This post argues that the court’s clarification creates an asymmetrical safeguard which is a weak deterrent against strategic litigants seeking to prolong a Section 34 application.

The author's submission is that Tejas J Shah is rightly decided and useful for correcting a specific adjudicatory error, but that its doctrinal contribution is narrower than a first reading suggests.

This post argues that PROGA classified the game but not the money held through it. By deleting draft Rule 24, the Rules left users with a restitutionary right but no clear means of receiving payment.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the justice system, the regulatory framework must evolve to safeguard the accuracy, accountability, and public confidence in judicial decision-making.

Until Parliament and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India catch up, TSP resolutions, as well as those of other natural resources, will sit in the gap that the Supreme Court has just defined.

The Mafatlal principles were articulated generally in respect of refund claims, not merely those arising under the Central Excise Act.

Read narrowly, AKG Construction rescued one contractor. Read for the principle it carries, it restates that the State may choose whom to contract with, but it may not pronounce an enterprise’s civil death without the discipline the Constitution exacts.

The real question is not whether homebuyers belong within the IBC. It is why insolvency law has become the institution through which failures of real estate regulation are increasingly corrected, and how long a regulator can keep failing before the statute quietly covering for it is mistaken for the solution.

The Supreme Court's judgment in Alpha Corp has been widely read as a homebuyer-protective ruling; that reading is accurate as far as it goes.

As the Gujarat HC correctly holds, Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act 2017 is not constitutionally infirm.

The decision in Ujaas Energy highlights the inherent tension between finality and fairness in the IBC framework.

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Home Care Retail Marts Private Limited v. Haresh N Sanghavi has clarified a long-standing conflict in Indian arbitration jurisprudence regarding the scope of post-award interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

The effectiveness of CIIRP post-Amendment will ultimately depend upon preventing disruptive pre-insolvency enforcement that frustrates restructuring efforts.

Until the three-judge bench rules, the operative position is Surana’s bifurcation, reached by a route the statute does not actually require.

Gameskraft does not raise the question of whether clarificatory amendments are constitutionally permissible. They are, and this article does not argue otherwise. The issue is the absence of any rigorous gatekeeping before the label is applied.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

NCLAT’s split outcome has paradoxically created a perpetual framework for WhatsApp that could prove to be more durable and effective than the CCI’s original prescription.

This blog delves into the trusteeship decision, which enunciates that incomplete and informal restructuring discussions cannot be relied upon to hinder the statutory trigger of insolvency once debt and default are established.