Summary: Bail is the rule, jail is the exception, is an axiom. A tight rope between individual liberty and public interest, bail jurisprudence in India has evolved to err on the side of liberty. However, heinous offences are a slight
Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with
Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration
Summary: Recent judicial developments in India are reshaping the treatment of homebuyers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Courts have moved beyond merely recognising homebuyers as financial creditors to substantively distinguishing genuine homebuyers from speculative investors, ensuring the Code
Summary: A key procedural question in Indian arbitration law concerns the trigger for the commencement of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, where a party files a Section 33 application before challenging an arbitral award. Conflicting
Summary: The 50% ownership rule has always been the cornerstone of sanctions compliance offering apparent certainty to entities navigating complex cross-border transactions. However, in recent years, global regulators have started looking beyond the ownership percentage, scrutinizing effective control and influence
Summary: The Securities Appellate Tribunal and Supreme Court recently had the occasion to examine what amounts to securities fraud. While in BDMCL, the SAT examined whether the essential ingredients of fraud were satisfied, in Terrascope, the Supreme Court ruled that
Summary: The Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule resolved conflicting High Court views on whether Section 29A application to extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate lies before the High Court or the Civil Court. Drawing a clear and principled
Summary: The article examines the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, which confirms that courts retain the power under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after
Summary: Recent Indian jurisprudence confirms that depositing an arbitral award amount with the court during Section 34 proceedings stops interest from running, but only if the deposit is full, unconditional, and properly notified. Partial payments made over time do not
