Sansa Law Desk

Background and Facts A scheme of amalgamation that folds ten subsidiaries into their listed parent has been sanctioned at the second motion stage, and one of the transferor companies came into the group through insolvency only last year. The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has sanctioned the composite scheme merging ten group companies into Adani Power Limited. The order, made in the petition concerning Vidarbha Industries Power Limited, was reported on Sept

Two provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 offer interim relief in almost identical terms. Section 9 is addressed to a court and Section 17 to the arbitral tribunal, and the choice between them is governed by timing, by the identity of the person you need bound, and by what you intend to do with the order afterwards. Getting it wrong is expensive: the Supreme Court held in Union of India v. Hariom Projects Private Limited, 2026 INSC 1044, that a pending appe

Background and Facts An occupant of a corporate debtor's premises cannot convert a liquidation dispute into a tenancy dispute by asserting a lease. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has upheld an order requiring occupants to vacate two properties owned by a company in liquidation, holding that the liquidator may recover possession through the National Company Law Tribunal rather than through rent control proceedings. The order in Duke Fashions (India) Limited v. Pra

Background and Facts A Section 37 appeal is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court, and an arbitral tribunal cannot be asked to perform it. The Supreme Court has set aside a direction of the Bombay High Court remitting a pending appeal against the refusal of interim relief to a newly constituted tribunal, to be treated as an application for interim measures. The judgment in Union of India v. Hariom Projects Private Limited, 2026 INSC 1044 [arising out of Special Lea

Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 offers a trade that is often worth taking: pay the tax and interest on an assessment, give up the right to appeal against it, and the Assessing Officer grants immunity from the penalty under Section 270A and from prosecution under Section 276C or Section 276CC. The arithmetic usually favours the assessee, because a penalty at fifty per cent of the tax on the under-reported income is a large sum to gamble on an appeal. The difficulty i

Background and Facts An assessee who pays the demand and gives up its right of appeal in exchange for immunity from penalty should not then be asked to prove a negative. The Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting an immunity application under Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee had produced no documentary evidence that it had not filed an appeal. The judgment in Shantijanak Estates Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of I

Background and Facts Filing a Section 34 challenge in the wrong court costs years, and the question of which court is correct is not answered by where the arbitrator happened to sit. The Supreme Court has held that where no Commercial Court has been set up, the District Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court may entertain the petition. The judgment in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. GSCO Infrastructure Private Limited [arising out of Special Leave Petition

When an overseas vendor suspends services because a sanctions list somewhere names your company, a counterparty or a shareholder, the first instinct is to negotiate. That is often right, but it is not a substitute for a legal position, and the position weakens with every week the suspension goes unchallenged. The Delhi High Court's order in Nayara Energy Limited v. SAP India Private Limited, made on September 22, 2026, shows what the analysis looks like when it reaches a cour

Background and Facts A shareholder who cannot get the board to convene an extraordinary general meeting has two routes, and the question of how they relate to each other is now before the Supreme Court. On September 22, 2026 a Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli issued notice on a challenge to an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the Pearl City Marine Products Private Limited matter, and listed the case for November 6, 2026. The appe

Background and Facts An Indian vendor cannot suspend performance of an Indian law contract by pointing at foreign sanctions it has not proved apply to it. The Delhi High Court has ordered SAP India Private Limited to restore enterprise and software support services to Nayara Energy Limited, holding that at the interlocutory stage the suspension was prima facie a breach. The order in Nayara Energy Limited v. SAP India Private Limited was made by Justice Vikas Mahajan on Septem

Deciding where to file a trade mark infringement suit used to be a short exercise: Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars institution in any court inferior to a District Court, and Section 134(2) tells the plaintiff which District Court. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has complicated it, because a State may constitute a Commercial Court at a level below District Judge, and the Supreme Court has now referred the resulting conflict to a larger bench in I.S.D.S. Private

Background and Facts A shareholder who believes a false statement has been filed with the Registrar cannot prosecute it himself. A private complaint will not support cognizance of an offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, because the second proviso to Section 212(6) reserves that step to the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office or an authorised officer of the Central Government. The Supreme Court settled that in January 2026 and, on September 21,

Background and Facts Where a State has notified Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts, a trade mark infringement suit is now being tried by a court that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 appears to put out of bounds. The Supreme Court has referred the conflict to a larger bench. The order was made in I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. Khemka Food Products Private Limited and was reported on September 21, 2026. The underlying suit, Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023,

Depositing an arbitral award amount in court is the standard price of a stay, and it is routinely assumed to stop interest as well. It does not. The Supreme Court held in National Seeds Corporation Limited v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India), 2026 INSC 1017, that a deposit is not payment, and that interest continues to run until the award holder can actually withdraw the money without conditions. Where an award carries interest at twelve per cent, the difference between

Background and Facts Award debtors routinely deposit money in court to obtain a stay and then assume that interest on an arbitral award has stopped running. The Supreme Court has held that it has not, unless the deposit is unconditional and the award holder can actually take the money out. The judgment in National Seeds Corporation Limited v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India) [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5710 of 2025] carries the neutral citation 20