court, Ranchi did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the application for setting aside the award. [MECON Ltd. v. K.C.S. (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 376] Read more HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | A party alone cannot decide to appoint an Arbitrator of their choice when 2nd party has not given consent

In an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of work order/agreement between the parties, the Single Judge Bench of Deepak Khot, J., allowed the application noting that the applicant had disagreed with the arbitration clause whereby the obligation to appoint an arbitrator had been bestowed on the respondent. [Sanghvi Movers Ltd. v. Dilip Buildcom Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 4959] Read more HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Retd. Justice Alok Verma appointed as arbitrator for dispute concerning development of Hukumchand Mill Area

In an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties concerning development of the Hukumchand Mill Area, the Single Judge Bench of Deepak Khot, J., allowed the application, holding that the dispute was arbitrable as per the agreement and appointed retired Justice Alok Verma as the arbitrator. [CBRE South Asia (P) Ltd. v. M.P. Housing & Infrastructure Development Board, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 5053] Read more HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Arbitral awards by lay arbitrators tested for substantial correctness, but natural justice remains non-negotiable’; Award passed by family elders, set aside

In petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the award dated 09-10-2005/ 10-10-2005 passed by the family elders who were chosen by parties to arbitrate the dispute and resolve the same (respondents 1 to 3) as erroneous, arbitrary and unjust, a Single Judge Bench of N.Anand Venkatesh, J. said that while arbitral awards by lay arbitrators and family elders are generally assessed for substantial correctness rather than technical precision, the principles of natural justice are non-negotiable. In this case, the petitioner was denied a crucial opportunity to present his case, which amounted to a violation of Section 34(2)(a)(iii). The Court held that an award can be deemed in conflict with the public policy of India if it violates the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the award was liable to be set aside. [M. Maher Dadha v. S. Mohanchand Dadha, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9152] Read more HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Arbitral award modified

While hearing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh, J., stated that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil since its jurisdiction is confined by the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the Arbitrator had exceeded jurisdiction by lifting the corporate veil and fastening liability on an entity not party to the agreement, which is impermissible under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act’). [Sugesan Transport (P) Ltd. v. E.C. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 10996, decided on 26-11-2025] Read more HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | Foreign Arbitral Awards upholding agreement based on surmises is against public policy & unenforceable

In the execution petitions filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration and Conciliation Act) read with Order XXI Rule 46 CPC, seeking recognition and enforcement of two Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations (FOSFA) foreign arbitral awards, a single-judge bench of N. Anand Venkatesh J., dismissed the execution petitions and held that Arbitral Tribunal’s assumption of jurisdiction without a valid arbitration agreement violates Public Policy of India, making the award unenforceable under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Olam International Ltd. v. Manickavel Edible Oils (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11018, Decided on 25-11-2025] Read more HERE

ORISSA HIGH COURT | Scope of judicial intervention under Ss. 34 and 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, explained

The present appeal was filed by the Appellant-Contractor under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the ‘1996 Act’) challenging the partial modification of an award by the District Judge, who had reduced one claim and set aside two others for lack of evidence. The State also filed a cross-appeal. A Single Judge Bench of Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J., dismissed both appeals, holding that the lower court’s interference was limited to portions of the award that suffered from patent illegality due to lack of evidentiary support. [Mahendra Swain v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2788] Read more HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu (Retd.) nominated as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between Karan Paul and K. P. H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd.

In a petition filed by Karan Paul (‘petitioner’), an Indian businessman, under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) seeking appointment of appointment of a Sole Arbitrator as per Articles of Association (‘AOA’) of the K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (‘the Company’) that owns the Indian Premier League (‘IPL’) franchise Punjab Kings, a Single Judge Bench of Jasgurpreet Singh Puri*, J., held that it was settled law that under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the question as to whether the dispute was arbitrable or not was not to be looked into at the reference stage. [Karan Paul v. K. P. H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd., ARB no. 327 of 2025 (O&M)] Read more HERE

PATNA HIGH COURT | ‘Condonation of delay under Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act governed by Limitation Act or Arbitration and Conciliation Act?’: Matter referred to larger bench

In civil revision applications filed by the respondents challenging the awards passed by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal which were filed after more than ten months from the date of the Award, a Single-Judge Bench of Ramesh Chand Malviya, J., referred the matter to a larger bench of that whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall have an application for condoning delay in a proceeding under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 2008 (‘BPWCDA Act’), or the condition of delay as laid down under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be applicable, in view of Section 8 of the BPWCDA Act.[ State of Bihar v. Dayanand Prd Sinha & Com, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2692] Read more HERE

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Pendency of civil and criminal litigation among partners cannot estop a partner from invoking arbitration clause

In an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, the Single Judge Bench of Suvir Sehgal, J., allowed the petition while holding that the pendency of civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, could not estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitration. [Prikshit Wadhwa v. Vinod K. Wadhwa, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 161] Read more HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Appellate power under Section 37 confined to domain of Section 34 of Arbitration Act

In a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants, challenging the affirmation of an arbitral award by the Arbitrator and the Court, a Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sanjeet Purohit, JJ., while dismissing the appeal held that the challenge to the existence of an arbitration clause was concluded by the Arbitrator and the Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), and thus, could not be re-examined under Sections 34 or 37 of the 1996 Act. Further, the Court stressed that the scope of judicial intervention in arbitral matters under Section 37 is limited within the strict confines of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. [Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Compucon Software Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4996] Read more HERE

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | ‘Limitation period for invoking Arbitration begins from date of notice’; Sole Arbitrator appointed in BSNL Contract Dispute

In an application filed by petitioner, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of an agreement entered into with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), a single-judge of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that the application is maintainable as it is not barred by limitation and appointed the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. [Sinsinwar Construction Co. v. BSNL, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 2244] Read more HERE

TELANGANA HIGH COURT | ‘Blatant disregard of law, desperation to avoid payment’; Rs 5 Lakhs cost imposed on HMDA for filing vexatious pleas to avoid Rs. 179 Cr award

In a revision petition filed by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (‘HMDA’) against the dismissal of its application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) by the Commercial Court, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya* and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ., dismissed the petition with Rs. 5 Lakhs as cost, holding that HMDA did not give any justification for pursuing an alternative route for challenging the legality of the arbitral award, without exhausting their rights in the pending appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. [Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority v. Cyberabad Expressway Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine TS 256] Read more HERE

Competition Law

DELHI HIGH COURT | Challenge to ‘Family Unit’ Cap imposed by Delhi Race Club in Horse racing rejected

While hearing an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Delhi Race Club (‘DRC’) from enforcing the ‘family unit’ cap vis-à-vis horse racing, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J, upheld the concept of family unit qua the number of horses that may be owned by a family. The Court held that the purpose of inclusion of such a condition is to prevent monopolization and potential rigging of horse races. Accordingly, the Court refused to grant an interim injunction and dismissed the application. [Ravinder Pal Singh Chauhan v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8578] Read more HERE

KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘CCI has power to address menace of anti-competitive practices’; JioStar’s appeal against CCI probe dismissed

In an intra-court appeal was filed by Jiostar (Star India) under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, challenging the Competition Commission of India’s order directing investigation into Jiostar, a Division Bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Syam Kumar V.M., JJ., refused to interfere with CCI’s order and held that the Competition Act operates unhindered by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) in matters of anti-competitive conduct. [Jiostar India (P) Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 13387] Read more HERE

Corporate Transactions & Regulation

DELHI HIGH COURT | Despite acknowledging ECL’s violations, RBI failed to act; Direction given to RBI to intervene, upheld

An appeal was filed by suspended directors of ECL (appellants) seeking to set aside the impugned judgement dated 23-10-2024 passed by the Single Judge and dismiss the said writ petition for being nonmaintainable and mala-fide and a gross abuse of process of law. A Division Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ., upheld the impugned order dated 23-10-2024 as it was based on clear findings of the RBI that there have indeed been violations of mandatory regulations by the ECL. [Johnson v. Evaan Holdings (P) Ltd., (2025) 255 Comp Cas 148] Read more HERE

DELHI HIGH COURT | Injunction under S. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be granted to restrain board meeting for removal of Director

The present appeal was filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) against the order dated 9-6-2025 (‘impugned order’), passed by the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act, wherein the Appellant company was restrained from convening board meeting dated 15-4-2025 and Extraordinary General Meeting (‘EGM’) dated 12-5-2025. The Single Judge Bench of Anil Kshetarpal, J., held that injunction under Section 9 of the Act cannot be granted with the purpose of restraining the Appellant company from convening a meeting concerning the proposed removal of the Respondent from the directorship of the Appellant company. [Drharors Aesthetics (P) Ltd. v. Debulal Banerjee, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5379] Read more HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Explanation sought for delay in full functionality of NCLT Indore bench despite infrastructure availability

In a writ petition filed by High Court Bar Association, Indore, seeking the establishment of a permanent bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Indore which is technically established in January 2017, but no regular full-time members have been posted there to date, a Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ., sought an explanation from the respondents as to “why atleast two members at NCLT Delhi or NCLT Mumbai are not being posted at NCLT Bench Indore, permanently.” [High Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 3338] Read more HERE

Insolvency

SUPREME COURT | Know Why Supreme Court decided to recall its judgment ordering liquidation of BPSL & rejecting JSW’s Resolution Plan

While considering this review petition filed in respect of Supreme Court’s decision dated 2-5-2025 in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1010, whereby the Court had directed the liquidation of Bhushan Steel and rejected the Resolution Plan by JSW; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ and Satish Chandra Sharma, J., opined that Kalyani Transco (supra) did not correctly consider the legal position as laid down by several judgments such as- Kalpraj Dharamshi v. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd., (2021) 10 SCC 401; Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657; Essar Steel India Ltd. (CoC) v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531; Swiss Ribbons Private Limited v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17 etc. [PNB v. Kalyani Transco, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1634] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT| Creditor’s name not essential in balance sheet for acknowledgment of debt to extend limitation period; Supreme sets aside NCLAT Order; Allows IFIN’s plea

In an appeal filed by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (‘IFIN’) against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) which had dismissed IFIN’s application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd (‘respondent/Corporate Debtor’) on the ground of limitation, the division bench of Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that the entry in the Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor for the financial year 2019—20 constituted a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels (P) Ltd., (2025) 259 Comp Cas 448] Read more HERE

SUPREME COURT | Read why Supreme Court upheld DHFL’s resolution plan by Piramal Capital and set aside NCLAT’s order

In a batch of civil appeals by Piramal Capital and Housing Limited (Piramal Capital) and others, Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) against the common judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (NCLAT), only to the extent that it modified the Resolution Plan (RP) by holding that the RP that permitted the SRA to appropriate recoveries, if any, from Avoidance applications filed under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) ought to be set aside and the Resolution Plan be sent back to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for reconsideration on that aspect, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. set aside the impugned decision holding that the RP approved by the CoC was an outcome of the commercial bargain struck between the SRA and the CoC after several rounds of negotiations and deliberations. [Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. v. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 452] Read more HERE

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | ‘Can’t allow borrowers to wiggle out of liability by using tenancy mechanism’; Directed grant of secured asset’s possession to Axis Bank

In a writ petition filed by Axis Bank seeking a direction to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’) to take physical possession of the suit property that Axis bank had acquired as a secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (‘SARFAESI Act’), 2002, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf* and Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ., held that it was patently clear that the registered lease deed was executed by the borrower after taking the loan, without the knowledge of the secured creditor, Axis Bank. [Axis Bank Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 5080] Read more HERE

MADRAS HIGH COURT | NCLT bound to appoint applicant-recommended Interim Resolution Professional under Ss. 7 and 10 of IBC

The present petition was filed by the petitioner, an Insolvency Professional, to partially quash the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) appointing another person as Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) of Annie Traders (P) Ltd. (‘the Company’), terming it arbitrary, violative of Section 16(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IB Code’). The Division Bench of Anita Sumanth* and N. Senthilkumar, JJ., while allowing the petition held that the order of the NCLT substituting the IRP proposed by the applicant with an IRP of its own choice, for reasons of its own, could not be sustained. [K.J. Vinod v. NCLT, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 4840] Read more HERE

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Sole proprietorship firm don’t fall under definition of “debtor” under S. 94 of IBC; Recovery proceedings refused to be halted

In a writ petition seeking directions to halt the recovery proceedings initiated against petitioner’s mortgaged property, a Division bench of Vivek Rusia* and Prem Narayan Singh, JJ., held that recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, will continue, and no moratorium can be claimed under IBC as sole proprietorship firms cannot seek relief under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). [Ramesh Kothari v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2849] Read more HERE

SEBI, Securities & Stock Market Matters

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Former stockbroker Ketan Parekh’s liberty to travel abroad, protected, Replaced Rs 27 crore bail condition with Rs 5 lakh in each case

In a case concerning the imposition of onerous bail conditions linked to permission for foreign travel, a Single Judge Bench of N. J. Jamadar, J., allowed the petitions filed by an accused in prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’), challenging the order of the Special Judge. The Court held that the requirement to deposit Rs 27.06 crore as a prerequisite for travel abroad failed the tests of reasonability, proportionality and nexus with the object of ensuring presence at trial. [Ketan V. Parekh v. SEBI, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4605, decided on 17-11-2025] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Investor Protected: Depository held liable for broker’s misuse of Power of Attorney in fraudulent share transfers

While deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., upheld the award which had directed payment of Rs 86 Lakh, being the value of lost shares, along with 9 per cent simple interest per annum. [Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4816, decided on 01-12-2025] Read more HERE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT | SEBI consent settlement does not absolve accused of criminal liability in IPO fraud

While hearing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioners were seeking quashing of criminal prosecutions initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, (‘CBI’) in relation to alleged irregularities in the in the Initial Public Offerings (‘IPO’) of Yes Bank Ltd. (‘Yes Bank’) and Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (‘IDFC’), the Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale*, JJ., held that the Consent Order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) in December 2009 was only in respect of administrative and civil proceeding and did not refer to or deal with the pending criminal proceedings. [Manoj Gokulchand Seksaria v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4444] Read more HERE

TRIBUNALS

Competition Commission of India

‘Several key players act as competitive constraint’; CCI dismisses anti-competitive, abuse of dominance allegations against ICICI Securities, NSE & BSE

A complaint was filed by the Informant under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), alleging violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by ICICI Securities Limited (‘ICICI’), in alleged collusion with the National Stock Exchange (‘NSE’) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (‘BSE’). The four-member Bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) examined whether the standardisation of the Authorised Person (‘AP’) Agreement and ICICI’s termination practices contravened Sections 3(3), 3(4), and 4 of the Act. [Krishna Kumar Agrawal v. ICICI Securities Ltd., (2025) 262 Comp Case 797] Read More HERE

Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI

A complaint was filed by the Informant under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘2002 Act’), alleging anti-competitive agreement or conduct by a juice corner operator-Opposite Party. A Bench comprising of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member), held that the Opposite Party was operating independently, and actions such as selling products at low prices or operating without licenses were not considered violations under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, by an entity who was not a significant market player. [ACP NB/Sub N. Mohan Rao v. Bishal Juice Corner, 2025 SCC OnLine CCI 76] Read More HERE

CCI dismisses abuse of dominance case against GMR Hyderabad Airport Ltd; cites operational constraints for non-renewal of license

A complaint was filed by the Air Works India (Engg.) (P) Ltd. (‘Informant’), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), alleging abuse of dominant position by GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. (‘GMR Hyderabad’) and its subsidiary GMR Aero Technic Ltd. (‘subsidiary’), in violation of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act. The four-member Bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) upheld the Director General’s (‘DG’) delineation of the relevant markets, identifying the upstream market as access to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and the downstream market as the provision of Line Maintenance Services, and found that GMR Hyderabad held a dominant position in the upstream market. [Air Works India (Engineering) (P) Ltd. v. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd., (2025) 260 Comp Cas 333] Read More HERE

CCI imposed Rs. 6 lakhs penalty on the Federation of Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Associations in India

In a case filed by the informant under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) against the Federation of Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Associations in India (‘FPBAI’) and its former office-bearers, alleging anti-competitive practices, a 4-member bench of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag (Members), held the FPBAI guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act and the President and the Secretary of the FPBAI and the President/Chairman of Good Offices Committe (‘GOC’) liable under Section 48 of the Act, thereby imposing penalties amounting to Rs 6,32,954. [Pranav Gupta v. Federation of Publishers’ & Booksellers’ Assn. in India, 2025 SCC OnLine CCI 59] Read more HERE

CCI approves Google’s Rupees 20.24 crore settlement in Android TV anti-competitive practices case

In a case filed by the informants under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) against Google LLC (OP-1), Google India Private Limited (OP-2), Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (OP-3) and TCL India Holding Private Limited (OP-4) alleging contravention of various provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act, a 4-member bench of Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag, found prima facie contraventions by Google and accepted Google’s Settlement Proposal of rupees 20.24 crore under Section 48A(3) of the Act. [Kshitiz Arya v. Google LLC, 2025 SCC OnLine CCI 16] Read more HERE

National Company Law Tribunal

Resolution plans comply with IBC and CIRP Regulations’; NCLT approves Adani Properties acquisition of two HDIL assets

NCLT Mumbai: In a set of two applications filed by the Resolution Professional (‘RP’) under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) seeking approval of the Resolution Plans for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) of Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited (‘HDIL’) submitted by Adani Properties Private Limited (‘Adani’), the Two-Member Bench of Lakshmi Gurung (Judicial Member) and Hariharan Neelakanta Iyer (Technical Member), allowed the applications, holding that the Resolution Plans complied with the mandatory requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC read with the applicable regulations of the CIRP Regulations. [Bank of India v. Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 3177] Read more HERE

NCLT can invoke inherent powers to permit withdrawal of voluntary liquidation, when no third-party rights are affected

NCLT Chandigarh: In an instant application filed by the applicant, under Section 59, 60(5) and other applicable provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), read with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017 (‘Voluntary Liquidation Regulations’) for withdrawal of voluntary liquidation of the Company, the Bench of Harnam Singh Thakur, Member (Judicial) and Shishir Agarwal, Member (Technical), stated that inexceptional cases, where the liquidation was initiated voluntarily and is now sought to be withdrawn by the same consenting stakeholders, and no third-party rights are affected, inherent powers of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (‘NCLT Rules, 2016’) can be invoked to meet the ends of justice. [Enel Green Power India (P) Ltd. v. Suman Kumar Verma, CP (IB) No. 3 (CH) 2024] Read more HERE

‘Secured Creditor who relinquishes interest cannot seek priority among others based on charge’; NCLT directs distribution of sale proceeds of Monnet Power’s assets

In an application filed by the liquidator (‘Applicant’) of the corporate debtor, i.e., Monnet Power Company Limited (“Monnet”), seeking directions for distribution of the balance sale consideration and for extending the time for distribution of sale proceeds under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) read with Regulation 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (‘the Regulations’), a two-member bench of Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member) and Banwari Lal Meena (Technical Member), allowed the application holding that Secured Creditors cannot seek priority over other similar creditors during the distribution of the sale proceeds of the secured assets. [IDFC Bank Ltd. v. Monnet Power Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 1939] Read more HERE

NCLT rejects Vedanta Ltd.’s demerger plan over non-disclosure of SEPCO’s debt and procedural irregularities

In an application challenging the demerger plan of Vedanta Limited into multiple resulting companies, a Division bench of Madhu Sinha (Technical Member) and Reeta Kohli (Judicial Member), rejected the demerger plan on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts which violated Section 230(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, and is bound to prejudice the public interest at large. [Vedanta Ltd., In re, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 842] Read more HERE

Force Majeure doesn’t absolve Corporate Debtor from contractual obligations; NCLT directs initiation of CIRP against Corporate Debtor

In an application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), seeking to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, a Division Bench of Sanjiv Jain (Judicial Member) and Venkataraman Subramaniam (Technical Member), admitted the Section 7 IBC application and initiated the insolvency proceeding against Corporate Debtor. [Canara Bank v. ARS Energy (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 1062] Read more HERE

Protection of minority shareholder rights | NCLT lays down structured buy-out mechanism to resolve deadlock between shareholders

In a company petition seeking relief under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the Companies Act), and requested a buyout order, a Division bench of Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula (Judicial Member) and Charan Singh (Technical Member), allowed the petition and held that the Deccan Group’s actions amounted to “grave acts of oppression” and was not mere instances of internal shareholder disputes. The NCLT laid out a structured buy-out mechanism to resolve the deadlock between shareholders. [Escientia Life Sciences v. Escientia Advanced Sciences (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 1251] Read more HERE

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)

CCI lacks power to examine dispute over patented products: NCLAT, New Delhi dismisses appeal against Vifor International

In the present case, a company appeal was filed under Section 53-B of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Competition Act’), challenging the impugned order passed by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’), wherein it was held that there was no violation of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. The Bench comprising Yogesh Khanna, J. (Judicial Member) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in it, as the CCI lacked the power to examine the allegations made against Vifor International (AG). [Swapan Dey v. Competition Commission of India, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1698] Read More HERE

Sale of encumbered assets with secured creditors’ consent permitted under CIRP Regulation 29: NCLAT, Delhi

In an appeal essentially questioning NCLT’s rejection of the sale of non-core assets of the Corporate Debtor, which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) as a sale of assets outside the course of business, aimed at maximization of value, the bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., (Chairperson) and Arun Baroka* (Technical Member) held that Regulation 29 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) does not prohibit a CoC sanctioned sale of encumbered assets where secured creditors had given consent. [Pankaj Mahajan v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Asset Co., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1793] Read More HERE

Resolution Professional to be appointed as liquidator unless replaced by Adjudicating Authority on grounds provided in Section 34 IBC: NCLAT

The present company appeal was filed by the Resolution professional (‘appellant’) of Rajesh Landmark Projects (P) Ltd. (‘Corporate Debtor’), challenging the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Court V, Mumbai Bench (‘Adjudicating Authority’), which had allowed an interim application filed by the appellant seeking liquidation of the corporate debtor. However, instead of appointing the appellant as liquidator, it appointed Respondent 2, relying on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) circular dated 18-7-2023 (‘Circular’). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), stated that the legislative scheme of Section 34(1) of the IBC clearly intended the Resolution professional to be appointed as liquidator, with replacement being a discretionary act of the adjudicating authority based on the grounds specified in Section 34(4) of the IBC. [Manish Jaju v. Committee of Creditors of Rajesh Landmark Projects (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1513] Read More HERE

No Financial Creditor status with invalid Debt Assignment: NCLAT sets aside initiation of CIRP under Section 7 IBC

In the present case, Company appeals were filed by the suspended director of Shaila Clubs and Resorts (P) Ltd.-Corporate Debtor and Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank-the Cooperative Bank challenging the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (‘Adjudicating authority’) which admitted Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) application filed by Savannah Lifestyle (P) Ltd. (Respondent 1). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), set aside the impugned order stating that the admission of application under Section 7 IBC was based on the debt assignment as recorded in minutes of settlement. [Rajesh Vilasrao Patil v. Savannah Lifestyle (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1297] Read More HERE

EPFO stakeholder claims based on assessment order post liquidation commencement date inadmissible: NCLAT, New Delhi

In the present case, a company appeal was filed by the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (‘Appellant’), challenging the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (‘Adjudicating Authority’), which had rejected an interim application seeking directions to release the payment of Provident Fund dues in light of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) read with Section 11 and 17B of the Employees Provident Funds and [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal, stating that as per Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (‘2016 Regulations’), a stakeholder claim could be filed as on the liquidation commencement date. [Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization v. Alok Kailash Saksena, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1370] Read More HERE

Affidavit confirms settlement between Corporate Debtor and Operational Creditor; NCLAT closes Section 9 IBC proceedings

In the present case, a company appeal was filed challenging the order dated 3-4-2024 (‘Impugned order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which had admitted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) filed by the Operational Creditor (Respondent 1). The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J. (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), disposed of the appeal, stating that the issue of a pre-existing dispute had been raised but was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Both the Corporate Debtor (Appellant) and Respondent 1 had filed affidavits which confirmed that they had entered into a settlement, which was taken on record. Thus, the application under Section 9 of the IBC was closed. [Indu Singh (Dr) v. Prime Tower, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1512] Read More HERE

Limitation period of S. 95 IBC applications against personal guarantor based on DRT recovery certificate is three years: NCLAT, Delhi

In an appeals filed by the IDBI Bank, challenging the two identical orders passed on 5-5-2025 by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), Indore Special Bench, Court — I, whereby IDBI’s Section 95 application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) against the personal guarantor (‘respondent’) was rejected, the Bench of Ashok Bhushan J. and Barun Mitra Member (Technical), upheld the decision of adjudicating authority that the Section 95 application filed by IDBI Bank was filed after expiry of three years period of limitation. [IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Hemangi Patel, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1263] Read more HERE

NCLAT Chennai Judicial Member recuses from IBC appeal after request for favourable order by a revered Higher Judiciary Member: NCLAT, Chennai

In a Company Appeal filed against the Impugned order dated 14-7-2023 whereby the Corporate Debtor- appellant was admitted to Section 9 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Bench of Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical) had reserved the judgement on 18-6-2025 and via order dated 24-6-2025 directed the continuance of operation of interim order dated 18-7-2023. [Attluru Sreenivasulu Reddy v. AS Met Corpn. (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1551] Read more HERE

Electricity is an “essential service” under Section 14(2) IBC; can’t be discontinued even if dues remain unpaid during CIRP: NCLAT

In an appeal challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order directing the appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., to restore Corporate Debtor’s electricity without insisting on payment during CIRP, a 3-member bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Arun Baroka (Technical Member), upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order and held that Electricity is an essential service under Section 14(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and cannot be disconnected even if dues remain unpaid during CIRP. [Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Ravi Sethia, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 382] Read more HERE

Acknowledgment of Balance Sheet under Section 18 of Limitation Act to be counted from date of signing of Balance Sheet: NCLAT

In an appeal filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) challenging the Adjudicating Authority’s order dismissing Section 7 IBC application, a Division Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order that the Section 7 IBC application is time-barred. The NCLAT held that the acknowledgment in Balance sheet for the purpose of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be counted from the date of signing of the Balance sheet and not from the date of its uploading with the Registrar of Companies (RoC) on the MCA portal. [IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels (P) Ltd., (2025) 259 Comp Cas 430] Read more HERE

‘Single Homebuyer can’t challenge CoC approved Resolution Plan’; NCLAT upholds CoC’s commercial wisdom

In appeals challenging the rejection of application under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), rejection of objections to the Resolution Plan and the approval of the Resolution Plan itself, a 3-member bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., (Chairperson), Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member) and Mr. Arun Baroka (Technical Member), upheld the NCLT’s order and the Resolution Plan. [Ramprasad Vishvanath Gupta v. Dinesh Kumar Deora, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 959] Read more HERE

Zee Entertainment guarantor’s liability arises only upon invocation of demand guarantee by IDBI: NCLAT dismisses IDBI’s plea to initiate CIRP

In an appeal challenging the rejection of Section 7 application filed by the appellant-IDBI Bank on the ground that the same is barred by Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Division Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., (Chairperson) and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), upheld the rejection of the Section 7 application against respondent-Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (ZEE) and held that the invocation of the corporate guarantee during the Covid-19 moratorium period under Section 10-A barred the initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, even though the underlying debt continued to exist. [IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 673] Read more HERE

Securities Exchange Board of India

All partners have unlimited liability for acts of partnership firm irrespective of their role or profit share: SEBI

The principle issue for determination in the present case was whether the Noticee was liable as a partner of Prowise Capital for the violation of Section 12(1) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’) read with Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 (‘2013 Regulation’), and Regulation 4(2)(k) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market), 2003 (‘PFUTP Regulations’), and if so, what was the quantum of monies that she would be jointly and severally liable to refund the investors. Ananth Narayan G (Whole Time Member) stated that since Prowise Capital is a partnership firm and all partners have unlimited liability for the acts of firm, regardless of the amount of profit or loss they individually derive. [Swati Purwar, In re, (2025) 259 Comp Cas 105] Read More HERE

SEBI hits Trader with Rs 10 lakh penalty for insider trading in HDFC-HDFC Bank merger.

In the proceedings initiated by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) against a Noticee under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act 1992 (‘SEBI Act’) for alleged insider trading in the scrips of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (‘HDFC Ltd.’) and HDFC Bank Ltd. during their amalgamation/merger announcement period, Jai Sebastine (Adjudicating Officer) held that the Noticee traded on the basis of the Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (‘UPSI’) in violations of Regulations 3(2) and 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PTI Regulations’) and Sections 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act, imposing a penalty of Rs 10 lakh. [Rupesh Satish Dalal HUF, In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SEBI-AO 34] Read more HERE

SEBI finds no evidence of misleading YouTube promotions in Hemo Organic Ltd. stock activity; disposes of proceedings against the notices

While adjudicating a proceeding against the Noticees over allegation of violating the several provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (‘PFUTP Regulations’) in relation to trading activities in the shares of Hemo Organic Ltd. (‘HOL’), The bench of Asha Shetty (Adjudicating Officer) held that, due to the absence of crucial information, particularly the missing YouTube videos and insufficient link between the alleged acts and trading behaviour, the violations could not be established. [[In the matter of Hemo Organic Ltd., Adjudication Order No: ORDER/AK/RK/2025-26/31601-31602] Read more HERE

SEBI restrains JS Group from accessing securities market; prohibits buying/selling/dealing in Securities

An interim ex-parte order was passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) against the Jane Street Group (‘JS Group’) comprising both Indian and its associated entities, alleging unauthorized use of their proprietary trading strategies in Indian options markets to manipulate the settlement prices of indices like BANKNIFTY and NIFTY. Ananth Narayan G (Whole Time Member), held that the Entities had violated Section 12-A(a), 12-A(b), and 12-A(c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 (‘SEBI Act’) and Regulations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), 4(2)(a), and 4(2)(e) of the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (‘PFUTP’) Regulations, 2003 by using unfair trading practices. [JSI Investments (P) Ltd., In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SEBI-OCM 8] Read more HERE

SEBI penalises Cressanda promoters for disclosure delay, imposes Rs 12 lakh fine

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) initiated adjudicating proceedings against Smart Infraproperties (P) Ltd. (‘Smart Infraproperties’) and Yuvika Tradewing LLP (‘Yuvika Tradewing’), for delayed disclosure under Regulations 29(1) and 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers Regulations, 2011 (‘SAST Regulations’). Jai Sebastian (Adjudicating Officer) found both noticees guilty of non-compliance and failure to make timely disclosures regarding their share transactions in Cressanda Railway Solutions Ltd. (‘Cressanda’). [Smart Infraproperties (P) Ltd., In Re, 2025 SCC OnLine SEBI-AO 19] Read more HERE

Securities and Exchange Board of India bans actor Arshad Warsi and 58 others for 5 years in a textbook case of ‘pump and dump’ orchestrated through false narratives on digital media

In a case involving a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the share price of Sadhna Broadcast Limited, Ashwani Bhatia (Whole Time Member) after a detailed investigation, found that a group of connected entities had engaged in a coordinated “pump and dump” operation by artificially inflating the price and trading volume of the company’s scrip and luring retail investors through misleading YouTube videos being in violation of the SEBI Act, 1992 and the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. [Sadhna Broadcast Ltd., In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SEBI-OCM 26] Read more HERE

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES:

Securities Markets Code, 2025 introduced in Lok Sabha: Key Highlights and Implications

On 15-12-2025, the Securities Markets Code, 2025 was introduced in Lok Sabha to introduce a framework that consolidates and modernises existing securities laws to strengthen investor protection, streamline regulation, and align with evolving technology and market practices. Read more HERE

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025:

The Bill seeks to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to ensure statutory dues are given their rightful priority, reinforcing equity and predictability in the insolvency process. It aims to restore the original legislative intent and strengthen creditor confidence. Read more HERE

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes group and cross- border insolvency.

On 12-8-2025, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was introduced by the Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, to reduce delays, maximize value for all stakeholders, and improve governance of all processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’). Read more HERE

Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2025:

This Bill seeks to amend the Companies Act, 2013 to revise Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) thresholds and strengthen CSR governance mechanisms. It aims lowers the CSR applicability thresholds to include companies with a net worth of ₹100 crore, turnover of ₹500 crore, or net profit of ₹3 crore, thereby expanding CSR obligations to medium sized firms. Read more HERE

Modern Maritime Governance takes shape under Merchant Shipping Act, 2025

On 18-8-2025, the Government issued the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 aimed at streamlining maritime governance with a modern and internationally compliant framework. First introduced on 10-12-2024, the Act replaces the Merchant Shipping Act of 1958, which had become outdated and fragmented in its approach to contemporary maritime challenges. Read more HERE

Provisions of Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025 notified

On 29-7-2025, the Ministry of Finance appointed 1-8-2025 as the date on which certain provisions of the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025 will come into force. Read more HERE

RBI Shapes the Future of Digital Lending, 2025

On 8-5-2025, the Reserve Bank of India issued the Reserve Bank of India (Digital Lending) Directions, 2025 to establish a transparent, fair, and borrower-centric framework for digital lending, ensuring stricter oversight of digital lending platforms. The provisions came into force on 8-5-2025 except for multi-lender arrangements which will come into force on 1-11-2025 and Digital Lending Apps/ Platforms which will come into force on 15-6-2025. Read more HERE

RBI Directions 2025 reshape India’s Project Finance framework

On 19-6-2025, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) notified the ‘Reserve Bank of India (Project Finance) Directions, 2025’ to establish a harmonised framework for financing of projects in infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects by banks, Non-Banking Financial Companies (‘NBFCs’), and other regulated entities. These Directions will come into effect from 1-10-2025. Read more HERE

RBI’s visionary step towards future of Payments Systems: Key Takeaways

On 20-5-2025, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) notified the ‘Payments Regulatory Board Regulations, 2025’ to establish a structured framework for overseeing India’s payment and settlement system by formally creating a Payments Regulatory Board. It became enforceable on 20-5-2025. Read more HERE

SEBI revises LODR Regulations introducing Corporate Governance for a Listed Entity which has listed its Non- Convertible Debt Securities

On 27-3-2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India notified the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. Read more HERE

SEBI’s Master Circular on ESG Ratings: Strengthening Governance and Transparency in India’s Financial Markets

On 11-7-2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) issued the ‘Master Circular for ESG Rating Providers (‘ERPs’)’ to consolidate all previous regulatory guidelines and introduce uniform standards that enhance the reliability, transparency, and structure of ESG environmental, social, and governance) ratings across India’s capital markets. Read more HERE

Key Highlights of the Companies (CAA) Amendment Rules, 2025

On 4-9-2025, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) notified the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Amendment Rules, 2025, expanding the scope of fast-track mergers. It now allows mergers between unlisted companies, holding-subsidiary combinations, and subsidiaries of the same group, streamlining approvals through Regional Directors instead of tribunals. Read more HERE

RBI to Link UPI with Eurosystem’s TIPS for Faster Cross-Border Payments

On 21-11-2025, the Reserve Bank of India issued a press release on Interlinking of Unified Payments Interface (UPI) with the TARGET Instant Payment Settlement (TIPS) of the Eurosystem. Read more HERE

SEBI Introduces Informal Guidance Scheme: What Listed Companies and Intermediaries Need to Know

On 18-11-2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) notified the SEBI (Informal Guidance) Scheme, 2025. The scheme aims to provide clarity to market participants on the interpretation and applicability of SEBI-administered laws and regulations, thereby promoting orderly regulation and development of the securities market. Read more HERE

CCI notifies CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2025 repealing 2011 regulations

On 25-2-2025, the Competition Commission of India notified the Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2025 repealing the Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011. Read more HERE

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

When can an arbitral award be challenged under the Arbitration Act?

An award can be set aside only on limited grounds under Section 34, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or if it goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Does the use of “may” in an arbitration clause create a binding obligation?

No. For an arbitration agreement to be valid, the clause must show clear intention to arbitrate; permissive language like “may” is insufficient.

Can non-signatories be bound by arbitration proceedings?

Generally no. Arbitration binds only parties to the agreement, unless principles like “group of companies doctrine” or direct involvement apply.

What is the priority of statutory dues in insolvency proceedings?

Under the IBC, statutory dues rank below secured creditors and workmen’s dues, but recent amendments seek to give them higher priority to ensure equity and predictability.

Who is appointed as liquidator in corporate insolvency?

By default, the Resolution Professional becomes the liquidator unless the Adjudicating Authority replaces them for reasons specified under Section 34(4) of the IBC.

Are CSR obligations applicable to medium-sized companies?

Yes. Amendments in 2025 lowered thresholds — companies with net worth of ₹100 crore, turnover of ₹500 crore, or net profit of ₹3 crore must comply.

Can insider trading during mergers attract liability?

Yes. Trading on unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) during mergers or restructuring is prohibited under SEBI’s Insider Trading Regulations.

How does SEBI treat pump-and-dump schemes?

Such schemes are considered fraudulent under PFUTP Regulations; penalties include market bans and monetary fines.

Does the Competition Commission have jurisdiction over patented products?

No. CCI regulates anti-competitive conduct, but disputes over patent validity or infringement fall outside its scope.

Can UPI be used for cross-border payments?

Yes. RBI linked UPI with Europe’s TIPS system in 2025, enabling instant cross-border transactions.

Other Yearly Roundups:

• Year in Review 2025: Defining Landmark Supreme Court Judgments of 2025

• Family Law Cases 2025: How Indian Courts Balanced Justice and Misuse

• Important Legislations 2025: Complete Yearly Roundup of Key Central Laws & Reforms

• Tax Law Year in Review 2025: Landmark Judgments, Legislative Updates and Key Developments

• AI Deepfakes to Trademark Wars: The Biggest Digital, Tech and IPR Stories of 2025