India

Argus Partners advised Popo Global Private Limited (“Popo Global”) and its founders, Nikhil Gupta and Abhijit Gupta, in connection with a ₹532 crore strategic investment from Invus Group (Artal Asia Pte. Ltd.).Popo Global is a Bengaluru-based multi-brand restaurant platform operating food and beverage brands including The Pizza Bakery, Paris Panini and Smash Guys. Founded in 2017 with a single The Pizza Bakery outlet, the company has largely grown through bootstrapped operations and currently operates approximately 40 outlets across its three brands.The transaction values Popo Global at ₹1,245 crore and marks the company’s first external institutional capital raise. The investment is expected to support Popo Global’s continued expansion and the scaling of its portfolio of food and beverage brands, providing a platform for further growth in India’s increasingly organised restaurant market.The deal team at Argus Partners consisted of Neha Madan (Partner), and Mishika Bedi (Associate).

We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Celerity Limited, a UK-based managed IT services provider, on the Indian leg of its acquisition of Insight 2 Value (I2V), a specialist in intelligent automation and enterprise content management.The acquisition strengthens Celerity’s capabilities to deliver solutions that improve customer onboarding, complaints handling, case management and regulatory compliance, connecting content seamlessly to improve service delivery and accelerate customer-facing operations for the healthcare, financial services and local government organisations that it works with.Phoenix Legal worked alongside Hill Dickinson LLP, legal counsel to Celerity, on the transaction.The Phoenix Legal team comprised Sumit Sinha (Partner), Ashima Dewan (Partner), Vishesh Minocha (Senior Associate) and Abhijit Durunde (Associate).https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7506672766482321408https://celerity-uk.com/resources/celerity-expands-capabilities-with-insight-2-value-acquisition-celerity; andhttps://www.linkedin.com/posts/david-mkhitarian-4090a157_very-pleased-to-have-supported-our-client-activity-7500940467111620609-9h0L

The lowest bid was INR 1.44 crore. Reading the tender’s earnest money deposit, the Court noted that the estimated cost of the procurement worked out to between INR 8.88 crore and INR 22.20 crore. When a bid falls that far below the estimate, what must the procuring authority do before accepting it? TLH, Advocates & Solicitors represented Jaykay Enterprises Limited before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The client challenged a tender issued by the Naval Science and Technological Laboratory (NSTL), a DRDO laboratory, for the Processor-Based Moored Mine – Next Generation (PBMM-NG) programme. The tender covered seven PBMM-NG units, four explosive-filled warhead shells, test systems and fixtures, and technical services. Apollo Micro Systems Limited was declared L-1 at approximately INR 1.44 crore. Jaykay Enterprises had quoted INR 13.99 crore. It placed before the Court quotations from NSTL-registered suppliers, NSTL's own indicative component prices and a recent contract rate for a single sub-assembly. On that material, it argued that the L-1 bid called for scrutiny under Clause 6.42(b)(ii) of the DRDO Procurement Manual, 2025. On September 9, 2026, Justice Ravi Cheemalapati allowed the writ petition to a limited extent. The Court directed the authorities to evaluate the L-1 and L-2 bids strictly under Clause 6.42(b)(ii). Key takeaways for procurement practitioners: No fixed threshold. The Court upheld the Manual's case-by-case approach to abnormally low bids. It rejected the argument that the tender was invalid for not prescribing a minimum price.But a very low price must be examined. The bid here appeared low enough to raise a material concern about the bidder's capability to perform. In those circumstances, the Court held, the authority had to do three things before finalising L-1: seek clarification, analyse the price and reach a reasoned view.Timing matters. The record showed that clarification was sought only after Apollo had been declared L-1. By then, the L-2 bidder, ICOMM Tele Limited, had already been treated as the matching bidder. A later clarification could not take the place of pre-award scrutiny.No substitutes. Bidder undertakings, post-award quality inspection and a bidder's financial strength cannot replace a price-specific assessment. What the Court did not do matters as much. It did not cancel the tender or disqualify any bidder, and it made no finding that Apollo cannot perform. It also did not treat our client's cost estimate as the correct price or grant any share of the tendered quantity. If the L-1 and L-2 bids withstand fresh scrutiny, the award and the financial approval dated January 22, 2026 will stand. If they do not, the authorities must proceed under the applicable procurement framework. In public procurement, the lowest price is where scrutiny begins, not where it ends. Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, Advocate, TLH, Advocates & Solicitors, appeared for the petitioner, led by P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel.

New Delhi, 29 September, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) has secured the rejection of a ₹2.29 crore commercial suit for its clients, Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. and Check Point Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In VCare Infotech Limited v. Check Point Software Technologies & Ors. (CS(COMM) 1047/2025), Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit with no urgent interim relief must exhaust pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against every defendant it sues. The Plaintiff had initiated mediation only against Check Point's Indian subsidiary, but later sued the Israeli parent company as well. KSK moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the parent, a distinct legal entity, was never given the opportunity to mediate. The Plaintiff contended that mediation against the subsidiary, as the parent's operational arm, was sufficient. The Court rejected that argument. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, it held that Section 12A is mandatory, that a parent-subsidiary relationship or common representation cannot dispense with it, and that mediating against some defendants while suing others is mere lip service to the provision. The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, with liberty to file afresh after complying with Section 12A. The Court made no observations on the merits. The ruling confirms that Section 12A is a substantive precondition to commercial litigation, and that a suit against a foreign parent cannot rest on mediation with its Indian subsidiary alone. The matter was handled by KSK's team comprising Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Partner, Ms. Garima Singh, Senior Associate and Mr. Sarthak Miglani, Associate.