India

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners is pleased to announce the onboarding of Ms. Amrita Pandey as Partner, marking a significant step in the Firm's strategic expansion into Kolkata. Her appointment strengthens the Firm's Dispute Resolution practice while establishing a stronger foothold in Eastern India, enabling it to better serve clients across the region through an enhanced local presence. Amrita brings over 16 years of extensive experience in litigation, dispute resolution, and regulatory advisory. She has built a distinguished practice representing clients before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, National Green Tribunal (NGT), National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, and various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. Her areas of expertise include civil and constitutional law, maritime law, service law, criminal prosecutions, appellate and execution proceedings, and industrial disputes. Amrita has also represented and advised Government departments, Government agencies, Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), and statutory authorities in complex legal and regulatory matters, bringing with her extensive experience in handling high-stake litigation involving public sector entities. Expressing her thoughts on joining the Firm, Ms. Amrita Pandey shared: "I am delighted to join Hammurabi & Solomon Partners. The Firm has built a formidable reputation for delivering exceptional legal solutions across diverse practice areas and jurisdictions. I look forward to contributing to the Firm's expanding dispute resolution practice while strengthening its presence in Kolkata and the Eastern region. Together, we aim to provide clients with strategic, solution-oriented legal counsel backed by deep domain expertise and a collaborative approach." Welcoming her to the Firm, Ms. Shweta Bharti, Managing Partner at Hammurabi & Solomon Partners, remarked: "We are delighted to welcome Amrita to the Firm. Her extensive litigation experience, particularly across constitutional, commercial, and government-related matters, significantly strengthens our dispute resolution capabilities. Equally important, her joining marks a key milestone in our expansion strategy as we strengthen our presence in Kolkata. We are confident that her leadership and regional expertise will enable us to better serve our clients in Eastern India while further enhancing the Firm's national footprint." Ms. Amrita Pandey's onboarding marks another significant milestone for Hammurabi & Solomon Partners as the Firm continues its strategic growth, expanding its leadership strength to a 19-Partner firm while establishing its presence across a total of 9 offices in India. This expansion further strengthens the Firm's Pan-India capabilities, reinforcing its commitment to delivering seamless, high-quality legal solutions and trusted counsel to clients across jurisdictions.

The labour law framework previously implemented in India has been regarded as one of the most complex regulatory systems. Employers operating in the country have historically been required to comply with a network of 29 central labour laws, each dealing with different aspects of employment. Recognizing the need for reform, the Government of India consolidated 29 labour laws into 4 comprehensive labour codes in order to simplify compliance, promote ease of doing business, improve labour market flexibility, and strengthen worker protections through a unified legislative framework. With the transition from 29 labour laws to 4 labour codes, employers are required to now reassess their employment practices, compensation structures, workplace policies, and compliance mechanisms to align with the new legislations. Understanding India’s New Labour Code Framework: The labour codes introduced by the Government of India repeal and replace the previous 29 central labour laws and were created to streamlined regulatory structure governing employment in India. The Code on Wages, 2019 (“Wage Code”) consolidates four existing laws relating to wage regulation, including the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Bonus Act, and the Equal Remuneration Act. The objective of the Code is to establish a uniform framework governing wage payments, minimum wages, bonus entitlements, and equal remuneration obligations. One of the most significant changes introduced by the Code is the standardized definition of “wages” which has substantial implications for employee compensation structures and statutory benefit calculations. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”) combines provisions previously contained in the Trade Unions Act, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, and the Industrial Disputes Act. The Code seeks to regulate industrial relations, trade union recognition, dispute resolution mechanisms, layoffs, retrenchments, and closures of establishments. The Code on Social Security, 2020 (“SS Code”) consolidates various social welfare legislations relating to provident fund contributions, employee state insurance, gratuity, maternity benefits, and employee compensation. Notably, the Code expands the concept of social security by creating enabling provisions for gig workers, platform workers, and workers engaged in emerging forms of employment relationships. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (“OSH Code”) merges several laws governing workplace safety and employee welfare. The Code establishes a comprehensive framework regulating health and safety standards, working conditions, welfare facilities, inspections, and employer obligations across a wide range of establishments. Although the labour codes are intended to simplify compliance, many employers are discovering that the reforms require significant adjustments to existing employment practices and internal governance systems. The most widely discussed change is in relation to the revised definition of wages under the Wage Code. Under the new framework, employers will have significantly less flexibility in structuring salary components through allowances and other exclusions. Broadly, where the excluded components of an employee’s remuneration exceed the prescribed threshold, the excess amount may be required to be added back to “wages” for the purposes of compliance. In effect, the law contemplates that wages should ordinarily constitute at least 50% of an employee’s total remuneration, subject to the exclusions specifically permitted under the Wage Code. As a result, employers who currently have salary structures with a high proportion of allowances may be required to restructure compensation packages to ensure compliance. Since several statutory benefits and contributions, including provident fund contributions, gratuity, bonus, retrenchment compensation and other wage-linked entitlements, are computed with reference to wages, an increase in the wage component may correspondingly increase an employer’s statutory financial obligations. Aligning the Internal Compliance Framework with Labour Codes A practical starting point for employers is to undertake a comprehensive labour law compliance review well before the labour codes are brought into force in the relevant State. Businesses should first assess the applicability of each of the four labour codes based on the nature of their establishment, employee strength, and industry-specific operations. Existing employment agreements, HR manuals, standing orders, leave policies, disciplinary procedures, wage structures, and internal compliance frameworks should be reviewed and updated to align with the new statutory requirements. Particular attention should also be paid to the revised definition of wages, as any necessary restructuring of salary components may have a direct impact on statutory contributions and employee benefits. Employers should also ensure that the requisite registrations, licences and electronic records prescribed under the new regime are in place. The labour codes seek to consolidate several existing registrations into common registration and licensing mechanisms while also promoting digitised compliance through electronic maintenance of registers, filing of statutory returns and online inspections. From a workplace governance perspective, employers should revisit their policies relating to working hours, overtime, leave, health and safety, disciplinary procedures, and employee welfare measures. The OSH Code introduces enhanced obligations concerning workplace safety, health standards, welfare facilities, annual health check-ups for specified categories of employees, reporting of accidents and dangerous occurrences, and maintenance of prescribed records. Establishments should therefore evaluate whether their existing operational practices, safety protocols and vendor management processes are sufficient to meet the enhanced compliance requirements under the new regime. Legal Challenges One of the principal legal challenges arising from the labour codes is the absence of uniform implementation across the country. Although the Central Government has notified the labour codes and the corresponding Central Rules, several States are yet to notify or operationalise their respective rules. Since labour is a subject falling within the Concurrent List of the Constitution of India, employers operating across multiple States may be required to comply with different procedural requirements depending upon the stage of implementation in each jurisdiction. This transitional phase creates uncertainty regarding the applicable compliance framework and requires businesses to continuously monitor regulatory developments at both the Central and State levels before implementing organisation-wide policy changes. Another significant challenge lies in interpreting and implementing several provisions introduced under the new framework. While the labour codes seek to consolidate existing legislations, certain concepts continue to require judicial interpretation and practical clarification, particularly in relation to the revised definition of wages, classification of employees and workers, engagement of fixed-term employees and contract labour, and the interaction between the labour codes and State-specific legislations such as the Shops and Establishments Acts. Strategic Considerations for Businesses The labour codes are more than a legislative consolidation exercise, they represent a broader shift toward modernizing India’s employment law ecosystem. Labour code compliance should not be viewed as a one-time documentation exercise but as an ongoing governance function. Employers must conduct periodic compliance audits and continuously monitor notifications issued by the Central and State Governments regarding the phased implementation of the labour codes and the corresponding rules. Since several operational requirements will ultimately depend upon the rules notified by individual States, organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions should also adopt a state-specific compliance strategy to ensure that their employment practices remain legally compliant across all locations. Given the complexity of the reforms and the evolving nature of implementation, legal advisors can assist with reviewing employment documentation, restructuring compensation frameworks, conducting labour law audits, addressing industrial relations issues, and ensuring compliance with both central and state-level requirements. Conclusion India’s transition from 29 labour laws to 4 labour codes marks a transformative moment in the country’s employment law landscape. While the reforms aim to simplify compliance and improve ease of doing business, they also introduce substantial changes affecting wages, social security, industrial relations, workplace safety, and employee welfare. As implementation continues to evolve, a strategic and legally informed approach to compliance will be essential for organizations seeking to thrive under India's new labour law regime. FAQ 1: What are the 4 labour codes in India? India has replaced 29 central labour laws with four codes, the Code on Wages, 2019, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, the Code on Social Security, 2020, and the OSH Code, 2020. Everything from wages to workplace safety now sits under these four laws, which makes them the starting point for anyone dealing with employment law in India. FAQ 2: How do the labour codes change salary structures? The big change is the new meaning of "wages." Put simply, at least half of what you pay an employee should count as wages. If allowances go beyond the permitted limit, the extra amount gets pulled back into wages anyway. That pushes up PF, gratuity, and bonus payouts, which is why so many companies are relooking at their pay structures right now. FAQ 3: Are the labour codes applicable across all Indian states? Not everywhere, no. The Centre has notified the codes, but many states haven't finalised their rules yet. Labour is a Concurrent List subject, so each state moves at its own pace. If you have offices in more than one state, you'll need to keep an eye on where each government stands before changing any policies. FAQ 4: How can employment law services help with labour code compliance? A lot of the heavy lifting, checking contracts, fixing salary structures, updating HR policies, running audits, is exactly what employment law services are meant for. And since the rules keep shifting state by state, having someone who tracks these changes for you saves both time and costly missteps. Author: Ms. Shreyika Walia – Senior Associate

Argus Partners is pleased to announce that it has acted as legal counsel to Anadya Bon Merchari LLP (“Anadya Bon Merchari”), the promoter entity and a selling shareholder of Swara Baby Products Limited (“Swara Baby”), in connection with the company’s proposed initial public offering (“IPO”) of equity shares aggregating up to INR 1,000 crore. Swara Baby, a Brainbees Solutions-backed manufacturer of disposable hygiene products, has filed its Draft Red Herring Prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Board of India.   The proposed IPO comprises a fresh issue of equity shares aggregating up to INR 500 crore, along with an offer for sale of equity shares aggregating up to INR 500 crore by existing shareholders, including Anadya Bon Merchari and Brainbees Solutions Limited.   The proposed offering represents a significant milestone in Swara Baby’s growth journey, positioning the company to access public capital markets to accelerate its expansion plans, enhance its manufacturing capabilities, and strengthen its presence in the domestic and international markets.   The team at Argus Partners advising Anadya Bon Merchari LLP consisted of Tushar Thimmiah (Partner), Srishti Sneha, Amruth Rao, and Akshat Khanna (Associates).   Read more at: The Economic Times; ETRetail; Mint; Business Standard; Entrackr; MoneyControl  

I. INTRODUCTION Can an arbitral tribunal seated in India refuse to admit a document merely because it originated from a separate confidential arbitration? The Delhi High Court answered this question in JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Alstom Transport India Ltd. (O.M.P. (COMM) 124/2024). The Court held that the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") binds arbitral tribunals seated in India, even where the arbitration is conducted under institutional rules such as the ICC Rules of Arbitration, 2021. The judgment clarifies that party autonomy exercised through institutional rules cannot dilute a statutory confidentiality obligation enacted by Parliament. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE: The dispute arose from a sub-contract executed between JPC Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ("Petitioner") and Alstom Transport India Ltd. ("Respondent") in relation to the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor Project. Under a Back-to-Back Sub-Contract Agreement dated 15.12.2015, the Petitioner was engaged for civil, electrical and allied works across fifty-five structures. Disputes arose over site access, project particulars and alleged delays, leading eventually to descoping of works and eventual termination of the contract by the Respondent. The disputes were referred to a three member Arbitral Tribunal under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, 2021. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner sought to rely on a letter dated 07.06.2017 addressed by the Respondent to Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (“DFCCIL”) in a separate arbitration between the Respondent and DFCCIL. The Petitioner contended that the letter contained admissions supporting its defence on delay and non-performance. The Respondent objected, contending that the letter formed part of confidential arbitral proceedings between the Respondent and DFCCIL and could not be relied upon in view of Section 42A of the Act. The Tribunal, by its Award dated 15.11.2023, sustained the objection and declined to admit the letter. The Tribunal found that the Petitioner had likely obtained the letter through counsel who had also represented DFCCIL in the related proceedings. The Tribunal accordingly rejected Claim Nos. 2, 3, 13 and 16, pertaining respectively to geotechnical investigations, topographical surveys, overhead costs and loss of profit. Notably, all counterclaims raised by the Respondent were rejected, and Justice J.D. Kapoor (Retd.) rendered a separate dissenting opinion on Claim Nos. 13 and 16. The Petitioner challenged the exclusion of the letter, and the consequent rejection of these four claims, under Section 34 of the Act before the Delhi High Court. III. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT: The primary question before the Court was whether the Tribunal's exclusion of the letter dated 07.06.2017 on grounds of confidentiality under Section 42A of the Act was vitiated by patent illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference under Section 34 of the Act. A related question arose as to whether the confidentiality regime under the ICC Rules, said by the Petitioner to be discretionary in nature, diluted or overrode the mandatory confidentiality obligation under Section 42A once the seat of arbitration was in India. The Petitioner also argued that Section 42A merely imposes a “duty of confidentiality” and prescribes no consequence for its breach, and that a document otherwise relevant could not be rendered inadmissible on that ground alone. IV. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT The High Court began by noting the limited scope of interference available under Section 34 of the Act. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in OPG Power Generation (P) Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. ((2025) 2 SCC 417) for the settled tests governing patent illegality and conflict with the public policy of India. On the central issue, the Court held that Section 42A opens with a non-obstante clause and applies notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force. It observed that confidentiality is one of the defining features of the arbitral process, and that the provision exists to preserve the integrity of that process. The Court rejected the Petitioner's contention that Section 42A merely creates an unenforceable obligation. It reasoned that reading the provision to carry no practical consequence would substantially erode the protection Parliament intended, and would reduce the statutory mandate to a formality devoid of effective content. Court on the interplay between institutional rules and statutory mandates: The Court examined the Petitioner's reliance on Article 22(3) of the ICC Rules, which merely enables a tribunal to issue directions concerning confidentiality upon request. It held that institutional rules operate within the framework of the governing statute, and cannot dilute or override an express legislative command contained in the Act. Court on party autonomy and the governing law of the seat: The High Court held that even though the arbitration was conducted under the ICC Rules, the seat of arbitration being in India meant that the arbitral proceedings remained subject to the mandatory provisions of the Act. It observed that institutionalised arbitral proceedings derive their efficacy from party autonomy, but operate subject to the governing law. The Court concluded that a statutory mandate enacted by Parliament cannot be “diluted, displaced or overridden” by rules framed by an arbitral institution. It held that the Tribunal was therefore fully justified in treating Section 42A as controlling and binding, irrespective of the more discretionary approach to confidentiality permitted under the ICC Rules. Court on relevance versus permissible use of evidence: The Court distinguished between the relevance of a document and its permissible use. It held that a party cannot claim an unrestricted right to rely upon evidence merely because it may support its case, irrespective of the circumstances in which the document was obtained. The Court found no jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in the Tribunal first examining the permissibility of reliance before assessing evidentiary value. Mere production of a document in judicial proceedings: The Court also rejected the Petitioner's argument that the letter had entered the public domain merely because it had been referred to in separate proceedings before the Court. It held that mere production of a document in judicial proceedings does not automatically establish loss of confidentiality, particularly where the document originates from an arbitration protected by a statutory confidentiality obligation. On facts, the Court noted that the Tribunal had returned specific findings that the Petitioner's explanation for possessing the letter was unconvincing, and that the document had likely reached the Petitioner through counsel common to both proceedings. The Court held these to be findings of fact within the Tribunal's domain, and found no perversity demonstrated in them. V. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT AND THE JUDGMENT The Court observed that the Petitioner had not independently challenged the merits of the Tribunal's findings on Claim Nos. 2, 3, 13 and 16. The entire challenge rested on the exclusion of the single letter. Once the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's approach to that document, the foundation of the challenge fell in entirety. The Court also distinguished the Petitioner's reliance on Global Aviation Services Private Limited v. Airport Authority of India (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 233) and the Constitution Bench decision in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 ((2024) 6 SCC 1). It held that neither decision addressed the admissibility of evidence sourced in breach of arbitral confidentiality, and that the latter, properly read, reinforced the principle that a non-obstante clause must be construed to advance the legislative purpose underlying it. Finding no ground of patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Arbitral Award dated 15.11.2023 in its entirety, with no order as to costs. VI. CONCLUSION The judgment in JPC Infrastructure v. Alstom Transport clarifies an important aspect of cross-arbitration confidentiality for parties operating under institutional rules with an Indian seat. The principle that emerges is that Section 42A of the Act operates as a mandatory, non-derogable obligation. It binds parties, counsel and tribunals alike, regardless of any more permissive confidentiality regime available under institutional rules chosen by the parties. For practitioners, the judgment carries practical significance in multi-contract projects where related disputes are frequently arbitrated in parallel or successive proceedings involving overlapping counsel. Documents or admissions obtained from one confidential arbitration cannot be freely imported into another, even where such material appears directly relevant to a party's case. Counsel acting across related arbitrations must be alert to the risk that possession of documents from one proceeding, however obtained, may attract the bar under Section 42A in a related but separate reference. What the judgment ultimately protects is the sanctity of the arbitral process. It ensures that confidentiality remains a substantive safeguard rather than a rule with no practical teeth. The decision also carries a broader lesson for arbitration lawyers acting on both sides of related disputes involving a common employer or principal contractor. Where the same counsel appears in successive or parallel arbitrations arising from a single project, care must be taken to preserve the separateness of each proceeding. An arbitral tribunal seated in India will not treat the flexible confidentiality provisions under institutional rules as a substitute for the mandatory statutory obligation under Section 42A of the Arbitration Act. Parties must accordingly structure their evidence strategy in compliance with this requirement. By Pragalbh Bhardwaj, Associate Partner https://ksandk.com/people/pragalbh-bhardwaj/