The author suggests that Section 32A protection should only be granted conditional to due diligence safeguards including cross-verification with the ED.

Court did not adequately discuss the provisions of the IBC to determine whether the spectrum license can be considered an asset and can be treated under the IBC.

Ultimately, Tiger Global will bring radical accountability to international investment law. The biggest question is whether unilateral source-country anti-abuse measures can be adopted within the existing treaty framework or whether renewed multilateral coordination is necessary.

This referral raises a more foundational question in contract law and arbitration: what occupies a higher pedestal, absolute party autonomy or entitlement to a legal remedy upon breach?

This case will probably initiate closer examination in similar disputes, such as the case of Blackstone Capital Partners v. ACIT (Blackstone) before the Delhi High Court, and Sanofi Pasteur Holding v. Department of Revenue (Sanofi) case before Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Regardless of the power dynamics, this article has, simply put, argued for adherence to Rule 10 of the 2017 rules, Order 60/2024 of RERA, and the annexures thereof, containing the model AFS and model AL, and, in general, the RERA.

The line between inquiry and proceedings should therefore be drawn not at the formal commencement of adjudication through a SCN, but at the point where the State deploys coercive power against the taxpayer.

The Supreme Court did not see the issue in Tiger Global as an isolated dispute over taxation. It viewed the issue against the broader backdrop of treaty interpretation and the play of sovereign powers.

The proposed Section 28A of the Bill is a practical step toward resolving the long-standing problem of fragmented enforcement of third-party security and directly addresses the deadlock seen in Vistra ITCL.

The Supreme Court has indicated that its increased role in addressing fraud in insolvency will be more grounded in market logic than in corrective justice.

This article suggests a hierarchical framework for debt classification under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) wherein company law constraints function as threshold gatekeepers that determine whether a legally enforceable debt can arise at all, while substance-over-from analysis is put to a secondary role assessing the character of obligations that have already crystallised in law.

The challenge for India is not to dilute the principle of consent but to rethink how consent operates in interconnected commercial projects.

Until courts stop treating boilerplate jurisdiction clauses as “embedded” seat designations, the conundrum of Indian arbitration will persist. The ghost of BALCO has not yet been exorcised; it has merely found a new home in the “exclusive jurisdiction” clause.

This article contends that this judgment rightly points out the pathologies of delay, but it is imperative to embrace a structured framework through a stringent two-pronged test in differentiating between: (1) procedural illegality due to delay itself and (2) the substantive prejudice due to delay under the rules of grounds of public policy under Section 34.

A clearer statutory framework is required to prevent courts from over-expanding the notion of “conduct of parties.”

The decision clarifies that even if there is an assumption that the award is beyond what was intended in the agreement, it would not invalidate the enforceability of the award passed by the tribunal on the ground of public policy exception.

The Supreme Court's ruling in EPCC v. Matix Fertilisers upholds the integrity of corporate capital law within the IBC framework by restating the crucial differentiation between creditor debt and shareholder investment.

While the Bill creates a strong foundation, its ultimate success depends on implementation. Passing a law is only the starting point, real challenge lies in building awareness among both workers and employers, with many unfamiliar with formal procedures or maybe fearful of new obligations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamal Gupta is a landmark decision in the field of arbitration in India. The court ensured that the arbitral process in India retained its consensual nature by excluding the intervention of non-signatories, thereby strengthening confidentiality as a statutory imperative.

The SC in Crown Theatres has transformed the philosophy of competition regulation to be based on prevention and market correction rather than punishment by confirming the authority of the CCI to deliver structural and behavioral remedies.

The split in ACIT v. Shelf Drilling Ron exposes a deeper fault line in Indian tax adjudication: whether courts should privilege the literal boundaries of statutory text or stretch interpretation to preserve the functional life of specialized procedures.

The State must deliberate with the online gaming industry on a licensing regime with stricter compliance measures and penalties, rather than cutting off one of the growing industries in India completely.

Disortho exemplifies the dangers of uncritical adoption of foreign jurisprudence in a distinct legal context. By prioritising the lex contractus over the law of the seat, the decision compromises the procedural autonomy of agreements and departs from established Indian and international norms on lex arbitri determination.

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