Summary: The Supreme Court recently ruled[1] on SEBI’s case of fraud against Reliance Industries Ltd. (“RIL”) and twelve of its agents for trades in respect of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (“RPL”) in 2007. Its emphasis on establishing intent when determining
Summary: What happens when everyone, but the internet has moved on? In a landmark judgment delivered on May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court has addressed the growing problem of digital records that continue to haunt individuals, long after legal
Summary: In its recent decision in APTEC Advanced Protective Technologies AG v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of arbitral jurisprudence: the legal character of an arbitral order is determined by its substantive effect, not
Summary: In its recent judgement dated May 6, 2026 in Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property are conditional and self-operative. The plaintiff’s failure to comply
Summary: With global regulators intensifying efforts to enforce sanctions, particularly concerning indirect or inadvertent breaches, Indian entities now face an elevated level of compliance risk — one that extends far beyond the scope of traditional list-screening methods. This article explores
Summary: Part II draws on recent enforcement actions to illustrate how OFAC applies this approach in practice. It highlights the heightened expectations placed on professional service providers and explains why ownership screening alone can no longer be treated as a
Summary: Part I examines OFAC’s Advisory and the fundamental shift it signals in sanctions compliance — moving from a mechanical application of 50% ownership rule towards a substance-over-form analysis. It covers the expanded interpretation of “property interest”, the red flags
Summary: A persistent misconception in legal discourse is that findings or determinations of a civil court are binding on a criminal court, despite no such rule being codified in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or its successor statute, the Bharatiya
Summary: The Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I has charted out a clearer path for PE/ VC exits. It has held that a promoter responsible for providing exits to its investor cannot
Summary: As per settled legal jurisprudence, there are limited grounds available for a participating entity to raise challenges to a tender process and/ or its terms after participation. Barring such limited grounds, any challenge in respect of a tender must
