The Commercial Laws Roundup July 2026 brings together the month’s most significant developments across India’s commercial law landscape. This edition features important judgments from the Supreme Court, High Courts, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and international courts on insolvency, arbitration, personal guarantees, corporate liability, and cross-border commercial disputes.
In addition to the latest judicial pronouncements, the roundup includes Regulatory Updates, Law Firm News, Expert Corner, Interviews, and Appointments & Transfers, offering readers a comprehensive overview of the legal, regulatory, and industry developments that shaped commercial law during July 2026. Whether you are a legal practitioner, in-house counsel, insolvency professional, academic, or business executive, this roundup provides a convenient snapshot of the month’s most noteworthy updates.
CASE BRIEFS
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY
SUPREME COURT | Section 14 IBC Moratorium Applies Only to Corporate Debtor
While deciding appeals concerning the effect of a moratorium under Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on pending consumer proceedings, a Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the statutory moratorium operates only against the corporate debtor and cannot be extended to promoters, directors, landowners or other respondents unless expressly provided by the statute.
The Court observed that the protective sweep of the moratorium must remain within the 4 walls of the IBC and cannot be enlarged in a manner that stultifies remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Holding that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had erroneously declined to proceed against the non-corporate debtor respondents at the interlocutory stage, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the NCDRC to adjudicate the consumer complaint against Respondents 2 to 7 in accordance with law, while clarifying that the proceedings against the corporate debtor would continue to remain governed by the moratorium under Section 14 IBC.
[Tejas J. Shah & Amisha T. Shah v. Mantri Technology Constellations (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1388, decided on 27-7-2026]
Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Pre-2016 DRT Recovery Certificate Is Not “Decree or Order” u/S. 9(2), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act; Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings
The appeal concerned with the interpretation of Section 9(2), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act), and whether a recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can be treated as a “decree or order” for initiating insolvency proceedings. Reaffirming the principle that insolvency laws must be strictly construed due to their serious civil consequences, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., held that a recovery certificate issued by the DRT before the insertion of Section 19(22-A), Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act), i.e., 2016 Amendment, could not be treated as a “decree or order” under Section 9(2), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act and, therefore, could not form the basis of an insolvency notice under Section 9(2), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act.
[HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Kishore K. Mehta, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1320, decided on 13-7-2026]
Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA COURT | IBC Moratorium Not a Safe Harbour Against Section 138 NI Act Prosecution; Directors Can’t Escape Cheque Dishonour Liability
In a petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, seeking quashing of a complaint under Sections 138 and 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) on the ground that the accused-company had subsequently undergone the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., dismissed the petition, holding that subsequent insolvency proceedings cannot efface or obliterate criminal liability already crystallised upon dishonour of cheques, and that prosecution of the persons in-charge remains maintainable despite the moratorium or liquidation.
[Ajay Gupta v. Can Bank Factors Ltd., CRM-M-45498-2019, decided on 20-7-2026]
Read more HERE
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL | Mentioning Personal Guarantor as “Director” in SARFAESI demand notice cannot frustrate S. 95 IBC proceedings if terms of guarantee deed are satisfied
In an appeal filed by the personal guarantor challenging the admission of an application under Section 95, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Bench comprising Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial) and Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) held that the demand notice issued under Section 13(2), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) constituted a valid invocation of the personal guarantee in terms of the deed of guarantee.
The Tribunal further held that where the guarantee deed does not prescribe any particular mode of invocation, a demand notice under Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act calling upon the guarantor to discharge the outstanding liability is sufficient to invoke the guarantee, and the mere description of the guarantor as a “Director” in the notice does not invalidate the invocation or the subsequent proceedings under Section 95, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
[Ujwal Gupta v. Union Bank of India, 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 8, decided on 7-1-2026]
Read more HERE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
SUPREME COURT | Exclusive jurisdiction clause can indicate seat of arbitration
While considering a special leave petition challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench comprising of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., held that there was no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
[Sliksync Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Pidge Technologies (P) Ltd., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22888 of 2026, decided on 27-7-2026]
Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Letter from separate confidential arbitration cannot be relied upon merely because relevant
In a petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral award, a Single Judge Bench of Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J., held that documents forming part of confidential arbitral proceedings cannot be relied upon in separate arbitral proceedings merely because they are relevant to a party’s case. Emphasising that Section 42-A of the Act embodies the legislative intent to preserve arbitral confidentiality, the Court observed that permitting reliance on such material would substantially undermine the statutory confidentiality regime and render the protection envisaged by Parliament illusory. Holding that the Arbitral Tribunal had rightly declined to rely upon a letter exchanged between the respondent and the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. (DFCCIL) in separate arbitral proceedings, the Court found no patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India warranting interference under Section 34 and dismissed the petition.
[JPC Infrastructure and Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Alstom Transport India Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5091, decided on 6-7-2026]
Read more HERE
MANIPUR HIGH COURT | Sets Aside Arbitral Award by Consent, Appoints Former Chief Justice as New Arbitrator for Thoubal Project Dispute
The Single Judge Bench of M. Sundar, CJ., set aside an arbitral award and recommence the arbitration through a fresh, de novo proceeding before a mutually acceptable sole arbitrator by the parties. The Court directed the proceedings would resume from the stage which has been already completed by the previous arbitrator.
[Progressive Construction Ltd. v. State of Manipur, 2026 SCC OnLine Mani 347, decided on 12-6-2026]
Read more HERE
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL | Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional’s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted
The present Company Appeal was filed by Dr. Badri Prasad (Appellant), a personal guarantor of M/s. Furnace Fabrica (India) Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), against Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. (Financial Creditor) and the Resolution Professional, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitting an application under Section 95 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against him. The Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member) and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant, having admitted his signature on the loan sanction letter and letter of guarantee describing him as a personal guarantor, could not resile from that liability. It further held that the absence of a report by the Resolution Professional under Section 99 IBC did not vitiate the admission of the application.
[Dr. Badri Prasad v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine NCLAT 863, decided on 25-6-2026]
Read more HERE
RUSSIAN ARBITRAZH COURT | Refuses to Halt LCIA Arbitration Proceedings Despite Claims of Restricted Access to Justice
In proceedings arising from an application by Limited Liability Company “Intervtorresurs” to restrain London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) arbitration proceedings commenced in London under a contractual arbitration clause, Dushechkina, J., considered whether foreign restrictive measures had rendered the parties’ agreement to arbitrate incapable of performance. The Court held that no evidence had been produced demonstrating that restrictive measures in force against the claimant prevented it from protecting its rights or participating in the agreed arbitral process. Thus, finding no basis for displacing the parties’ agreement to arbitrate before the LCIA, the Court dismissed the claim seeking to prohibit the initiation or continuation of the London arbitration proceedings.
[LLC “Intervtorresurs” v. Icdas Celik Enerjy Tersane Ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. & Vanomet AG, Case No. A56-24342 of 2025, decided on 17-7-2026]
Read more HERE
UNITED KINDGOM COURT OF APPEAL | Does Ratification of New York Convention Amount to Waiver of Sovereign Immunity?
In an appeal concerning Devas Award Enforcement Dispute rendered under the India—Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty, Lewson, Newey, and Phillips, LJJ., considered whether India’s ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (New York Convention) amounted to a submission to the jurisdiction of English courts. The Court held that Article III of the Convention does not waive sovereign immunity, as recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards remain subject to the procedural law of the enforcing State, within which State immunity is a recognised procedural bar. Consequently, ratification of the New York Convention does not constitute a clear and unequivocal consent by a State to enforcement proceedings before English courts under the State Immunity Act, 1978 (SIA), and accordingly dismissed the present appeal.
[CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Republic of India, [2026] EWCA Civ 797, decided on 24-6-2026]
Read more HERE
PERSONAL GUARANTEE
UNITED KINGDOM HIGH COURT | Enforces Nirav Modi’s Personal Guarantee: Holds Failure to Obtain RBI Approval No Defence to Liability
In a claim by Bank of India seeking to enforce a personal guarantee executed by Nirav Modi in respect of credit facilities advanced to Firestar Diamond FZE, Simon Tinkler, Deputy Judge, held that Nirav Modi had been validly served with the Bank’s demand and was liable under the Personal Guarantee for the outstanding principal sum of USD 4.1 million, together with contractual interest, resulting in a liability of over USD 10.7 million.
The Court observed that the obligation to obtain approval from the Reserve Bank of India under FEMA rested upon the guarantor and that the absence of such approval did not invalidate the guarantee, particularly where the approval remained capable of being granted retrospectively. The Court stated that a party cannot evade contractual obligations by relying on its own failure to obtain the requisite regulatory approval, and thus, the Personal Guarantee was valid and enforceable.
[Bank of India v. Firestar Diamond FZE, [2026] EWHC 1565 (Comm), decided on 23-06-2026]
Read more HERE
REGULATORY UPDATES
MSME Development (Amendment) Bill, 2026 proposes Digital registration, mandatory TReDS, faster dispute resolution and graded penalties
Read more HERE
ICSI Urges MCA to Mandate Company Secretaries in Companies with ₹50 Crore Borrowings
Read more HERE
CBDT Expands Scope of ‘Specified Fund’ to Cover SEBI and IFSCA-Regulated Funds
Read more HERE
SEBI Amends LODR Regulations; Listed Entities to Now Follow SEBI-Specified Transfer and Transmission Procedures
Read more HERE
LAW FIRM NEWS
SAM advises Continuum Group on USD 450 million Senior Unsecured Reg S/144A Bond Issuance through its global treasury centre in GIFT City
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Kliff Ventures on its investment in Brewbay Innovations
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas represents The Brink’s Company before CCI in NCR Atleos Corporation acquisition
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Belrise Industries Ltd. on its INR 17,000 million QIP
Read more HERE
SAM advises Underwriters on SBI Funds Management’s ₹ 11,675.29 cr IPO including pre-IPO sales of ₹ 1,879.97 cr by promoter selling shareholders
Read more HERE
S&R Associates advises Amundi Group on SBI Funds Management’s IPO and Pre-IPO Secondary Sales
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Warburg Pincus on Acquisition of Integrace, an Orthopedics and Gynecology-Focused Pharmaceuticals Company
Read more HERE
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Advises Ather Energy on ₹1,300 Crore Qualified Institutions Placement
Read more HERE
CAM acts as legal advisor for Dixon Technologies India Ltd. in relation to its proposed joint venture with Vivo Mobile
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises lenders on USD 730 million refinancing for ReNew Surya Roshni Pvt. Ltd’s 320 MW RTC hybrid renewable energy project
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas is advising Cult.Fit Limited on its proposed IPO
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Motilal Oswal Investment Advisor and ICICI Securities on QIP of Blue Jet Healthcare
Read more HERE
Fox & Mandal elevates Neytra Nayak and Saurav Bhaumik as Partners
Read more HERE
Khaitan & Co. establishes its Hyderabad presence with 4 new leaders
Read more HERE
CAM dvises TPG on its acquisition of 100% of share capital of Aseem Infrastructure Finance Ltd.
Read more HERE
SAM advises National Investment and Infrastructure Fund’s Special Opportunities Fund on its exit from Aseem Infrastructure Finance Ltd.
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Indrajit Power Private Ltd. in relation to availing a rupee term loan facility from CSB Bank
Read more HERE
Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advises Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on a proposed joint venture with Shell BV and Tiki Tar Industries (Baroda) Ltd.
Read more HERE
India’s Evolving IBC and Competition Law Landscape: Key Takeaways from Khaitan & Co.’s Media Roundtable
Read more HERE
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. Secures Significant Win for Vedanta Ltd : Delhi HC Allows Enforcement of Two Foreign Arbitral Awards
Read more HERE
EXPERTS CORNER
Homebuyers’ Conundrum = Damned If You Do; Damned If You Don’t
By Akaant K. Mittal and Bhavana Garg
Read more HERE
Welkin Foods case: Supreme Court Resets India’s Commodity Classification for Taxation Laws
By Tarun Jain
Read more HERE
The Contours of “Prima Facie”: Section 11 and the Recent Trends of the Evolving Expansion of Pre-Arbitral Judicial Review in Indiaby
By Pallavi Singh Rao, Sukanya Singh and Tridib Mandal
Read more HERE
Unconditionally Bound: Decoding the Law of Bank Guarantees in India
By Vasanth Rajasekaran and Harshvardhan Korada
Read more HERE
Section 74 and The Proof Paradox: The Evolving Judicial Standard for Enforcing Liquidated Damage Clauses in Indian Contracts
By Pallavi Singh Rao, Sukanya Singh and Tridib Mandal
Read more HERE
INTERVIEWS
Exclusive Interview: Kevin Nash, Director General of LCIA | AI, Ethics & the Future of Arbitration| Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026
Read more HERE
APPOINTMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Justice Yogesh Khanna takes charge as Officiating Chairperson of NCLAT
Read more HERE
CONCLUSION
The commercial law developments in July 2026 reaffirm the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the integrity of insolvency and arbitration frameworks while ensuring that statutory protections are not expanded beyond their intended scope. From defining the limits of the IBC moratorium and strengthening the liability of personal guarantors to reinforcing arbitral confidentiality and addressing cross-border enforcement issues, the decisions collectively offer important guidance for businesses, financial institutions, insolvency professionals, and legal practitioners navigating India’s evolving commercial law landscape. Together with key regulatory developments and industry updates, these rulings provide valuable guidance for businesses, financial institutions, insolvency professionals, arbitrators, and legal practitioners navigating an increasingly complex commercial legal environment.