SEBI’s ban resolves the illiquidity issue; nevertheless, it also produces new market deformity which includes regulatory arbitrage towards AIFs, uneven playing field, and scarcity of domestic capital India’s startup ecosystem.

Until refinements are made, mutual funds will remain on the sidelines of the pre-IPO market, limited to anchor allocations and public issues as India’s IPO boom continues unabated—while the question of whether protection has inadvertently become exclusion remains unresolved.

The Jindal Polyfilms case marks a turning point. For years, Section 245 sat dormant, an ambitious provision without infrastructure. Now, India has a live opportunity to reimagine it.

A double-derivative remedy would further these goals. By embracing double‐derivative actions, India would reduce opportunities for regulatory partitioning of wrongs and bring its shareholder remedy framework into harmony with 21st‐century global corporate governance standards.

SEBI’s accessibility mandate is both progressive and disruptive. It extends the idea of investor protection beyond disclosure and governance to the very ability of investors to participate.

This blog aims to take a look at the strategic shift in how India is trying to positions itself in the global market and facing competition head on vis-a-vis markets like Singapore. 

With the development of Digital Ledger Technology, real estate tokenization has gained much traction.

The judgment of the Delhi High Court marks an important order in India’s audit regulatory landscape as it cements the validity of the NFRA under Section 132 of the Act and its powers to hold audit firms and auditors accountable.

[ Kislay and Sakshi are students at National Law Institute University Bhopal. ] On 3 July 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) passed an interim order  under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992  against Jane Street, a prestigious American trading firm in the matter regarding index market manipulation  in the Indian options trading market by earning massive positions in derivatives amounting up to 4.3 billion dollars. While the SEBI order h

The proposed framework by the SEBI on an accreditation-based framework for AIFs reflects its broader vision to depart from a ‘minimum commitment’ threshold to ‘only accreditation’ status as a standard for risk assessment of an investor.

India’s import of the shadow director test, judicially narrowed by an unwarranted impropriety filter, undermines accountability.

The first part of the blog will establish the English jurisprudential benchmark, tracing the evolution of the shadow director test from the rigid “puppet master” standard in Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd to the more pragmatic “real influence” test in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Deverell.

Mandatory dematerialization prima facie appears to be a welcome step as far as reducing the vulnerabilities and risks of physical shares are concerned. However, it is important to consider that the transition is not without challenges.

The balancing or “sliding scale” approach in Sequana is necessarily indeterminate, but such flexibility is preferable in the sphere of directors’ duties.

The payments revolution in India is not anywhere near finished, but the next stage is likely to play out at a steadier, almost cautious, pace under the regulator’s watchful eye.

The regulatory ambiguity surrounding buy-back transactions by FOCCs exposes significant gaps in India’s capital market governance.

The consultation paper shifts the regulations from a rigid uniformity towards proportional oversight.

This blog examines the introduced amendments and analyses how they will accelerate corporate restructuring and create a more predictable environment for foreign and domestic investors. The blog further identifies the potential challenges and considerations that need to be addressed for the amendments to be beneficial for India’s market economy.

The lighter touch approach adopted by the SEBI in regulating the AIF market reflects the proactive attempt to balance the ease of doing business with investor protection.

SEBI’s consultation paper provides a forward-looking approach to ease compliance, maintain uniform standards, and reduce redundant disclosure norms within which the RPTs operate.

The circular marks an important shift in regulating off-market transfers of unlisted shares, aligning procedural norms with the mandates of the Companies Act 2013.

This blog seeks to provide an analytical and critical narrative of the policy shift by examining the constitutional, economic, and legal implications of the new fixed-price route.

The article explores the challenges and shortcomings of SEBI’s proposed AI/ML liability framework, particularly its reliance on senior management accountability, while suggesting alternative governance models informed by global best practices, and aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on corporate and commercial law and aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on corporate and commercial law.

SEBI, in February 2025, released the regulation for the process of regulation-making to increase transparency and, inter alia, mandated stakeholder consultation and a statement of the regulatory intent and objectives of the proposed regulations. However, as noted, merely articulating the objective without committed engagement with the underlying rationale and the chosen intervention can result in the objective being realized in foreseeably unintended ways.