As foreign jurisdictions adopt flexible CI frameworks, India must also reform its approach to overcome its competitive disadvantage. Thus, timely corrections will be key to unlocking the full potential of the Indian CI ecosystem.

The fragmented jurisprudence following the Shriram case, where tribunals stepped in to harmonize overlapping statutes, underscores the urgent need for regulatory clarity. Given the legislative silence on cross-sector mergers and the potential risks identified by IRDAI, a forward-looking solution should be regulatory.

From a critical standpoint, Gayatri Balasamy is a double-edged development for arbitration law.

SEBI’s approval of the CIV scheme as a model for co-investing in AIFs is a significant step towards modernizing the private capital market of India and aligning it with global standards. Streamlining co-investment processes, it provides much-needed flexibility and enhances the ease of doing business.

As India is witnessing the rapid expansion of digital lending in its financial sector, it becomes increasingly important to redefine its regulatory framework accordingly. While the use of AI models and ML in credit risk assessment helps in improving the overall efficiency and scalability, the challenges like AI-bias, data protection, and lack of transparency call for prompt intervention. 

India is at a crossroads where other jurisdictions have moved rapidly to align competition law with sustainability commitments since 2023, India risks falling further behind by continuing the antithesis of sustainability and competition.

[ Apeksha is a student at National University of Study and Research in Law. ] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016  ( IBC ) was...

The Draft Directions mark a welcome evolution from the prohibitive regime of 2023. By introducing proportionality, excluding hybrid instruments and exempts REs from compliance requirements where their exposure to an AIF scheme is limited to 5%, RBI has made significant attempt to balance systemic concerns with market growth.

This article critically analyzes the legal obligations of independent directors in India, compares them to the situation on ground, and investigates whether recent reforms have gone far enough in transforming these “toothless tigers” into actual guardians of the public interest and shareholders. The article also gives recommendations which, if incorporated, might help empower independent directors to effectively oversee corporations.

The proposal, if accepted, will provide a fillip to exploring mediation in other aspects of insolvency. While insolvency mediation is an intricate issue, proactive proposals will facilitate stakeholder dialogue and aid in resolving inconsistencies.

For the investors, the message is clear: you cannot necessarily compete on speed, but you can compete on depth by paying attention to fundamentals, checking public filings, and being sensitive to nuanced changes in company disclosures. As India's capital markets develop, it is the responsibility of both regulators and market players to maintain the faith that is the bedrock of every transaction.

Corporate strategy, financial intelligence, and regulatory discipline interact cautiously in the CCD ecosystem. Companies must view CCD transactions as long-term commitments to governance, transparency, and shareholder fairness rather than just as capital-raising activities.

Prior to the amendment of the Act, hostile takeovers and other time sensitive acquisitions were difficult to implement due to the existence of a standstill obligation. The insertion of Section 6A is a step towards facilitating hostile takeovers in the future.

The author argues that the Indian position of barring arbitration for O&M suits should be relaxed for the few companies that have been recognized by courts as quasi-partnerships.

In this article, the author analyzes the newspaper industry of India from the lens of competition law to unravel the challenges and opportunities affecting newspapers in adapting to the dynamic environment.    

The IBBI’s 2025 amendments significantly improve India’s insolvency framework by making it more aligned with global best practices.

The SEBI-recommended CIV framework is a positive measure towards simplifying the co-investment regime by eradicating duplicative compliance requirements and allowing quicker execution. Nevertheless, its limited scope, restricting participation to existing AIF investors and accredited investors, may counteract the universal objective of democratizing access to private equity opportunities.

The Bhushan Power case will be studied as a cautionary tale. On one side, it underscores that insolvency laws are not toy models to be treated lightly; procedural rules serve the code’s integrity. On the other, it delivers a jolt by showing that even long-implemented deals can be unwound for technical lapses, a double-edged signal to investors and professionals alike.

The Schott Glass ruling requires a structured, effects-based test in line with international best practice and appropriately directs focus away from form-based claims toward demonstrating competitive harm.

The regulatory focus on transparency related to beneficial ownership is not an episodic event but rather a fundamental change to how corporate governance is constructed globally. Enforcement actions in India signal that regulators are serious about this shift and are committed to it going forward.

In arbitration, as in all adjudication, when one more is too many, equal say is non-negotiable.

The divergent fate of Byju’s-Aakash and BPSL indicate the increasing complexities of corporate restructuring in India, where the inflexible requirements of statutory compliance frequently come into conflict with the exigencies of business rescue.

The Supreme Court of India’s recognition of a power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 marks a significant and controversial departure from the text, structure, and legislative intent of the Act.

Although the Supreme Court of India’s decision has garnered significant criticism, it is not without its merits. It emphasizes how the integrity of the insolvency process must remain sacred. The IBC transcends the role of a simple debt recovery mechanism; it is a framework rooted in legal principles and the equitable treatment of all stakeholders involved.