{"id":395486,"date":"2026-09-07T11:00:02","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T05:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=395486"},"modified":"2026-10-05T14:21:48","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T08:51:48","slug":"commercial-laws-roundup-august-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/09\/07\/commercial-laws-roundup-august-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"From Insolvency, Arbitration and Insider Trading to Key Regulatory Reforms: Commercial Laws Roundup August 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Commercial Laws Roundup August 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 Tribunal (NCLT), and Foreign Courts on insolvency, arbitration, lifting corporate veil and commercial procedure of pre-institution mediation.<\/p>\n

In addition to the latest judicial pronouncements, the roundup includes Regulatory Updates, Law Firm News, Expert Corner, Interviews and OP. Eds., offering readers a comprehensive overview of the legal, regulatory, and industry developments that shaped commercial law during August 2026.<\/p>\n

CASE BRIEFS<\/span><\/p>\n

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Pre-deposit conditions in Arbitration can’t make right to sue “illusory or nugatory”; SC doubts S.K. Jain; Larger Bench to decide<\/p>\n

In an appeal while examining the validity of a contractual clause requiring a contractor to deposit 10 per cent of the claim amount as a precondition for invoking arbitration, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and<\/span> Manmohan*<\/span>, JJ., expressed doubts about the continuing authority of S.K. Jain v. State of Haryana, (2009) 4 SCC 357<\/a>, holding that a pre-deposit condition cannot make the right to sue “illusory or nugatory”. The Court referred the issue to a larger Bench for determination. [Santosh Associate (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1584<\/a>] Read More<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Arbitration Clause Does Not Bar Consumer Forum Jurisdiction: SC<\/a><\/p>\n

DELHI HIGH COURT<\/span> | Failure to mutually appoint sole arbitrator within a reasonable time justifies court’s intervention u\/S 11(6) despite absence of express refusal: Delhi HC<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 11(6)<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act), seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising between the parties in relation to the partnership deed dated 1 September 2016 and a connected petition instituted under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim protection in relation to the collateral security furnished by the partnership firm, the Single Judge Bench of Om Prakash Shukla<\/span>, J., allowed the Section 11(6) petition and appointed Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhatt as Sole Arbitrator, holding that in light of parties’ prior Section 9 proceedings, failed mediation and earlier attempts to secure a mutually agreed appointment, the agreed appointment procedure under Clause 14 had failed. [Sugat Jain<\/span> v. Amit Jain<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6467<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

COMMERCIAL PROCEDURE<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Delay alone doesn’t defeat urgent interim relief: Bombay HC restores suit rejected under Section 12-A Commercial Courts Act<\/p>\n

In a commercial first appeal challenging an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d)<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), for non-compliance with Section 12-A(1)<\/a>, Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a> (Commercial Courts Act), the Division Bench of R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash*<\/span>, JJ., held that the trial court had adopted an unduly restrictive approach in determining whether the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief. The Court held that while pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act is mandatory, a suit which genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief falls within the statutory exception. The Court accordingly set aside the order rejecting the plaint and restored the commercial suit. [High Point Supply Co. LLC<\/span> v. Agati Healthcare (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 9115<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT<\/span> | New Suit, New Mediation: Calcutta HC Reaffirms Mandatory Section 12A Compliance Under the Commercial Courts Act<\/p>\n

The Single Judge Bench of Aniruddha Roy<\/span>, J. rejected a commercial suit seeking enforcement of a negative covenant in a family agreement as the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A<\/a>, Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a> (CC Act). The Court highlighted that the statutory pre-institution mediation is an indispensable condition precedent for instituting an independent commercial suit. [Ramji Lal Agarwal<\/span> v. Sourav Agarwal<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 10218<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

INSIDER TRADING<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Purpose of the trade is irrelevant once UPSI possession and trading are established: SC<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal filed under Section 15-Z<\/a>, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992<\/a>1 (SEBI Act) challenging the judgment and order dated 19 April 2022 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT), whereby the SAT, while allowing the said appeal, quashed and set aside the order dated 24 May 2021 passed by the whole-time member (WTM), SEBI holding the respondents guilty of insider trading under the SEBI Act, the Division Bench of<\/span> Sanjay Karol*<\/span> and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., set aside the SAT’s order holding that where an insider trades in securities while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI), Regulation 4(1), SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (2015 PIT Regulations) creates a presumption that the trade was motivated by the UPSI. Once possession of UPSI and trading during its currency are established, the reasons for undertaking the trade or the purposes to which the sale proceeds are applied are not relevant for determining insider trading. [<\/span>SEBI<\/span> v.<\/span> Rajeev Vasant Sheth<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine SC 1539<\/a>]<\/span> Read More<\/span> <\/span><\/span>HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Expanding the Net: The New Scope of “Connected Person” in Insider Trading<\/a><\/p>\n

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY<\/p>\n

SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Can High Court entertain Writ Petition against NCLT Order when IBC provides Appeal? SC answers<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In an appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s order entertaining a writ petition against an National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order passed during liquidation proceedings, the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., held that where an NCLT order passed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) is appealable under Section 61, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from entertaining a writ petition challenging that order and direct the aggrieved party to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. [<\/span>Davis Koottala Varkey<\/span> v.<\/span> Samson T. George<\/span>, <\/span>2026 SCC OnLine SC 1560<\/a>]<\/span> Read More<\/span> <\/span><\/span>HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> NCLAT rejects condonation of 1-day delay beyond statutory period under Section 61(2) IBC<\/a><\/p>\n

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI<\/span> | NCLT Allows Withdrawal of unadmitted company petition against SpiceJet but declines to record settlement; Imposes ₹15 Lakh costs<\/span><\/p>\n

The present interlocutory application, New IA\/3976\/2026, was filed by Aviator ML 29641 Ltd. (operational creditor) under Rule 11 read with Rule 11(2)<\/a> of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016<\/a> (‘NCLT Rules, 2016’), seeking liberty to withdraw C.P. IB-674\/ND\/2024 (company petition) filed under Section 9<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) against SpiceJet Limited (corporate debtor). The Bench of Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member), permitted withdrawal of the company petition under Rule 8<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016<\/a> (2016 Rules). However, it declined to take the parties settlement agreement on record, as the request for withdrawal had been made at a belated stage of the proceeding. It directed payment of costs of Rs. 15,00,000\/-, shared equally between the parties, as a condition for the withdrawal to take effect. [Aviator ML 29641, Ltd.<\/span> v. Spicejet Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 4551<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA<\/span> | ₹10.46 Crore in Claims, ₹1.55 Crore Recovered: NCLT Kolkata approves SIS Mohan Real Estate Resolution Plan<\/p>\n

In a case wherein, Interlocutory Application was filed by Resolution Professional (RP) seeking direction for final approval of resolution plan, the Division Bench of Labh Singh (Judicial Member) and Rekha Kantilal Shah<\/span> (Technical Member)* approved the Total Resolution Plan and held that the applicant complied with requirement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC). Further emphasised that “Commercial Wisdom of CoC” was to be given paramount status. [Tatanagar Financial Services Ltd.<\/span> v. SIS Mohan Real Estate Private Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine NCLT 4257<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL<\/p>\n

ZAMBIA SUPREME COURT<\/span> | Can the Corporate Veil be pierced to enforce an Arbitral Award? Zambia SC answers<\/p>\n

In an appeal arising from attempts to enforce an arbitral award, the bench comprising M. Musonda, Deputy Chief Justice, A.M. Wood, and N.K. Mutuna, JJ., examined whether the Court may pierce the corporate veil of a judgment-debtor company and hold its shareholders, directors and officers liable for sums awarded in arbitration. The Court held that an arbitral award, even after registration for enforcement purposes, remains final and binding upon the parties to the arbitration and persons claiming through or under them. The Court emphasized that judicial intervention in arbitration is limited by statute, and the enforcement proceedings cannot be used to impose liability upon non-parties. Since piercing the corporate veil is not a recognised means of executing an arbitral award and constitutes a separate cause of action, the Court dismissed the present appeal. [Star Drilling & Exploration Ltd.<\/span> v. National Technologies Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine ZMSC 1<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Power to Lift the Corporate Veil during Execution of Arbitral Awards<\/a><\/p>\n

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE<\/p>\n

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT<\/span> | How a Phone is actually priced or purchased: AP HC on why Screen Size isn’t “Relevant” for Legal Metrology Disclosure<\/p>\n

In a writ petition filed by Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, challenging the order holding them liable for violation of Sections 18<\/a> and 36<\/a>, Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/a> (LM Act) and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f), Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011, (LM Rules) for not declaring the size or dimensions of the screen of mobile phones on the packaging, a Single Judge Bench of Subba Reddy Satti<\/span>, J., set aside the impugned orders, holding that the obligation to declare the dimensions under Section 18, Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) is not an absolute statutory requirement and it arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant and only in respect of commodities where size is the metric, or one of the principal metrics, by reference to which the commodity is transacted in trade. [Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. State of A.P.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine AP 2709<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

SARFAESI ACT<\/p>\n

BOMBAY HIGH COURT<\/span> | Writ remedy not maintainable where efficacious DRT remedy available against sale of mortgaged property: Bombay HC<\/p>\n

In a writ petition challenging the proposed sale of the subject property by the respondent-Bank and seeking to interdict the respondent-Bank from proceeding with the sale on the basis of provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC), the Division Bench of Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ., held that the petitioner had an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002<\/a> (SARFAESI Act). The Court observed that the petitioner had admittedly already taken recourse to the said statutory remedy while challenging the first sale notice and that the proceeding was still pending. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition. [Ravijyot Finance and Leasing (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 9570<\/a>] Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Bom HC: No urgent relief against property auction under SARFAESI Act<\/a><\/p>\n

LEGISLATION UPDATES<\/p>\n

A New Framework for Tribunals: Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 comes into force<\/p>\n

On 25 August 2026, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the commencement of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026, bringing all provisions of the legislation into force with effect from the same date. Introduced during the Monsoon Session of Parliament 2026, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026 received the President’s assent on 13 August 2026, paving the way for a new framework aimed at improving the efficiency, independence, transparency and uniformity of tribunals in India. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Centre Establishes Mediation Council of India Under Mediation Act, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

On 27 August 2026, the Ministry of Law and Justice issued a notification establishing the Mediation Council of India under the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023<\/a>. Read More<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

REGULATORY UPDATES<\/p>\n

394 Entities, 36 Professionals: CBDT launches Nationwide Verification of Suspicious Foreign Remittances<\/p>\n

On 18 August 2026, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) announced that the Income Tax Department had undertaken a nationwide verification exercise into suspicious foreign remittances identified through data analytics and ground intelligence. According to the CBDT, the findings emerged during a search operation on a group of fictitious charitable trusts allegedly involved in providing accommodation entries against bogus donations and contributions. The investigation uncovered a network of entities engaged in remitting funds abroad under questionable circumstances. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

TReDS Now Mandatory: What the MSMED Amendment Act, 2026 actually changes for MSME Payments<\/p>\n

On 13 August 2026, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (Amendment) Act, 2026 received Presidential assent, introducing significant changes to the MSME regulatory framework. The amendments provide for mandatory routing of certain MSME receivable settlements through the Trade Receivables Discounting System (TReDS), tighter timelines for dispute resolution, stronger enforcement of awards and revised penalties. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

RBI Keeps Repo Rate Unchanged at 5.25%; Retains Neutral Stance<\/p>\n

On 5 August 2026, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) released the Monetary Policy Statement following the 62nd meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) held from 3 to 5 August 2026 under the chairmanship of RBI Governor Mr. Sanjay Malhotra. The decision follows the Committee’s assessment of evolving domestic and global macroeconomic and financial conditions. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

No Charges on UPI Payments: Government Clarifies What the PSS Act Amendment Really Means<\/p>\n

On 8 August 2026, the Ministry of Finance clarified that UPI users will continue to make payments without any transaction charges, despite the proposed amendment to Section 10A<\/a> of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007<\/a> through the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The Government stated that the amendment is intended to support the long-term growth, sustainability and security of India’s digital payments ecosystem. Read More HERE<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Also read: SCC Online Introduces Advocates Directory: Verified Profiles, Reported Judgment Links and Searchable Legal Expertise for India’s Legal Community<\/a><\/p>\n

LAW FIRM NEWS<\/span><\/p>\n