Phoenix Legal | View firm profile
Date: July, 2025
- We are pleased to share that Phoenix Legal advised and assisted Mr. Nikhil Vora (Founder & CEO, Sixth Sense Ventures), a veteran of India’s venture capital ecosystem along with other investors, in connection with their investment in INDICOLD, India’s leading cold chain solutions company.
This investment underscores investor confidence in Indicold’s vision of developing a technology-driven and sustainable cold chain infrastructure across India.
The Phoenix Legal team advising on this transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) and Mokshiv Malla (Associate). The due diligence was led by Sumit Sinha, with Mokshiv Malla (Associate), Vishesh Minocha (Associate), and Aayush K. (Associate) providing key support.
Date: July, 2025
- Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in matter involving allegation of economic offences and money launderingWe are pleased to share that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to grant bail to our client in FIR registered by the EOW for offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC, involving allegations of receiving foreign direct investment in violation of FDI norms and causing financial loss to the ex-chequer. Treating the EOW FIR as the predicate offence, ECIR was also registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The Court was persuaded to grant the relief considering the documentary nature of the evidence, the prolonged duration of the investigation, and the Petitioner’s continued cooperation with the enforcement authorities.
The matter was successfully led by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, along with our team comprising Aman Avinav, Partner and Kumar Rishabh Parth, Associate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
Date: July, 2025
- We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal advised and assisted Bodo Möller Chemie Group in the execution of an asset purchase agreement for the acquisition of the adhesives chemical business of Aqua Engineering Services by Bodo Möller Chemie Group. This strategic acquisition strengthens Bodo Möller Chemie Group’s footprint in the Indian subcontinent and enhances its capabilities across key sectors such as automotive, electronics, and railways.Nitin Arora, Partner, and his team at Baker Tilly ASA India which included Bhupendra Bijlani and CA Nishtha Chawla, acted as the exclusive financial advisor to Bodo Möller Chemie Group.
The Phoenix Legal team for this transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner), Sukanya Bhattacharya (Associate Partner) and Vishesh Minocha (Associate).
Learn more about this development here: https://lnkd.in/gbpGHZrm
Date: May, 2025
- Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Dominance Under Competition ActIn a landmark judgment dated May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified that Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, does not inherently prohibit dominance but targets its abuse. Emphasizing the necessity of an effects-based analysis, the Court dismissed appeals by the Competition Commission of India and Kapoor Glass in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 668), affirming the Competition Appellate Tribunal’s decision that no appreciable adverse effect on competition was established. The Court also highlighted procedural lapses, including the denial of cross-examination, which undermined the investigation’s credibility.
Our Partner, Kunal Mehra, and Associate Partner, Danish Khan, shed light on this significant development.
Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_phoenix-legal-activity-7329037423718342656-99Si?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM
Date: April, 2025
- | Disputes Update |We are delighted to share that the Calcutta High Court on 8.04.2025 in CRR 1187 of 2022 [Arnab Goswami & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.], was pleased to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 153A/153B/500/504/120B IPC against the petitioners in connection with a live news broadcast. Phoenix Legal led by our Partner, Zoeb Cutlerywala represented Mr. Goswami in the said matter.
The Calcutta High Court accepted our submissions that:
The impugned remarks/controversial statements were made by a panelist during a live debate and were neither endorsed nor pre-approved by the petitioners.
• The petitioners had immediately interrupted, condemned, and distanced themselves from the comment, both on-air and across social media and therefore there was no endorsement, intention, or conspiracy attributable to the petitioners.
• The legal ingredients of the offences, particularly under Section 153A IPC, were not satisfied, as there was no intent, no two-group enmity, and no provocation attributed to the petitioners.Significance of this Judgment:
The Calcutta High Court agreed and quashed the criminal proceedings, reinforcing that editorial hosts cannot be held liable for unscripted third-party remarks when due diligence and condemnation follow.
This case highlights the delicate balance between free speech and reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), particularly in the context of live media. This judgment upholds the importance of editorial independence, the boundaries of criminal liability in live media broadcasts and the responsibility of courts to draw that line with care.
Read the full judgement below for detailed insights.
Date: March, 2025
- | Disputes Update |𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞:
The case involves registration of FIR No. 276 against Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of the Republic Media Network, and another person, under sections 153A, 295A, 120B, 499, 501, 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the NSA Act. The FIR was registered at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, Rajasthan, based on a complaint by Mr. Pawan Khera, Spokesperson of the All-India Congress Committee. The complaint alleges that the accused spread false, malicious, and ill-motivated lies against the Government of Rajasthan, intending to destabilize it and incite communal disharmony.
𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞:
-The Petitioner claims no involvement in the day-to-day operations of ‘Republic Bharat’ and did not participate in the broadcast in question related to the temple demolition in Rajgarh and he has neither any role to play in the day-to-day operations of R. Bharat.
– The FIR does not disclose any specific date or time of the alleged statements, making it baseless and makes no reference to any date and time.
– The FIR does not constitute any offense under the sections mentioned and that the proceedings are arbitrary and malicious allegations in FIR No. 276, even if they are taken on their face value. In summary, the Petitioner argued that the FIR is politically motivated, lacks a factual basis, and constitutes an abuse of legal process aimed at silencing a free press.𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝟑.𝟎𝟑.𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬:
– The allegations in the FIR do not disclose an offence under Section 153A of the IPC do not disclose the commission of an offence.
-The FIR lacks essential particulars such as exact statements or evidence demonstrating the Petitioner’s culpability lacks essential particulars such as the exact nature.
-The continued investigation appears to suppress journalistic freedom and subject the Petitioner to unwarranted legal proceedings attempt to suppress journalistic freedom.
-The Stay Application was allowed with the direction that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner until the disposal of the main petition. In summary, the court has granted a stay on coercive actions against the Petitioner, citing insufficient evidence and concerns over journalistic freedom.
Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_disputes-update-activity-7303681845999677441-Rg1S?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM