Dispute Resolution

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2026 on 19 May 2026, introducing significant changes to valuation procedures, timeline discipline, and eligibility for pre-packaged insolvency resolution. These amendments follow the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, which received Presidential assent in April 2026 and came into force on 19 May 2026, expanding the PPIR

The intersection of competition law and insolvency law in India has been a source of persistent uncertainty for resolution applicants, creditors, and regulators. At the heart of the debate lies a deceptively simple question: when must the Competition Commission of India (CCI) approve a resolution plan that involves a combination, such as a merger or acquisition? The Supreme Court answered this question with a strict interpretation, only for Parliament to legislate a different

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal by a Kerala-based investor seeking approximately Rs 110 crore in compensation for 1,35,000 equity shares of Sintex Industries Ltd that were extinguished under the company's insolvency resolution plan. The ruling, delivered on August 30, 2026, affirms the clean slate principle under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and holds that no independent membership right survives once the underlyin

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, in an order dated August 10, 2026, admitted Oscorp Industries Private Limited, a Howrah based railway wagon rebuilder, into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The bench of Labh Singh, Member (Judicial), and Rekha Kantilal Shah, Member (Technical), passed the order in C.P. (I.B.) No. 126/KB/2025 on a Section 7 petition filed by Gurgaon based Stemztech

On August 17, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for misusing Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the case of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v HCC Samsung JV. Section 33, which permits correction of clerical, typographical, and computational errors in arbitral awards, was deployed by DMRC to seek what the court de

In A.K. Ghosh and Company and Others v. Biman Bose and Others (2026 INSC 684), decided on July 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must file a written statement in response to a defendant's counter-claim within the mandatory 120-day outer limit prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K

Introduction The Mediation Act 2023 (Act No. 32 of 2023), which received presidential assent on 14 September 2023, represents India’s first standalone legislation dedicated to mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. With certain provisions notified on 9 October 2023, the Act creates a structured framework for pre-litigation and court-referred mediation, establishes the Mediation Council of India, and gives mediated settlement agreements the force of a court decree. For b

Two recent High Court decisions have clarified important procedural boundaries for the enforcement of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). In one ruling, the Bombay High Court held that an executing court cannot refuse enforcement of a pre-2015 arbitral award merely because the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally. In the other, the Calcutta High Court ruled that a certified copy of an arbitral award bearing only a third-party attestati

In a landmark decision that strengthens India's pro-enforcement stance on foreign arbitral awards, the Supreme Court of India has formally recognised and applied the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel while interpreting Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment in Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I [2026 INSC 298], delivered on March 25, 2026, marks the first time the Supreme Court has engaged with this doctrine at the apex level

When a court order is wilfully disobeyed or when someone acts in a manner that scandalises or undermines the authority of a court, the affected party may file a contempt petition to enforce compliance or seek punishment for the contemnor. The law of contempt in India is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the inherent powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. This article explains the distinction between civil an

A transfer petition is a legal remedy that allows a party to request the Supreme Court of India to transfer a civil or criminal case from a court in one state to a court in another state. This remedy is commonly invoked in matrimonial disputes, commercial litigation, and cases where a party faces genuine hardship in attending proceedings in a distant court. This article provides a complete guide to filing a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19

The Supreme Court, on August 5, 2026, held that the involvement of a non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract is a critical factor in determining whether they are bound by the arbitration agreement contained in that contract. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva delivered the judgment in KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Ashiesh Shukla and Others, clarifying the circumstances under which non-signatories can be subjected to arbitra

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in S. Sangeetha v. Tmt. P. Ponni (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 813), has reaffirmed a fundamental principle of the law of evidence: the mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not constitute proof of its contents. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered this ruling on August 7, 2026, while dealing with a civil appeal arising from testamentary proceedings before the Madr

The Telangana High Court on July 27, 2026, directed the Chief Secretary of Telangana to immediately remove AV Ranganath, Commissioner of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), from his post. Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order in a contempt of court case filed by Shanta Sriram Constructions Private Limited, observing that the Commissioner had become "a law unto himself" through repeated and willful defiance of court orders. The Telangana

The Supreme Court of India, in Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 744 / 2026 INSC 770), delivered on July 30, 2026, has held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 (now Section 415, BNSS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is maintainable before the High Court against a conviction imposed by a Sessions Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction.