The amendment recognizes the contributions of founders and aims to make it easier for startups to go public. However, it does not fully address the governance risks that arise when control and financial benefits overlap.

The decisions of the Tribunal on termination of proceedings due to settlement of the parties should be appealable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to increase consistency, and avoid prolonging proceedings that could be without jurisdiction.

While the Consultation Paper is a progressive step towards enhancing operational flexibility for AMCs, the proposed framework requires stronger safeguards to prevent regulatory arbitrage and protect retail investors.

The doctrinal tension at the core is between IBC's asset maximization aim and DPDP Act's rights-oriented approach focused on user consent and purpose limitation. The lack of legislative clarity poses the threat of privacy invasions, regulatory breaches, and user trust loss.

IBC’s objectives of focusing on time-bound resolution and asset maximization must be reconciled with the DPDP Act’s mandate to respect informational self-determination.

The broad direction of SEBI's reforms is unmistakable: a courageous move away from regulation-as-restraint towards regulation-as-catalyst. India's capital markets are being re-wired to facilitate innovation—not merely technologically, but structurally.

Asian Paints should not be the beginning of corporate criminal empire-building—it should be a prompt for cautious, principled, and restrained evolution.

The Jane Street saga highlights the urgent and immediate need for SEBI to undertake a transition from a model that relies on reactive enforcement to a modernistic, proactive, and integrated oversight model.

The integration of AI and its sub-systems in international arbitration is inevitable, but instead of blind participation in the AI race, the stakeholders must be vigilant and even de-limit such integration in certain sensitive areas, ensuring that technology remains a tool, not a tribunal.

The dynamism of digital ecosystems is transcending boundaries. To protect consumer  and third-party interests against a refusal to deal abuse, dual penalty system under the Indian antitrust regime exists. However, to safeguard the legitimate business interests of dominant entities, the author advocates for the incorporation of defenses based on principles of necessity and proportionality similar to the DMA.

The DPDP Act marks a significant milestone toward protecting individual privacy. Still, the current practice of behavioral profiling and cross-platform tracking by digital powerhouses uplifts some important questions on the DPDP Act’s compliance with free consent and purpose limitation.

The IBBI has realized the value of market-driven resolution which it has effectively pivoted towards. The timing of the notification of these amendments must also be appreciated. India is notoriously a slow insolvency jurisdiction, and such perceptions can seriously damage credit availability in markets.

The pre-pack insolvency framework was crafted with the best of intentions. It aimed to protect MSMEs from the procedural weight of CIRP while ensuring that their businesses could be salvaged quickly and quietly. But in practice, it remains a tool too complex, too exclusive, and too disconnected from how MSMEs actually function.

The broad legal reasoning adopted by the court may be invoked in future disputes, raising concerns regarding a roadmap for future regulation and taxation. Applying the aspect theory here may result in jurisdictional overreach and risk upsetting the delicate federal balance enshrined in the Constitution of India.

The significant influence of hedge fund activists in the M&A regime have significantly altered the corporate governance in India. While they provide mechanism for key deals to go through, they are also able to suppress minority voices in a company which can take the form of their parochial focus on short-term profit maximization.

Although India has a robust legal framework to penalize front-running, such incidents remain routine. This persistence stems not just from legislative shortfalls but also from technological, structural, and institutional enforcement deficits.

This article analyzes and determines whether the Indian legislation and the judiciary are prepared to address arbitral institutions and the challenges to their quasi-judicial or administrative decisions.

The intersection of corporate governance and AI-related intellectual property presents a complex yet evolving opportunity which demands adaptive governance frameworks.

The shift to an effects-based approach under Section 4, solidified by Schott Glass and Google 2023 & 2025, aligns India with the EU's standards, ensuring only actual conduct with proven or likely competitive harm is penalized.

Calderbank offers systematically align private incentives with public policy by encouraging speedy and economic disposal of disputes. Litigants and arbitration participants alike are well aware that a reasonable proposal once made, carries real weight: refuse it at your peril, and you may as well pay generously in costs, even if you “win” upon merits. 

While res judicata has been firmly applied to SEBI’s quasi-judicial functions, its administrative actions remain largely untouched by the principle.

The country’s policies for financial liberalization are not based entirely on ideology anymore; they depend on the situation and are carefully planned. How the RBI allows foreign banks to be involved evidences the growth and maturity of the financial system. It is putting in place a filter to invite foreign money if it follows the country’s financial rules, encourages more trust in national politics, and matches what the nation aims to achieve.

MeitY’s CMS serves as an accelerator in India’s journey towards informed consent in clickwrap agreements. By introducing features like purpose-specific consent, user friendly interface,  consent artifacts, immutable audit trails, the CMS seeks to ensure that users are able to make the right choice while granting their consent to data processing.

India’s unique structure makes both asset-wise bids and DIP financing hard to pull off. Courts and regulators have shown the law can support flexible sales and super-priority finance, but operationally, every step bumps into entrenched obstacles.