The IBC was never meant to be a code of private enforcement. It is a statute of public restructuring, where creditor control is legitimate because it is bound by statute and under adjudicatory supervision. CIIRP diminishes the first moment of that supervision and must therefore heighten the requirements of notice and objection rights.

We must acknowledge that the 2026 Amendment is a correction that was much-needed, even if implemented through a blunt approach.

Subhkam should never have been transplanted: SAST and IBC pursue divergent objectives, the SAT order was non-precedential by direct Supreme Court fiat, and the positive-control reading under-includes the negative-control defaulter-promoters Parliament meant to capture.

The piece examines NCLAT's May 2026 dismissal of Vedanta's challenge to Adani Enterprises' INR 14,535 crore resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates, where a bid gap of over INR 3,000 crore was left on the table due to the Process Note's bar on post-challenge modifications.

Matrix v. Intel should not be read as requiring global warranty parity. Its stronger foundation lies in discrimination between two sources of genuine Intel products within the Indian relevant market.

Pannalal's blueprint has two structural failures firstly, no mandatory independent valuation for selective Section 66 reductions, and secondly, no genuine price discovery when those reductions target only public shareholders.

From the author’s point of view, the judgment shows how the tax laws evolve in India, addressing the needs of the increasingly sophisticated long-term business transactions.

Subscriptions are not forever and fiduciaries must rethink their subscriber agreements and offerings to keep up.

While the latest SIAC rules empower the tribunal to order full disclosure of TPF agreements, such unbridled disclosure can potentially disadvantage the funded party.

Nagaraj marks a significant step in favour of the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India by recognising transnational issue estoppel and limiting the re-litigation of issues already adjudicated by the seat court.

The conclusion in Brilliant Metals is, therefore, salvageable, even if its reasoning is not.

Vignesh rightly found that online platforms were enabling solicitation in violation of BCI Rules.

This article critically analyses the recent legislative amendments and the proposed regulatory changes, with a particular focus on their implications for the recovery of liabilities from personal guarantors of corporate debtors.

An important issue which needs further clarification is whether the clarification will have any retroactive effect in order to provide protection to the investors in cases where the proceedings are already initiated or under process in relation to prior years.

The four March 2026 reforms are all justified in their own right. The SPV amendment addresses a real compliance issue.

Terrascope settles an important question and should be welcomed for reinforcing transparency as a foundational norm of securities regulation.

Creditors and practitioners should take heed - when in doubt, draft guarantees clearly. Otherwise, as the ruling reflects, informal promises of support will not give creditors the “financial debt” status that they may seek under the Code.

The continued exclusion of FOCCs, the rigid profitability and control thresholds, the ambiguity around “long-term strategic investment,” and the uncertainty surrounding InvIT structures and offshore exposure caps together narrow the practical scope of the reform.

The cancellation of Elite Investment Advisory Services’ registration is a proportionate and well-reasoned enforcement outcome. However, the order inadvertently surfaces a regulatory design problem that deserves attention in its own right.

The December 2025 PFRDA circular and SEBI's 2025 AIF reforms together represent a meaningful, even if incomplete, step towards integrating India's pension and alternative investment ecosystems.

The tax exemption analysis of Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) does not imply that it is a fiscal concession; rather, it functions under a wider framework that is founded on controlled tax governance, with exemptions given on a conditional, selective, and by executive notice.

The central question is whether the court can extend time after the statutory 18-month period has expired, even after an arbitral award has been rendered.

The Section 230 arbitrage is not a design defect in either statute. SEBI’s framework assumes direct contractual transactions within its jurisdiction.

Section 48A brings a much-needed flexibility in India's competition law regime. However, such flexibility cannot be left unconstrained. In its current form, the commitment mechanism threatens to undermine the deterrent effect of the commitment mechanism and retard the development of antitrust jurisprudence.