King, Stubb & Kasiva

King, Stubb & Kasiva

Show options

India

News and developments

Press Releases

KSK Secures Ad Interim Ex Parte Temporary Injunction Protecting Upcoming Film Jetlee Against Defamatory and Malicious Online Content

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) has successfully secured an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction on behalf of its client, Clap Entertainment (represented by its Proprietor, Pedamallu Chiranjeevi), before the Hon'ble CCH8 XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in a significant matter concerning protection against defamatory and malicious content relating to the upcoming film Jetlee (Case No. O.S./0003098/2026, CNR No. KABC010121302026). The Hon'ble Court, after hearing the Plaintiff and carefully perusing the pleadings and documents on record, was pleased to grant an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendants, including X Corp and other platforms, from publishing, circulating, sharing, hosting, streaming, or in any other manner communicating any false, defamatory, derogatory, malicious, unverified or harmful content, including challenging feedback, trolling, false narratives, personal attacks, reaction videos, community polls, boycott campaigns or similar material - relating to the Plaintiff's film Jetlee. The Court further directed the defendants to de-index, de-reference and render non-searchable all existing defamatory content and any substantially similar future links/URLs across search engines and internal platform searches, thereby ensuring the permanent suppression of such material. The defendants were additionally directed to block defamatory or orchestrated negative responses and manipulated ratings on social media platforms, websites, and movie booking/rating portals, and were restrained from exploiting any photographs, clips, or footage from the film for defamatory, malicious or similar improper purposes. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that in the absence of interim protection, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm - thereby justifying the grant of urgent relief. The Court further directed the Plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of the CPC. This order reinforces the critical need to protect creative works, particularly in the digital ecosystem, from orchestrated rating manipulation, artificial bulk-based ticket feedback, coordinated down-ranking campaigns, and other activities intended to distort, diminish, or misrepresent the public perception and reception of a film prior to its release. The KSK Team The matter was led and argued by Mr. Navod Prasannan (Partner), who helmed the proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff. The KSK team advising on the matter comprised: Navod Prasannan (Partner) Rahul Mehta (Partner) Arpit Choudhury (Partner) Krunal Mehta (Associate Partner) Mehak Chaichani (Associate) Akalya Ravichandran (Associate) Karen Koya (Associate) This order marks an important milestone in safeguarding the creative and commercial interests of film producers and distributors against the growing menace of coordinated digital defamation campaigns. The matter is next listed before the Hon'ble Court on 07-08-2026 for return of summons issued to defendants For media inquiries, please contact: King Stubb & Kasiva | Advocates & Attorneys www.ksandk.com
21 May 2026
Labour and Employment

The Four Labour Codes and Their Rules: A Complete Guide for Karnataka's Manufacturing Sector

Introduction On 21 November 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified India's four Labour Codes, the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code); the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code); the Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code); and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code), bringing one of the most sweeping overhauls of Indian employment regulation since Independence into force. These four Codes consolidate 29 Central labour laws into a unified framework, repealing foundational statutes such as the Factories Act 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the EPF and MP Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the Contract Labour Act 1970, and the Trade Unions Act 1926, among others. On 8 May 2026, the Central Government completed a further landmark step by notifying the final Central Rules under all four Labour Codes this development operationalises nearly all provisions of the new labour framework that fall within the central government’s administrative jurisdiction. The Central Rules are accompanied by the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors. This publication reflects these latest developments in full. For Karnataka's manufacturing sector, encompassing everything from large automotive and aerospace plants to mid-sized garment, pharmaceutical, and precision engineering units across the state, the implications are both immediate and structural. This article explains what the four Codes and their Rules mean in practice, and what manufacturers must do now. Legislative and Rules Status as of 9 May 2026 The Central Government has notified Rules under all four Labour Codes, substantially operationalising the central labour law framework, while state level implementation continues to evolve. Karnataka subsequently published draft rules in January 2026 under the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 to align the State framework with the evolving Labour Codes regime. Following the notification of the Central Rules on 8 May 2026, Karnataka’s final rules under the Codes are still awaited. Current Status Code on Wages, 2019 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; revised Rules are awaited. Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Central Rules and Model Standing Orders notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. Code on Social Security, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. OSH Code, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; final Rules are awaited.   Note for Karnataka Manufacturers Since labour falls on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, both Central and State rules apply and operate concurrently. For establishments where the State Government is the 'appropriate government' (which includes most private manufacturing units in Karnataka), State rules govern procedural matters. The Central Rules provide the substantive framework and serve as the baseline reference for States finalising their own rules. Karnataka manufacturers should continue monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notifications under the OSH Code and SS Code. 1. The Code on Wages, 2019 Overview The Wage Code consolidates four earlier statutes, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act 1976. It establishes a uniform definition of wages applicable across all four Labour Codes, introduces universal minimum wage coverage, and introduces a statutory cap on excluded allowances under the definition of wages that has immediate payroll implications for manufacturers. Key Provisions The 50% Wage Rule Section 2(y) of the Wage Code defines 'wages' to include basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. If other allowances such as, HRA, conveyance, special allowances, food coupons, mobile recharge, and similar items together exceed 50% of total remuneration, the excess is deemed wages. The practical effect is that excluded components of remuneration cannot exceed 50% of total remuneration for the purpose of wage computation and thus the wage base for computation of statutory benefits would be at a minimum of 50% of the entire remuneration.  This directly increases the base on which PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime are calculated, materially raising the statutory employment cost for most manufacturers operating legacy salary structures. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs explained that in-kind benefits under terms of employment such as food coupons, ration items, and mobile recharges where such benefits are expressed or implied may constitute ‘remuneration in kind’ for the purpose of 50% calculation under the definition of wages, but only up to 15% of total wages is counted toward the wages figure, with any excess treated as allowances. Annual performance-linked payments that are not part of the regular remuneration structure are excluded from the wage definition under the final Rules. Universal Minimum Wage The Wage Code removes the old concept of 'scheduled employments,' under which minimum wage protection applied only to notified categories of work. Every worker in every sector is now covered. Karnataka structures minimum wages by skill category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, and highly skilled) and geographic zone (Zone I covering specified urban areas including BBMP limits, Zone II covering other notified urban areas, Zone III covering district headquarters not falling within Zones I and II, and Zone IV covering all remaining areas of the State). Variable Dearness Allowance (“VDA”) is revised twice yearly based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers, with Karnataka's most recent revision effective from 1 April 2026. Equal Pay and Bonus The Wage Code mandates equal remuneration for equal work irrespective of gender, carrying the principle of the erstwhile Equal Remuneration Act 1976 forward with statutory force. The Wage Code also consolidates the bonus framework previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act 1965: workers who complete at least 30 days of work in an accounting year remain eligible for bonus, further the rules clarify that where contract labour is engaged through a contractor, the principal employer bears responsibility contractor default, consistent with contract labour compliance principles. The Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The Wage Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, operationalise the Code's substantive provisions. Key features for manufacturers are: Minimum wages and VDA: Fixation and revision framework for minimum wages is prescribed, with VDA to be revised twice a year based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers. Overtime Statutory cap: The Rules retain the statutory framework of an 8-hour working day and a 48-hour working week. A worker cannot be required or permitted to work overtime in excess of 144 hours in any quarter. In addition, the Rules prescribe mandatory rest intervals and regulate the “spread-over” of working hours, i.e., the total period between the commencement and cessation of work, inclusive of rest intervals. Overtime calculation: Where workers perform overtime beyond prescribed working hour limits under applicable law, overtime wages are payable at twice the ordinary rate of wages, payable at the end of each wage period. For rounding purposes, 15–30 minutes of overtime counts as 30 minutes; more than 30 minutes counts as a full hour. Daily wage computation: For monthly-paid workers, the daily wage is calculated as 1/26th of the monthly wage, a formula relevant for overtime, leave encashment, and gratuity purposes. Digital compliance: Employers may maintain wage registers, wage slips, overtime records, attendance registers, and notices in electronic formats. Records must be preserved for five years. Principal employer bonus liability: The Rules recognises the liability of the principal employer to ensure minimum statutory bonus is paid to contract workers where a contractor defaults. Standardised formats: Formats for wage registers, wage slips, salary registers, attendance registers, and employee registers have been standardised and prescribed. Nomination framework: A formal nomination framework for employees with respect to wage-linked entitlements has been introduced.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - Wage Code Karnataka issued draft Wage Rules in January 2026. Conduct an immediate payroll audit to ensure wages constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for all categories of workers. Restructure CTC bands to comply, and recompute PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases accordingly. Update wage registers and wage slip to the prescribed digital formats. Note that certain in-kind benefits capable of monetary valuation may need to be considered while applying the 50% wage threshold. 2. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Overview The IR Code consolidates three foundational statutes: the Trade Unions Act 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It introduces meaningful changes to standing orders, dispute resolution, collective bargaining, and retrenchment thresholds and is accompanied by the newly notified Model Standing Orders 2026 specifically covering the manufacturing sector. Key Provisions Standing Orders - Raised Threshold and Model Orders Under the old framework, industrial establishments employing 100 or more workers were required to frame and certify standing orders. The IR Code raises this threshold to 300 workers, giving small and mid-sized manufacturing units the flexibility to govern service conditions through employment contracts, HR policies and internal service rules rather than formally certified standing orders. A Karnataka-specific note: IT and ITES establishments in the state have historically held a conditional exemption from the standing orders requirement, most recently extended until June 2029. The continued operation of existing Karnataka IT/ITES exemptions may depend on transitional notifications and fresh exemptions issued under the IR Code framework. Retrenchment, Layoff and Closure The threshold for prior government approval before retrenchment, layoff, or closure rises from 100 to 300 workers. Establishments below this threshold may restructure their workforce without government permission, subject to prescribed notice periods and compensation obligations. For each worker retrenched, the employer is required to contribute an amount equivalent to 15 days of last-drawn wages to the Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days of retrenchment, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government. Fixed-Term Employment The IR Code formally recognises fixed-term employment (FTE) as a distinct engagement category. Fixed-term employees are entitled to statutory benefits, including PF, ESI, and gratuity proportionate to the duration of their fixed-term engagement, without the conventional five-year qualifying requirement, on a par with permanent workers. Contracts expiring by their terms do not attract retrenchment compensation obligations, though early termination by the employer may, depending on the facts attract retrenchment-related obligations. Trade Union Recognition A union commanding at least 51% membership in an establishment may be designated the sole Negotiating Union with collective bargaining rights. Where no union reaches this threshold, a Negotiating Council comprising representatives of all unions with at least 20% membership is constituted. This rationalises the historically fragmented multi-union landscape in Karnataka's larger manufacturing centres. Dispute Resolution The IR Code establishes time-bound adjudication mechanisms. Workers may approach the Industrial Tribunal directly after 45 days of failed conciliation. Strikes and lockouts require 14 days advance notice. Critically, one of the other major changes brought about to the definition of ‘strike’ is the inclusion of concerted casual leave by 50% or more workers employed in an industry. The Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 and Model Standing Orders 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The IR Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural framework for key provisions. The accompanying Model Standing Orders 2026, separately notified for the manufacturing sector, are particularly significant such as: Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC): Mandatory for establishments with 20 or more workers. GRC is a mechanism for resolving individual employee grievances at the workplace level. Committees must have equal employer and worker representation, not exceeding 10 members in total, and must include adequate representation of women workers. Works committees: works committee are mandatory for every industrial establishment employing 100 or more workers, in order to promote day to day cooperation between employers and workers. Works Committee may consist of up to 20 members, with worker representatives not less than employer representatives, ensuring balanced participation in matters of collective workplace interest. Manufacturing Sector: The Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector classify workers into categories including permanent, temporary, apprentice, probationer, badli, fixed-term, and casual workers. They prescribe rules on attendance, leave, shift work, misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings. Compared to the 1946 framework, recognise the Internal Complaints Committees for sexual harassment related complaints and grievance redressal committees under the IR Code. Digital worker records: The new standing orders require workers' records to include mobile number, email address, ESI number, gratuity nominee, and training history, reflecting a shift to digitised employment records. Lay-off and retrenchment applications: The Rules delegate authority to Joint Secretary-level officers to examine applications for lay-off, retrenchment, and closure in establishments where the Central Government is the appropriate government. Union recognition and election procedures: Digital processes are prescribed for conciliation proceedings, notices, and election procedures for worker representatives. Settlement agreements: Provisions for the form and binding nature of collective agreements, effective for up to three years, are set out in the Rules.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - IR Code Central IR Code Rules are now in force. Establishments with 300 or more workers must frame standing orders aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Establishments with over 20 workers must constitute Grievance Redressal Committees immediately. Review and formalise trade union recognition strategy with IR Code requirements. 3. The Code on Social Security, 2020 Overview The SS Code consolidates nine statutes, most notably the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. It is the Code with the broadest structural ambition, extending social security coverage to gig and platform workers, unorganised sector employees, inter-state migrants, and other categories previously excluded from the formal social security net. For manufacturers, its most immediate implications flow from the redefined wage definition and revised gratuity framework for fixed term employees. Key Provisions Wage Redefinition - Cascading Impact on PF, ESI, and Gratuity The SS Code adopts the same definition of 'wages' as the Wage Code. This has cascading implications for statutory contributions. The ESIC clarified through circulars in December 2025 that the new wage definition must be applied in computing ESI contributions, and that employees previously excluded from ESI coverage due salary structuring practices may now fall within the scheme. Employers should reassess their entire workforce database for contribution recalculation. Gratuity - Extended to Fixed-Term Workers and New Categories Fixed-term employees are entitled to gratuity proportionate to the period of service rendered, even where they do not complete the conventional five-year qualifying period applicable to regular employees. The SS Code also recognises applicability of gratuity provisions to piece-rate workers, seasonal workers, and disabled workers. The current ceiling of ₹20 lakhs continues to apply until modified by the Central Government. Under the SS Code, employers (other than government-controlled establishments) are required to obtain compulsory gratuity insurance, the date for this obligation is yet to be notified by the appropriate government, but manufacturers should begin identifying and engaging approved insurers now. Maternity Benefits The SS Code carries forward the protections of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Women employees who have worked for at least 80 days in the previous 12 months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery are entitled to maternity benefits including paid leave, creche access, and nursing breaks. Principal Employer Liability for Contract Labour The SS Code retains principal employer liability. Where a contractor fails to make PF or ESI contributions for its contract workers, the principal employer is jointly and severally liable. In the event of a business transfer, the transferee employer is also jointly liable with the transferor for unpaid social security dues, a provision highly relevant for manufacturers engaged in mergers, acquisitions, or plant transfers. Gig and Platform Workers For the first time, gig and platform workers have formal legal recognition under the SS Code. Aggregators must contribute 1–2% of their annual turnover (capped at 5% of total payments to gig workers) toward a dedicated Social Security Fund for such workers. This provision is primarily relevant to manufacturers engaging technology-platform-based logistics or delivery services, and to establishments that classify portions of their workforce through digital platforms. The Code on Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The SS Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, were developed under Sections 154, 155, 158, and 159 of the Code on Social Security. They operationalise procedures across multiple areas which are as follows: Gig and platform worker registration: The Rules prescribe procedures for the registration of gig and platform workers with social security organisations. Eligibility conditions and registration procedures are prescribed under the Rules. The rate and manner of aggregator contributions remain to be notified separately by the Central Government. ESI contributions: The Rules provide procedures for computing and depositing Employees' State Insurance contributions under the new wage definition, aligning with ESIC's December 2025 circulars. Gratuity: The Rules clarify that gratuity for fixed-term employees accrues on a pro-rata basis after one year's service. Any subsequent period in excess of six months is rounded up to a full year for the purpose of gratuity calculation. Annual performance-linked payments not forming part of regular remuneration are excluded from the gratuity wage base. Crèche facilities: Establishments with 50 or more employees must provide and maintain a crèche for children under six years, situated within one kilometre of the workplace, or pay monthly crèche allowance of at least ₹500 per child for up to two children per employee. Advance gratuity applications: The Rules permit advance submission of gratuity applications where the date of retirement or cessation of employment is known in advance, removing the need for employees to claim retrospectively. Advance gratuity applications: Unified registration: All establishments, regardless of workforce size, must register electronically with the Central Government's unified social security registration portal. Existing EPF and ESI registrations remain valid during the transition. Business transfer liability: The Rules set out procedures for joint liability of transferor and transferee employers for unpaid social security dues in business transfers. Actions under previous rules: The Rules confirm that actions validly taken under the previously repealed legislation, including registrations, filings, and contribution payments, remain valid and effective.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - SS Code Review and reassess all PF and ESI contributions under the new wage definition for the entire workforce. Identify fixed-term workers who have completed one year and calculate gratuity based on period of service accruals. Ensure the crèche obligation is assessed, any establishment with 50 or more employees must provide a crèche or pay the ₹500 monthly allowance. Begin exploring compulsory gratuity insurance products with approved insurers in anticipation of the date of notification by the appropriate government. Audit all contractor agreements for principal employer liability exposure. 4. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 Overview The OSH Code is the Labour Code with the most direct operational impact on factory floors. It consolidates 13 statutes, most notably the Factories Act 1948, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979, the Building and Other Construction Workers Act 1996, and eight others into a single, unified compliance framework. It consolidates multiple sector-specific labour and safety statutes into a unified framework, with a consolidated framework of registrations, licences, returns, and inspection obligations. Key Provisions Revised Factory Thresholds The threshold for coverage as a 'factory' is raised from 10 workers (power-using premises) and 20 workers (non-power premises) under the Factories Act 1948, to 20 workers (power-using) and 40 workers (non-power) under the OSH Code. This reduces the number of smaller establishments falling within the definition of ‘factory’ under the Code. Establishments newly crossing these thresholds must implement all applicable safety and welfare requirements. Single Registration, Licence, and Annual Return The OSH Code's most operationally significant ease-of-doing-business reform is the replacement of multiple registrations and licences with a single unified framework consolidated licensing framework intended to streamline factory and contract labour compliances, and one consolidated annual return. The licence is valid for five years. This is already being integrated through Karnataka's Karmika Spandana portal for establishments where Karnataka is the appropriate government. Core Activity Restrictions on Contract Labour The OSH Code introduces a clear definition of 'core business activities' and places restrictions on engagement of contract labour in notified core activities, subject to specified exceptions. Three exceptions apply: where the work is customarily done by contractors in that industry; where the activity does not require full-time workers for the major portion of working hours; or where a sudden increase in workload of the core activity must be handled within a specified time. In this context, Karnataka's manufacturers, particularly in sectors with deep contract labour dependencies must carefully map their workforce arrangements against this framework. The contractor licence threshold has also been raised: contractors employing fewer than 50 contract workers no longer require a licence under the OSH Code, up from the earlier threshold of 20 workers under the Contract Labour Act. This provides relief for smaller sub-contractors engaged by manufacturers. Women Workers - Night Shifts The OSH Code removes the blanket prohibition on women working night shifts that existed under the Factories Act. Women may now work before 6 AM and after 7 PM in any establishment, subject to their written consent, and provided the employer has put in place documented safety measures including secure transport arrangements, adequate lighting, CCTV surveillance in specified areas, security personnel on site, well-lit washrooms, and drinking water facilities. In this context, Karnataka's garment, electronics, and pharmaceutical manufacturing sectors, which employ large numbers of women, this enables 24-hour operations with corresponding safety infrastructure obligations. Annual Health Check-ups Annual medical examinations are mandated for workers in specified categories. Karnataka's draft OSH rules propose that these examinations apply to workers over 40 years of age. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs indicate that where Central and State rules differ on the age threshold, the applicable rules depend on whether the Central or State Government is the appropriate government for the establishment in question. Inter-State Migrant Workers Inter-state migrant workers shall become eligible for journey allowance for round-trip travel to their home state once every 12 months, after completing 180 days of work. This is particularly relevant for Karnataka's construction and manufacturing sectors, which rely significantly on migrant labour from other states. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The OSH Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural machinery for the Code's provisions. For manufacturing companies, the most significant elements are: Appointment letters: Mandatory issuance of appointment letters to all workers is prescribed. Workers who have not previously received appointment letters are required to be issued them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. The format and prescribed particulars for appointment letters are set out in the Rules. Registration and cessation: Forms for registration of establishments and cessation of operations are prescribed. The Rules also operationalise the consolidated licensing framework covering both factory operations and contract labour. Working hours and overtime: The Rules retain the 48-hour weekly cap. Daily working hours, intervals, and spread-over periods for different classes of establishments and workers are to be notified separately by the appropriate government. Consent for overtime work is mandatory. The framework permits flexible distribution of working hours subject to prescribed daily and weekly limits, overtime requirements, and approval conditions. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Where contract workers are engaged at the principal employer's premises, the principal employer must provide basic facilities including toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, and crèche. Other entitlements remain the contractor's responsibility. Contract labour grievances relating to health, working conditions, or wages must be addressed by the principal employer within one month, failing which they must be escalated to the Inspector-cum-Facilitator. Night shift duties for women employees: The Rules prescribe mandatory employer duties for women working night shifts, including obtaining prior written consent, providing safe transportation, ensuring CCTV surveillance in specified areas, and providing washroom and drinking water facilities. These requirements must be documented. National Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board: The Rules operationalise the constitution and functioning of the National OSH Advisory Board, which sets mandatory national standards for occupational safety. A single Board replaces the multiple sector-specific advisory boards that existed under the 13 repealed statutes. Inter-state migrant worker portal: The Rules operationalise a dedicated portal for registration and tracking of inter-state migrant workers, facilitating the journey allowance and social security entitlements of this workforce. Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework: The traditional inspection framework is replaced by an Inspector-cum-Facilitator model under a web-based, randomised inspection scheme. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework emphasises compliance assistance alongside inspection and enforcement functions. First-time non-compliances may be subject to advisory action and an opportunity to rectify before penalties are imposed. Safety Committees: Safety Committees are mandatory for establishments with 500 or more workers. Qualified Safety Officers must be appointed in specified categories of establishments, with their qualifications, duties, and service conditions prescribed in the Rules. Accident and disease reporting: Procedures for prompt reporting of accidents, dangerous occurrences, and occupational diseases to the prescribed authorities are set out in the Rules. Employers must take immediate corrective action upon being notified of unsafe conditions.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - OSH Code Draft Karnataka OSH Code Rules were published in January 2026; final State rules are pending. In the interim, the Central OSH Rules provide the operative framework for most substantive compliance obligations. Issue appointment letters to all workers within three months. Verify factory registration status and consolidate into the single licence framework. Implement night shift safety protocols for women workers. Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with over 500 workers. Prepare for possible health check-up requirements proposed under the Karnataka draft OSH Rules, including for workers above prescribed age thresholds. 5. Karnataka's Position Karnataka's draft OSH Code rules, published in January 2026, include state-specific provisions including annual health examinations for workers over 40, online registration and licensing through the Karmika Spandana portal, and consolidated safety standards across factory, construction, and plantation sectors. The State Safety Committee and Safety Officer requirements are set out in the draft rules. Karnataka's manufacturing hubs such as, Bengaluru, Tumkuru, Dharwad, Belagavi, and Hubballi-Dharwad, are home to diverse industrial clusters operating under different sector-specific minimum wage notifications, and manufacturers must track both central and state notifications closely. Karnataka's zone-wise minimum wage structure (Zones I through IV) and bi-annual VDA revisions continue to apply under the new framework. Manufacturers with operations across multiple states should note that the Central Rules now provide a clear national baseline, but state-specific procedural rules are awaited. A factory in Bengaluru and one in Chennai may, for some months in 2026, operate under differing procedural regimes even where substantive Code provisions are identical. 6. Enhanced Penalties Under the Labour Codes The Labour Codes generally prescribe significantly higher penalties for non-compliance compared to the repealed legislation. Fines range from ₹50,000 to ₹10,00,000 depending on the nature and gravity of the violation. Repeat offences attract enhanced penalties and may, in serious cases, attract imprisonment. In business transfers, transferor and transferee are jointly liable for unpaid social security dues, a provision relevant for manufacturers pursuing M&A activity. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator model introduced under the Codes is designed to prioritise compliance guidance over punitive enforcement, particularly for first-time violations. However, the higher penalty ceiling means that deliberate or repeated non-compliance carries substantially greater financial risk than under the old framework. 7. Compliance Priorities - A Practical Checklist for Karnataka Manufacturers In light of the four Codes and the Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026, King Stubb & Kasiva recommends that manufacturing companies in Karnataka undertake the following steps as a matter of priority are as follows: Payroll and wage structure audit: Conduct a full payroll review to ensure wages (basic + DA + retaining allowance) constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for every worker category. Assess whether monetisable in-kind benefits may require consideration in the calculation. Review the impact on PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime bases accordingly. Standing orders review: Assess whether your establishment employs 300 or more workers. If so, review and update certified standing orders, where applicable aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Ensure digital worker records include all newly required fields. Grievance Redressal Committees: Establish or review GRCs for all establishments employing 20 or more workers, ensuring adequate women's representation and a maximum of 10 members. Works Committees: Assess applicability of Works Committee requirements for establishments employing 100 or more workers and no more than 20 members in total. Fixed-term employment contracts: If engaging or planning to engage workers on FTE terms, ensure written contracts comply with IR Code requirements, that benefit parity is in place, and that proportional gratuity accruals after one year of service based on period of service rendered are provisioned for in your books. Appointment letters: Issue written appointment letters to all workers. Workers who have not previously received letters must receive them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. Use the prescribed format and include all required particulars. Factory registration consolidation: Verify your establishment's factory registration status under the new thresholds. Move toward the consolidated single-licence framework covering factory and contract labour operations through the Karmika Spandana portal. Contract labour mapping: Map all existing contract labour arrangements against the OSH Code's core activity restrictions. Regularise or restructure arrangements in core activities that do not qualify for an exception. Note the raised contractor licence threshold of 50 workers. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Ensure basic welfare facilities (toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, crèche) are available to contract workers at your premises. Establish a one-month contract labour grievance escalation procedure. Night shift safety protocols for women: For any establishment deploying women before 6 AM or after 7 PM, implement and document the full suite of required safety measures: written consent, secure transport, CCTV, security personnel, lighting, and washroom facilities. Annual health check-ups: Implement annual medical examination programmes for workers over 40 years of age, in alignment with the Karnataka draft OSH Code rules. Crèche obligations: Assess whether your establishment crosses the 50employee threshold. Either provide a crèche within one kilometre of the workplace or pay the ₹500 monthly crèche allowance per child for up to two children per eligible employee. Social security contribution recalculation: Review and Reassess EPF and ESI contributions under the revised wage definition for all workers. Address historical under-contributions in consultation with legal counsel. Update ESI registration and contribution records for newly covered employees where applicable. Gratuity insurance: Initiate identification and onboarding of IRDAI approved gratuity insurance providers, in preparation for the compulsory gratuity insurance requirement under the SS code. Worker Re-Skilling Fund: Where retrenchments are planned, ensure timely deposits of 15 days last-drawn wages per retrenched worker to the National Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 framework. Safety Committees: Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with 500 or more workers. Appoint qualified Safety Officers in categories of establishments prescribed by the Rules. Digital compliance systems: Transition wage registers, muster rolls, attendance records, overtime records, and notices to electronic formats. Ensure records retention systems can preserve data for five years. State rules monitoring: Monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notification of Karnataka OSH Code rules and SS Code rules. Adjust compliance frameworks when State rules are finalised. Inter-state migrant worker registration: Upon notification and operationalisation of the Central Government migrant worker portal, register eligible inter-state migrant workers and incorporate journey allowance entitlements into HR processes. Conclusion The continued operationalisation of the Labour Codes framework through Central Rules and implementation notifications issued in 2026 marks the effective completion of India's legislative labour reform architecture. The substantive framework is now substantially operationalised at the Central level, and Manufacturers in Karnataka, already functioning within the State-level Wage Code and IR Code framework, should approach Labour Code compliance as a present and ongoing operational requirement rather than a future transition exercise. The challenge for manufacturers is real, payroll systems, employment contracts, standing orders, contractor agreements, factory registrations, and safety protocols must all be reviewed against a substantially new framework. The financial implications alone, from recalculated PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases, can be significant, particularly for companies that have historically maintained low wage structures. The opportunity, however, is equally real. Movement toward consolidated registration and licensing frameworks instead of multiple registrations. Digital compliance instead of paper-based registers. Structured FTE arrangements instead of informal contract labour. Clearly defined rules on trade union recognition, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. For manufacturers making long-term investment decisions in Karnataka, a simplified and predictable regulatory environment is a material competitive advantage. Authored by Ankit Chandra, Associate Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva and Contributed by Priyanka Kwatra, Director-Legal, King Stubb and Kasiva.
21 May 2026
Labour and Employment Law

The Four Labour Codes and Their Rules: A Complete Guide for Karnataka's Manufacturing Sector

Incorporating all four sets of Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026, the Model Standing Orders 2026, and Karnataka State Rules.   Introduction On 21 November 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified India's four Labour Codes, the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code); the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (IR Code); the Code on Social Security, 2020 (SS Code); and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code), bringing one of the most sweeping overhauls of Indian employment regulation since Independence into force. These four Codes consolidate 29 Central labour laws into a unified framework, repealing foundational statutes such as the Factories Act 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the EPF and MP Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, the Contract Labour Act 1970, and the Trade Unions Act 1926, among others. On 8 May 2026, the Central Government completed a further landmark step by notifying the final Central Rules under all four Labour Codes this development operationalises nearly all provisions of the new labour framework that fall within the central government’s administrative jurisdiction. The Central Rules are accompanied by the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors. This publication reflects these latest developments in full. For Karnataka's manufacturing sector, encompassing everything from large automotive and aerospace plants to mid-sized garment, pharmaceutical, and precision engineering units across the state, the implications are both immediate and structural. This article explains what the four Codes and their Rules mean in practice, and what manufacturers must do now. Legislative and Rules Status as of 9 May 2026 The Central Government has notified Rules under all four Labour Codes, substantially operationalising the central labour law framework, while state level implementation continues to evolve. Karnataka subsequently published draft rules in January 2026 under the Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 to align the State framework with the evolving Labour Codes regime. Following the notification of the Central Rules on 8 May 2026, Karnataka’s final rules under the Codes are still awaited. Current Status Code on Wages, 2019 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; revised Rules are awaited. Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Central Rules and Model Standing Orders notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. Code on Social Security, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka Rules are awaited. OSH Code, 2020 Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026. Karnataka draft Rules were issued in January 2026; final Rules are awaited.   Note for Karnataka Manufacturers Since labour falls on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, both Central and State rules apply and operate concurrently. For establishments where the State Government is the 'appropriate government' (which includes most private manufacturing units in Karnataka), State rules govern procedural matters. The Central Rules provide the substantive framework and serve as the baseline reference for States finalising their own rules. Karnataka manufacturers should continue monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notifications under the OSH Code and SS Code. 1. The Code on Wages, 2019 Overview The Wage Code consolidates four earlier statutes, the Minimum Wages Act 1948, the Payment of Wages Act 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act 1976. It establishes a uniform definition of wages applicable across all four Labour Codes, introduces universal minimum wage coverage, and introduces a statutory cap on excluded allowances under the definition of wages that has immediate payroll implications for manufacturers. Key Provisions The 50% Wage Rule Section 2(y) of the Wage Code defines 'wages' to include basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. If other allowances such as, HRA, conveyance, special allowances, food coupons, mobile recharge, and similar items together exceed 50% of total remuneration, the excess is deemed wages. The practical effect is that excluded components of remuneration cannot exceed 50% of total remuneration for the purpose of wage computation and thus the wage base for computation of statutory benefits would be at a minimum of 50% of the entire remuneration.  This directly increases the base on which PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime are calculated, materially raising the statutory employment cost for most manufacturers operating legacy salary structures. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs explained that in-kind benefits under terms of employment such as food coupons, ration items, and mobile recharges where such benefits are expressed or implied may constitute ‘remuneration in kind’ for the purpose of 50% calculation under the definition of wages, but only up to 15% of total wages is counted toward the wages figure, with any excess treated as allowances. Annual performance-linked payments that are not part of the regular remuneration structure are excluded from the wage definition under the final Rules. Universal Minimum Wage The Wage Code removes the old concept of 'scheduled employments,' under which minimum wage protection applied only to notified categories of work. Every worker in every sector is now covered. Karnataka structures minimum wages by skill category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, and highly skilled) and geographic zone (Zone I covering specified urban areas including BBMP limits, Zone II covering other notified urban areas, Zone III covering district headquarters not falling within Zones I and II, and Zone IV covering all remaining areas of the State). Variable Dearness Allowance (“VDA”) is revised twice yearly based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers, with Karnataka's most recent revision effective from 1 April 2026. Equal Pay and Bonus The Wage Code mandates equal remuneration for equal work irrespective of gender, carrying the principle of the erstwhile Equal Remuneration Act 1976 forward with statutory force. The Wage Code also consolidates the bonus framework previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act 1965: workers who complete at least 30 days of work in an accounting year remain eligible for bonus, further the rules clarify that where contract labour is engaged through a contractor, the principal employer bears responsibility contractor default, consistent with contract labour compliance principles. The Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The Wage Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, operationalise the Code's substantive provisions. Key features for manufacturers are: Minimum wages and VDA: Fixation and revision framework for minimum wages is prescribed, with VDA to be revised twice a year based on the Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers. Overtime Statutory cap: The Rules retain the statutory framework of an 8-hour working day and a 48-hour working week. A worker cannot be required or permitted to work overtime in excess of 144 hours in any quarter. In addition, the Rules prescribe mandatory rest intervals and regulate the “spread-over” of working hours, i.e., the total period between the commencement and cessation of work, inclusive of rest intervals. Overtime calculation: Where workers perform overtime beyond prescribed working hour limits under applicable law, overtime wages are payable at twice the ordinary rate of wages, payable at the end of each wage period. For rounding purposes, 15–30 minutes of overtime counts as 30 minutes; more than 30 minutes counts as a full hour. Daily wage computation: For monthly-paid workers, the daily wage is calculated as 1/26th of the monthly wage, a formula relevant for overtime, leave encashment, and gratuity purposes. Digital compliance: Employers may maintain wage registers, wage slips, overtime records, attendance registers, and notices in electronic formats. Records must be preserved for five years. Principal employer bonus liability: The Rules recognises the liability of the principal employer to ensure minimum statutory bonus is paid to contract workers where a contractor defaults. Standardised formats: Formats for wage registers, wage slips, salary registers, attendance registers, and employee registers have been standardised and prescribed. Nomination framework: A formal nomination framework for employees with respect to wage-linked entitlements has been introduced.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - Wage Code Karnataka issued draft Wage Rules in January 2026. Conduct an immediate payroll audit to ensure wages constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for all categories of workers. Restructure CTC bands to comply, and recompute PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases accordingly. Update wage registers and wage slip to the prescribed digital formats. Note that certain in-kind benefits capable of monetary valuation may need to be considered while applying the 50% wage threshold. 2. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Overview The IR Code consolidates three foundational statutes: the Trade Unions Act 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It introduces meaningful changes to standing orders, dispute resolution, collective bargaining, and retrenchment thresholds and is accompanied by the newly notified Model Standing Orders 2026 specifically covering the manufacturing sector. Key Provisions Standing Orders - Raised Threshold and Model Orders Under the old framework, industrial establishments employing 100 or more workers were required to frame and certify standing orders. The IR Code raises this threshold to 300 workers, giving small and mid-sized manufacturing units the flexibility to govern service conditions through employment contracts, HR policies and internal service rules rather than formally certified standing orders. A Karnataka-specific note: IT and ITES establishments in the state have historically held a conditional exemption from the standing orders requirement, most recently extended until June 2029. The continued operation of existing Karnataka IT/ITES exemptions may depend on transitional notifications and fresh exemptions issued under the IR Code framework. Retrenchment, Layoff and Closure The threshold for prior government approval before retrenchment, layoff, or closure rises from 100 to 300 workers. Establishments below this threshold may restructure their workforce without government permission, subject to prescribed notice periods and compensation obligations. For each worker retrenched, the employer is required to contribute an amount equivalent to 15 days of last-drawn wages to the Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days of retrenchment, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government. Fixed-Term Employment The IR Code formally recognises fixed-term employment (FTE) as a distinct engagement category. Fixed-term employees are entitled to statutory benefits, including PF, ESI, and gratuity proportionate to the duration of their fixed-term engagement, without the conventional five-year qualifying requirement, on a par with permanent workers. Contracts expiring by their terms do not attract retrenchment compensation obligations, though early termination by the employer may, depending on the facts attract retrenchment-related obligations. Trade Union Recognition A union commanding at least 51% membership in an establishment may be designated the sole Negotiating Union with collective bargaining rights. Where no union reaches this threshold, a Negotiating Council comprising representatives of all unions with at least 20% membership is constituted. This rationalises the historically fragmented multi-union landscape in Karnataka's larger manufacturing centres. Dispute Resolution The IR Code establishes time-bound adjudication mechanisms. Workers may approach the Industrial Tribunal directly after 45 days of failed conciliation. Strikes and lockouts require 14 days advance notice. Critically, one of the other major changes brought about to the definition of ‘strike’ is the inclusion of concerted casual leave by 50% or more workers employed in an industry. The Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 and Model Standing Orders 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The IR Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural framework for key provisions. The accompanying Model Standing Orders 2026, separately notified for the manufacturing sector, are particularly significant such as: Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC): Mandatory for establishments with 20 or more workers. GRC is a mechanism for resolving individual employee grievances at the workplace level. Committees must have equal employer and worker representation, not exceeding 10 members in total, and must include adequate representation of women workers. Works committees: works committee are mandatory for every industrial establishment employing 100 or more workers, in order to promote day to day cooperation between employers and workers. Works Committee may consist of up to 20 members, with worker representatives not less than employer representatives, ensuring balanced participation in matters of collective workplace interest. Manufacturing Sector: The Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector classify workers into categories including permanent, temporary, apprentice, probationer, badli, fixed-term, and casual workers. They prescribe rules on attendance, leave, shift work, misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings. Compared to the 1946 framework, recognise the Internal Complaints Committees for sexual harassment related complaints and grievance redressal committees under the IR Code. Digital worker records: The new standing orders require workers' records to include mobile number, email address, ESI number, gratuity nominee, and training history, reflecting a shift to digitised employment records. Lay-off and retrenchment applications: The Rules delegate authority to Joint Secretary-level officers to examine applications for lay-off, retrenchment, and closure in establishments where the Central Government is the appropriate government. Union recognition and election procedures: Digital processes are prescribed for conciliation proceedings, notices, and election procedures for worker representatives. Settlement agreements: Provisions for the form and binding nature of collective agreements, effective for up to three years, are set out in the Rules.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - IR Code Central IR Code Rules are now in force. Establishments with 300 or more workers must frame standing orders aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Establishments with over 20 workers must constitute Grievance Redressal Committees immediately. Review and formalise trade union recognition strategy with IR Code requirements. 3. The Code on Social Security, 2020 Overview The SS Code consolidates nine statutes, most notably the EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, the ESI Act 1948, the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, and the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. It is the Code with the broadest structural ambition, extending social security coverage to gig and platform workers, unorganised sector employees, inter-state migrants, and other categories previously excluded from the formal social security net. For manufacturers, its most immediate implications flow from the redefined wage definition and revised gratuity framework for fixed term employees. Key Provisions Wage Redefinition - Cascading Impact on PF, ESI, and Gratuity The SS Code adopts the same definition of 'wages' as the Wage Code. This has cascading implications for statutory contributions. The ESIC clarified through circulars in December 2025 that the new wage definition must be applied in computing ESI contributions, and that employees previously excluded from ESI coverage due salary structuring practices may now fall within the scheme. Employers should reassess their entire workforce database for contribution recalculation. Gratuity - Extended to Fixed-Term Workers and New Categories Fixed-term employees are entitled to gratuity proportionate to the period of service rendered, even where they do not complete the conventional five-year qualifying period applicable to regular employees. The SS Code also recognises applicability of gratuity provisions to piece-rate workers, seasonal workers, and disabled workers. The current ceiling of ₹20 lakhs continues to apply until modified by the Central Government. Under the SS Code, employers (other than government-controlled establishments) are required to obtain compulsory gratuity insurance, the date for this obligation is yet to be notified by the appropriate government, but manufacturers should begin identifying and engaging approved insurers now. Maternity Benefits The SS Code carries forward the protections of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961. Women employees who have worked for at least 80 days in the previous 12 months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery are entitled to maternity benefits including paid leave, creche access, and nursing breaks. Principal Employer Liability for Contract Labour The SS Code retains principal employer liability. Where a contractor fails to make PF or ESI contributions for its contract workers, the principal employer is jointly and severally liable. In the event of a business transfer, the transferee employer is also jointly liable with the transferor for unpaid social security dues, a provision highly relevant for manufacturers engaged in mergers, acquisitions, or plant transfers. Gig and Platform Workers For the first time, gig and platform workers have formal legal recognition under the SS Code. Aggregators must contribute 1–2% of their annual turnover (capped at 5% of total payments to gig workers) toward a dedicated Social Security Fund for such workers. This provision is primarily relevant to manufacturers engaging technology-platform-based logistics or delivery services, and to establishments that classify portions of their workforce through digital platforms. The Code on Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The SS Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, were developed under Sections 154, 155, 158, and 159 of the Code on Social Security. They operationalise procedures across multiple areas which are as follows: Gig and platform worker registration: The Rules prescribe procedures for the registration of gig and platform workers with social security organisations. Eligibility conditions and registration procedures are prescribed under the Rules. The rate and manner of aggregator contributions remain to be notified separately by the Central Government. ESI contributions: The Rules provide procedures for computing and depositing Employees' State Insurance contributions under the new wage definition, aligning with ESIC's December 2025 circulars. Gratuity: The Rules clarify that gratuity for fixed-term employees accrues on a pro-rata basis after one year's service. Any subsequent period in excess of six months is rounded up to a full year for the purpose of gratuity calculation. Annual performance-linked payments not forming part of regular remuneration are excluded from the gratuity wage base. Crèche facilities: Establishments with 50 or more employees must provide and maintain a crèche for children under six years, situated within one kilometre of the workplace, or pay monthly crèche allowance of at least ₹500 per child for up to two children per employee. Advance gratuity applications: The Rules permit advance submission of gratuity applications where the date of retirement or cessation of employment is known in advance, removing the need for employees to claim retrospectively. Advance gratuity applications: Unified registration: All establishments, regardless of workforce size, must register electronically with the Central Government's unified social security registration portal. Existing EPF and ESI registrations remain valid during the transition. Business transfer liability: The Rules set out procedures for joint liability of transferor and transferee employers for unpaid social security dues in business transfers. Actions under previous rules: The Rules confirm that actions validly taken under the previously repealed legislation, including registrations, filings, and contribution payments, remain valid and effective.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - SS Code Review and reassess all PF and ESI contributions under the new wage definition for the entire workforce. Identify fixed-term workers who have completed one year and calculate gratuity based on period of service accruals. Ensure the crèche obligation is assessed, any establishment with 50 or more employees must provide a crèche or pay the ₹500 monthly allowance. Begin exploring compulsory gratuity insurance products with approved insurers in anticipation of the date of notification by the appropriate government. Audit all contractor agreements for principal employer liability exposure. 4. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 Overview The OSH Code is the Labour Code with the most direct operational impact on factory floors. It consolidates 13 statutes, most notably the Factories Act 1948, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979, the Building and Other Construction Workers Act 1996, and eight others into a single, unified compliance framework. It consolidates multiple sector-specific labour and safety statutes into a unified framework, with a consolidated framework of registrations, licences, returns, and inspection obligations. Key Provisions Revised Factory Thresholds The threshold for coverage as a 'factory' is raised from 10 workers (power-using premises) and 20 workers (non-power premises) under the Factories Act 1948, to 20 workers (power-using) and 40 workers (non-power) under the OSH Code. This reduces the number of smaller establishments falling within the definition of ‘factory’ under the Code. Establishments newly crossing these thresholds must implement all applicable safety and welfare requirements. Single Registration, Licence, and Annual Return The OSH Code's most operationally significant ease-of-doing-business reform is the replacement of multiple registrations and licences with a single unified framework consolidated licensing framework intended to streamline factory and contract labour compliances, and one consolidated annual return. The licence is valid for five years. This is already being integrated through Karnataka's Karmika Spandana portal for establishments where Karnataka is the appropriate government. Core Activity Restrictions on Contract Labour The OSH Code introduces a clear definition of 'core business activities' and places restrictions on engagement of contract labour in notified core activities, subject to specified exceptions. Three exceptions apply: where the work is customarily done by contractors in that industry; where the activity does not require full-time workers for the major portion of working hours; or where a sudden increase in workload of the core activity must be handled within a specified time. In this context, Karnataka's manufacturers, particularly in sectors with deep contract labour dependencies must carefully map their workforce arrangements against this framework. The contractor licence threshold has also been raised: contractors employing fewer than 50 contract workers no longer require a licence under the OSH Code, up from the earlier threshold of 20 workers under the Contract Labour Act. This provides relief for smaller sub-contractors engaged by manufacturers. Women Workers - Night Shifts The OSH Code removes the blanket prohibition on women working night shifts that existed under the Factories Act. Women may now work before 6 AM and after 7 PM in any establishment, subject to their written consent, and provided the employer has put in place documented safety measures including secure transport arrangements, adequate lighting, CCTV surveillance in specified areas, security personnel on site, well-lit washrooms, and drinking water facilities. In this context, Karnataka's garment, electronics, and pharmaceutical manufacturing sectors, which employ large numbers of women, this enables 24-hour operations with corresponding safety infrastructure obligations. Annual Health Check-ups Annual medical examinations are mandated for workers in specified categories. Karnataka's draft OSH rules propose that these examinations apply to workers over 40 years of age. The March 2026 Ministry FAQs indicate that where Central and State rules differ on the age threshold, the applicable rules depend on whether the Central or State Government is the appropriate government for the establishment in question. Inter-State Migrant Workers Inter-state migrant workers shall become eligible for journey allowance for round-trip travel to their home state once every 12 months, after completing 180 days of work. This is particularly relevant for Karnataka's construction and manufacturing sectors, which rely significantly on migrant labour from other states. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 - Notified 8 May 2026 The OSH Code Central Rules, notified on 8 May 2026, address the procedural machinery for the Code's provisions. For manufacturing companies, the most significant elements are: Appointment letters: Mandatory issuance of appointment letters to all workers is prescribed. Workers who have not previously received appointment letters are required to be issued them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. The format and prescribed particulars for appointment letters are set out in the Rules. Registration and cessation: Forms for registration of establishments and cessation of operations are prescribed. The Rules also operationalise the consolidated licensing framework covering both factory operations and contract labour. Working hours and overtime: The Rules retain the 48-hour weekly cap. Daily working hours, intervals, and spread-over periods for different classes of establishments and workers are to be notified separately by the appropriate government. Consent for overtime work is mandatory. The framework permits flexible distribution of working hours subject to prescribed daily and weekly limits, overtime requirements, and approval conditions. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Where contract workers are engaged at the principal employer's premises, the principal employer must provide basic facilities including toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, and crèche. Other entitlements remain the contractor's responsibility. Contract labour grievances relating to health, working conditions, or wages must be addressed by the principal employer within one month, failing which they must be escalated to the Inspector-cum-Facilitator. Night shift duties for women employees: The Rules prescribe mandatory employer duties for women working night shifts, including obtaining prior written consent, providing safe transportation, ensuring CCTV surveillance in specified areas, and providing washroom and drinking water facilities. These requirements must be documented. National Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board: The Rules operationalise the constitution and functioning of the National OSH Advisory Board, which sets mandatory national standards for occupational safety. A single Board replaces the multiple sector-specific advisory boards that existed under the 13 repealed statutes. Inter-state migrant worker portal: The Rules operationalise a dedicated portal for registration and tracking of inter-state migrant workers, facilitating the journey allowance and social security entitlements of this workforce. Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework: The traditional inspection framework is replaced by an Inspector-cum-Facilitator model under a web-based, randomised inspection scheme. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator framework emphasises compliance assistance alongside inspection and enforcement functions. First-time non-compliances may be subject to advisory action and an opportunity to rectify before penalties are imposed. Safety Committees: Safety Committees are mandatory for establishments with 500 or more workers. Qualified Safety Officers must be appointed in specified categories of establishments, with their qualifications, duties, and service conditions prescribed in the Rules. Accident and disease reporting: Procedures for prompt reporting of accidents, dangerous occurrences, and occupational diseases to the prescribed authorities are set out in the Rules. Employers must take immediate corrective action upon being notified of unsafe conditions.   Karnataka Manufacturers' Action Point - OSH Code Draft Karnataka OSH Code Rules were published in January 2026; final State rules are pending. In the interim, the Central OSH Rules provide the operative framework for most substantive compliance obligations. Issue appointment letters to all workers within three months. Verify factory registration status and consolidate into the single licence framework. Implement night shift safety protocols for women workers. Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with over 500 workers. Prepare for possible health check-up requirements proposed under the Karnataka draft OSH Rules, including for workers above prescribed age thresholds. 5. Karnataka's Position Karnataka's draft OSH Code rules, published in January 2026, include state-specific provisions including annual health examinations for workers over 40, online registration and licensing through the Karmika Spandana portal, and consolidated safety standards across factory, construction, and plantation sectors. The State Safety Committee and Safety Officer requirements are set out in the draft rules. Karnataka's manufacturing hubs such as, Bengaluru, Tumkuru, Dharwad, Belagavi, and Hubballi-Dharwad, are home to diverse industrial clusters operating under different sector-specific minimum wage notifications, and manufacturers must track both central and state notifications closely. Karnataka's zone-wise minimum wage structure (Zones I through IV) and bi-annual VDA revisions continue to apply under the new framework. Manufacturers with operations across multiple states should note that the Central Rules now provide a clear national baseline, but state-specific procedural rules are awaited. A factory in Bengaluru and one in Chennai may, for some months in 2026, operate under differing procedural regimes even where substantive Code provisions are identical. 6. Enhanced Penalties Under the Labour Codes The Labour Codes generally prescribe significantly higher penalties for non-compliance compared to the repealed legislation. Fines range from ₹50,000 to ₹10,00,000 depending on the nature and gravity of the violation. Repeat offences attract enhanced penalties and may, in serious cases, attract imprisonment. In business transfers, transferor and transferee are jointly liable for unpaid social security dues, a provision relevant for manufacturers pursuing M&A activity. The Inspector-cum-Facilitator model introduced under the Codes is designed to prioritise compliance guidance over punitive enforcement, particularly for first-time violations. However, the higher penalty ceiling means that deliberate or repeated non-compliance carries substantially greater financial risk than under the old framework. 7. Compliance Priorities - A Practical Checklist for Karnataka Manufacturers In light of the four Codes and the Central Rules notified on 8 May 2026, King Stubb & Kasiva recommends that manufacturing companies in Karnataka undertake the following steps as a matter of priority are as follows: Payroll and wage structure audit: Conduct a full payroll review to ensure wages (basic + DA + retaining allowance) constitute at least 50% of total remuneration for every worker category. Assess whether monetisable in-kind benefits may require consideration in the calculation. Review the impact on PF, ESI, gratuity, bonus, and overtime bases accordingly. Standing orders review: Assess whether your establishment employs 300 or more workers. If so, review and update certified standing orders, where applicable aligned with the Model Standing Orders 2026 for the manufacturing sector within the prescribed six-month window. Ensure digital worker records include all newly required fields. Grievance Redressal Committees: Establish or review GRCs for all establishments employing 20 or more workers, ensuring adequate women's representation and a maximum of 10 members. Works Committees: Assess applicability of Works Committee requirements for establishments employing 100 or more workers and no more than 20 members in total. Fixed-term employment contracts: If engaging or planning to engage workers on FTE terms, ensure written contracts comply with IR Code requirements, that benefit parity is in place, and that proportional gratuity accruals after one year of service based on period of service rendered are provisioned for in your books. Appointment letters: Issue written appointment letters to all workers. Workers who have not previously received letters must receive them within three months of commencement of the OSH Code Central Rules. Use the prescribed format and include all required particulars. Factory registration consolidation: Verify your establishment's factory registration status under the new thresholds. Move toward the consolidated single-licence framework covering factory and contract labour operations through the Karmika Spandana portal. Contract labour mapping: Map all existing contract labour arrangements against the OSH Code's core activity restrictions. Regularise or restructure arrangements in core activities that do not qualify for an exception. Note the raised contractor licence threshold of 50 workers. Principal employer obligations for contract labour: Ensure basic welfare facilities (toilets, washrooms, drinking water, first aid, canteen, crèche) are available to contract workers at your premises. Establish a one-month contract labour grievance escalation procedure. Night shift safety protocols for women: For any establishment deploying women before 6 AM or after 7 PM, implement and document the full suite of required safety measures: written consent, secure transport, CCTV, security personnel, lighting, and washroom facilities. Annual health check-ups: Implement annual medical examination programmes for workers over 40 years of age, in alignment with the Karnataka draft OSH Code rules. Crèche obligations: Assess whether your establishment crosses the 50employee threshold. Either provide a crèche within one kilometre of the workplace or pay the ₹500 monthly crèche allowance per child for up to two children per eligible employee. Social security contribution recalculation: Review and Reassess EPF and ESI contributions under the revised wage definition for all workers. Address historical under-contributions in consultation with legal counsel. Update ESI registration and contribution records for newly covered employees where applicable. Gratuity insurance: Initiate identification and onboarding of IRDAI approved gratuity insurance providers, in preparation for the compulsory gratuity insurance requirement under the SS code. Worker Re-Skilling Fund: Where retrenchments are planned, ensure timely deposits of 15 days last-drawn wages per retrenched worker to the National Worker Re-Skilling Fund within 45 days, subject to the fund and operational mechanism becoming effective upon implementation by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 framework. Safety Committees: Constitute Safety Committees for establishments with 500 or more workers. Appoint qualified Safety Officers in categories of establishments prescribed by the Rules. Digital compliance systems: Transition wage registers, muster rolls, attendance records, overtime records, and notices to electronic formats. Ensure records retention systems can preserve data for five years. State rules monitoring: Monitor the Karnataka Labour Commissioner's Karmika Spandana portal for final notification of Karnataka OSH Code rules and SS Code rules. Adjust compliance frameworks when State rules are finalised. Inter-state migrant worker registration: Upon notification and operationalisation of the Central Government migrant worker portal, register eligible inter-state migrant workers and incorporate journey allowance entitlements into HR processes. Conclusion The continued operationalisation of the Labour Codes framework through Central Rules and implementation notifications issued in 2026 marks the effective completion of India's legislative labour reform architecture. The substantive framework is now substantially operationalised at the Central level, and Manufacturers in Karnataka, already functioning within the State-level Wage Code and IR Code framework, should approach Labour Code compliance as a present and ongoing operational requirement rather than a future transition exercise. The challenge for manufacturers is real, payroll systems, employment contracts, standing orders, contractor agreements, factory registrations, and safety protocols must all be reviewed against a substantially new framework. The financial implications alone, from recalculated PF, ESI, gratuity, and bonus bases, can be significant, particularly for companies that have historically maintained low wage structures. The opportunity, however, is equally real. Movement toward consolidated registration and licensing frameworks instead of multiple registrations. Digital compliance instead of paper-based registers. Structured FTE arrangements instead of informal contract labour. Clearly defined rules on trade union recognition, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. For manufacturers making long-term investment decisions in Karnataka, a simplified and predictable regulatory environment is a material competitive advantage.   Authored by Ankit Chandra, Associate Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva and Contributed by Priyanka Kwatra, Director-Legal, King Stubb and Kasiva.
21 May 2026
Gaming, Technology & Regulatory

INDIA’S ONLINE GAMING RESET: DECODING PROGA AND THE 2026 RULES

INTRODUCTION April 22, 2026 marks the day India's online gaming sector stepped out of the grey zone and into a comprehensive, centralised regulatory framework. On this date, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) issued a series of Gazette notifications[1] that together operationalise the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025[2] (“PROGA” or the “Act”) and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026[3] (“Rules”). Both come into force on May 1, 2026. Taken together, these notifications do more than bring a statute into effect- they establish, for the first time, a unified and centralised regulatory framework governing online gaming in India. For online gaming service providers (“OGSPs”), investors, boards, and financial intermediaries, this is not an incremental shift - it is a structural reset. In a single regulatory move, the government: (i) notified May 1st, 2026 as the commencement date; (ii) constituted the Online Gaming Authority of India (“OGAI”); (iii) empowered cyber cell officers to investigate offences; and (iv) notified the Rules that give operational effect to PROGA. STATE SPECIFIC LAWS VIS-À-VIS PROGA Until PROGA, India had no unified national framework for online gaming. Legislative power over “betting and gambling” sat with the states under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, producing a patchwork of colonial-era statutes and inconsistent judicial interpretation. The foundational Public Gambling Act, 1867 - a law regulating physical gaming houses - was adopted by most states, leaving online gaming in a legal grey zone navigated through the skill-chance distinction: platforms offering rummy, fantasy sports, and poker operated under judicial recognition of their skill-game character, though that position was never uniformly settled. States moved independently: Nagaland licensed online skill games; Sikkim licensed casino and skill games within its territory; Tamil Nadu banned real-money games of chance online[4]; Telangana and Andhra Pradesh imposed blanket prohibitions on all staked games including skill games; and Haryana extended gambling prohibitions expressly to online mediums in 2025. MeitY's 2023 attempt at a central framework through IT Rules amendments - proposing self-regulatory bodies to verify real-money games - never became operational, as no self-regulatory body was ever registered.[5] It is pertinent to note that multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of PROGA have been filed across various High Courts, which have since been consolidated before the Supreme Court, and the final judgment on the issue remains awaited. WHAT THE FRAMEWORK ACTUALLY DOES PROGA draws a hard-three-way line. E-sports - competitive, multiplayer, skill-based games recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“NSGA”) - are permitted and subject to mandatory registration. Prize money for performance is expressly allowed. Spectator betting in connection with an e-sport, however, is not - and a fantasy league or betting product built around an e-sport event is almost certainly an online money game under the Act's definition. Online Social Games - recreational or educational games that charge only a subscription or one-time access fee, with no expectation of monetary return - are generally permitted. Registration is required only if the Central Government specifically notifies a category, or if the OGAI determines during a classification review that a particular game requires it. Online Money Games - any game, skill-based or not, where a player pays fees or deposits money in expectation of monetary or equivalent return - are flatly prohibited. There is no licence, no tolerance window, no skill-based exception. The prohibition is absolute, and it applies from May 1st, 2026. PROGA deems offering, advertising, and facilitating payments for online money games cognisable and non-bailable criminal offences. Imprisonment extends to three years and fines to INR 1 crore for offering and facilitating payment flows, and two years and INR 50 lakh for advertising. Repeat offenders face mandatory minimum sentences. THE CLASSIFICATION TRAP The characterisation of a game as a “social game” or an “online money game” is not left up to the discretion of the OGSP. Per the Rules, this determination is to be undertaken by the OGAI, a newly constituted quasi-judicial body operating as a digital-first regulatory office. The OGAI is mandated to apply a structured five-factor test[6], thereby centralising classification authority and removing any scope for unilateral self-classification by OGSPs. The OGAI will examine: whether fees or deposits are involved at any stage; whether users have a reasonable expectation of monetary return; how fees are structured and used; the revenue model; and - most critically - whether rewards, in-game assets or benefits can be transferred, redeemed, monetised or used outside the game environment. That last factor is the one most likely to catch operators by surprise. A game with no direct cash prize, but whose in-game tokens trade freely on a secondary market at real-world prices, is potentially a money game under this test. Virtual currencies, NFT-based rewards, play-to-earn mechanics, and off-platform token economies are all within scope under the Act's definition of “other stakes”[7] which captures anything real or virtual, purchased directly or indirectly, in relation to an online game. The OGAI can initiate a determination suo motu, and the Rules make it clear that a favourable determination for one OGSP’s offering shall not afford similar determination to any other OGSP offering a substantially similar product.[8] Each OGSP, for each game, stands alone before the OGAI. For companies with large, derivative product portfolios, this is a compliance burden of significant scale. Moreover, any determination by the OGAI is not permanent or final and is subject to OGPS’ continued sustenance of the same model.[9] WHAT DISAPPEARED-AND WHAT THAT SIGNALS The Draft Rules[10] provided for a Grievance Appellate Committee - a buffer layer between dissatisfied users and the OGAI which has been done away with the by the Rules. Under the Rules, an end user aggrieved by an OGSP’s grievance outcome may directly approach the OGAI within thirty days.[11] Every unresolved user complaint is now one step away from a formal regulatory proceeding. Companies that treat grievance redressal as a customer service function rather than a compliance function are mispricing this risk significantly. Additionally, the Draft Rules also proposed a positive national registry of permitted online money games, this has been recalibrated in the Rules to a prohibition-based construct - a public register identifying games classified as online money games.[12] The transition from an “allow-list” to a “deny-list” model is directionally significant: it reflects a regulatory posture that is enforcement-led, with a clear bias towards risk containment over market enablement. WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE: A STAKEHOLDER MAP If you operate an online gaming platform/OGSP: Your immediate priority is a Rule 9 audit of every product in your portfolio - an operational review of every monetisation mechanic, reward structure, and secondary-market pathway for in-game assets. Products that have not been reviewed against the five-factor test carry unquantified criminal exposure from May 1st, 2026. The country of origin of the OGSP is an explicit factor under the Rules that the government may use to trigger mandatory registration.[13] Foreign-headquartered operators should assume a higher registration probability and plan accordingly. If you are an e-sports operator, note that OGAI registration is not your first step - NSGA recognition is. The OGAI's 90-day registration clock starts only after you have NSGA recognition and have submitted a complete application. Build both timelines into your product launch plan. If you are a bank, financial institution, or payment service provider: PROGA repositions you from a passive payment processor to an active compliance gatekeeper, and the personal criminal liability that comes with that repositioning is real. Rules require you to verify a game's determination order or Certificate of Registration before processing any transaction for a permitted game.[14] Furthermore, you are required to block transactions for prohibited games “without delay” upon receiving direction  from the OGAI.[15] There is no internal review period, no escalation pause, and no grace window built into either obligation. The immediate compliance problem is structural: the verification obligation under Rule 19(1) is live from May 1st, 2026, but the OGAI has not yet issued the directions specifying how verification is to be done. Once the Rule 26 prohibition list goes live, a bank that continues processing transactions for a game on that list - even without receiving a specific OGAI direction - will struggle to maintain a due diligence defence. The criminal exposure under PROGA is worth noting.[16] The Head of Payments, the Chief Compliance Officer, and any senior executive in charge of the relevant part of the business at the time of an offence are personally liable - subject only to a defence of no knowledge or documented due diligence. Check whether your D&O insurance covers this exposure. Most criminal liability exclusions will apply. If you are an investor or board member: There is no nuanced regulatory risk in this sector anymore. A product is either permitted or prohibited. Investment due diligence must include a Rule 9 analysis of every product in the target's portfolio, an assessment of re-determination risk in the product roadmap, and a review of the target's financial intermediary arrangements.[17] PROGA makes this a board-level issue. Every person in charge of and responsible for the relevant part of the business is personally liable, subject to a defence of documented due diligence and lack of knowledge.[18] Independent directors and non-executive directors not involved in actual decision-making are expressly excluded from this exposure - but executive directors and C-suite managers with oversight of gaming product lines are not. Board minutes and compliance briefings from before May 1 will matter enormously if liability is contested after it. If you are an advertiser, celebrity, or influencer: PROGA prohibits any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes or induces participation in an online money game.[19] The Act's definition of advertisement cross-refers to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - which captures audio, visual, digital, and social media content. A lifestyle post featuring a gaming app can constitute an indirect promotion. Ongoing ambassador contracts and social media arrangements tied to gaming products need immediate legal review for termination rights and continuing obligations. This publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitutes legal advice.     [1]https://www.meity.gov.in/documents/act-and-policies/promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-act-2025-and-its-corrigenda-kTMxQjMtQWa?pageTitle=Promotion-and-Regulation-of-Online-Gaming-Act,-2025-and-its-Corrigenda [2] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/8a7f103cefc68ed8aaa2ebc9a2ed7c13.pdf [3] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/04/7e0b02d37fd07f81fa48578a9996aa85.pdf [4] The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 [5] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 proposed a co-regulatory verification regime through MeitY-recognised self-regulatory bodies. No such body was registered before PROGA superseded this framework. [6] Rule 9 of the Rules. [7] Section 2(j) of the PROGA. [8] Rule 10(2) of the Rules. [9] Rule 11 of the Rules. [10] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/18bae7782749f36ebb062fdb0b2607ea.pdf [11] Rule 20 of the Rules. [12] Rule 26 of the Rules. [13] Rule 12(1)(a)(v) of the Rules. [14] Rule 19(1) of the Rules. [15] Rule 19(2) of the Rules [16] Section 5, 9 and 11 of PROGA. [17] Rule 19 of the Rules. [18] Section 11 of PROGA. [19] Section 6 of PROGA.
19 May 2026
Corporate, Gaming & Regulatory

INDIA’S ONLINE GAMING RESET: DECODING PROGA AND THE 2026 RULES

INTRODUCTION April 22, 2026 marks the day India's online gaming sector stepped out of the grey zone and into a comprehensive, centralised regulatory framework. On this date, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) issued a series of Gazette notifications[1] that together operationalise the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025[2] (“PROGA” or the “Act”) and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026[3] (“Rules”). Both come into force on May 1, 2026. Taken together, these notifications do more than bring a statute into effect- they establish, for the first time, a unified and centralised regulatory framework governing online gaming in India. For online gaming service providers (“OGSPs”), investors, boards, and financial intermediaries, this is not an incremental shift - it is a structural reset. In a single regulatory move, the government: (i) notified May 1st, 2026 as the commencement date; (ii) constituted the Online Gaming Authority of India (“OGAI”); (iii) empowered cyber cell officers to investigate offences; and (iv) notified the Rules that give operational effect to PROGA. STATE SPECIFIC LAWS VIS-À-VIS PROGA Until PROGA, India had no unified national framework for online gaming. Legislative power over “betting and gambling” sat with the states under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, producing a patchwork of colonial-era statutes and inconsistent judicial interpretation. The foundational Public Gambling Act, 1867 - a law regulating physical gaming houses - was adopted by most states, leaving online gaming in a legal grey zone navigated through the skill-chance distinction: platforms offering rummy, fantasy sports, and poker operated under judicial recognition of their skill-game character, though that position was never uniformly settled. States moved independently: Nagaland licensed online skill games; Sikkim licensed casino and skill games within its territory; Tamil Nadu banned real-money games of chance online[4]; Telangana and Andhra Pradesh imposed blanket prohibitions on all staked games including skill games; and Haryana extended gambling prohibitions expressly to online mediums in 2025. MeitY's 2023 attempt at a central framework through IT Rules amendments - proposing self-regulatory bodies to verify real-money games - never became operational, as no self-regulatory body was ever registered.[5] It is pertinent to note that multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of PROGA have been filed across various High Courts, which have since been consolidated before the Supreme Court, and the final judgment on the issue remains awaited. WHAT THE FRAMEWORK ACTUALLY DOES PROGA draws a hard-three-way line. E-sports - competitive, multiplayer, skill-based games recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“NSGA”) - are permitted and subject to mandatory registration. Prize money for performance is expressly allowed. Spectator betting in connection with an e-sport, however, is not - and a fantasy league or betting product built around an e-sport event is almost certainly an online money game under the Act's definition. Online Social Games - recreational or educational games that charge only a subscription or one-time access fee, with no expectation of monetary return - are generally permitted. Registration is required only if the Central Government specifically notifies a category, or if the OGAI determines during a classification review that a particular game requires it. Online Money Games - any game, skill-based or not, where a player pays fees or deposits money in expectation of monetary or equivalent return - are flatly prohibited. There is no licence, no tolerance window, no skill-based exception. The prohibition is absolute, and it applies from May 1st, 2026. PROGA deems offering, advertising, and facilitating payments for online money games cognisable and non-bailable criminal offences. Imprisonment extends to three years and fines to INR 1 crore for offering and facilitating payment flows, and two years and INR 50 lakh for advertising. Repeat offenders face mandatory minimum sentences. THE CLASSIFICATION TRAP The characterisation of a game as a “social game” or an “online money game” is not left up to the discretion of the OGSP. Per the Rules, this determination is to be undertaken by the OGAI, a newly constituted quasi-judicial body operating as a digital-first regulatory office. The OGAI is mandated to apply a structured five-factor test[6], thereby centralising classification authority and removing any scope for unilateral self-classification by OGSPs. The OGAI will examine: whether fees or deposits are involved at any stage; whether users have a reasonable expectation of monetary return; how fees are structured and used; the revenue model; and - most critically - whether rewards, in-game assets or benefits can be transferred, redeemed, monetised or used outside the game environment. That last factor is the one most likely to catch operators by surprise. A game with no direct cash prize, but whose in-game tokens trade freely on a secondary market at real-world prices, is potentially a money game under this test. Virtual currencies, NFT-based rewards, play-to-earn mechanics, and off-platform token economies are all within scope under the Act's definition of “other stakes”[7] which captures anything real or virtual, purchased directly or indirectly, in relation to an online game. The OGAI can initiate a determination suo motu, and the Rules make it clear that a favourable determination for one OGSP’s offering shall not afford similar determination to any other OGSP offering a substantially similar product.[8] Each OGSP, for each game, stands alone before the OGAI. For companies with large, derivative product portfolios, this is a compliance burden of significant scale. Moreover, any determination by the OGAI is not permanent or final and is subject to OGPS’ continued sustenance of the same model.[9] WHAT DISAPPEARED-AND WHAT THAT SIGNALS The Draft Rules[10] provided for a Grievance Appellate Committee - a buffer layer between dissatisfied users and the OGAI which has been done away with the by the Rules. Under the Rules, an end user aggrieved by an OGSP’s grievance outcome may directly approach the OGAI within thirty days.[11] Every unresolved user complaint is now one step away from a formal regulatory proceeding. Companies that treat grievance redressal as a customer service function rather than a compliance function are mispricing this risk significantly. Additionally, the Draft Rules also proposed a positive national registry of permitted online money games, this has been recalibrated in the Rules to a prohibition-based construct - a public register identifying games classified as online money games.[12] The transition from an “allow-list” to a “deny-list” model is directionally significant: it reflects a regulatory posture that is enforcement-led, with a clear bias towards risk containment over market enablement. WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE: A STAKEHOLDER MAP If you operate an online gaming platform/OGSP: Your immediate priority is a Rule 9 audit of every product in your portfolio - an operational review of every monetisation mechanic, reward structure, and secondary-market pathway for in-game assets. Products that have not been reviewed against the five-factor test carry unquantified criminal exposure from May 1st, 2026. The country of origin of the OGSP is an explicit factor under the Rules that the government may use to trigger mandatory registration.[13] Foreign-headquartered operators should assume a higher registration probability and plan accordingly. If you are an e-sports operator, note that OGAI registration is not your first step - NSGA recognition is. The OGAI's 90-day registration clock starts only after you have NSGA recognition and have submitted a complete application. Build both timelines into your product launch plan. If you are a bank, financial institution, or payment service provider: PROGA repositions you from a passive payment processor to an active compliance gatekeeper, and the personal criminal liability that comes with that repositioning is real. Rules require you to verify a game's determination order or Certificate of Registration before processing any transaction for a permitted game.[14] Furthermore, you are required to block transactions for prohibited games “without delay” upon receiving direction  from the OGAI.[15] There is no internal review period, no escalation pause, and no grace window built into either obligation. The immediate compliance problem is structural: the verification obligation under Rule 19(1) is live from May 1st, 2026, but the OGAI has not yet issued the directions specifying how verification is to be done. Once the Rule 26 prohibition list goes live, a bank that continues processing transactions for a game on that list - even without receiving a specific OGAI direction - will struggle to maintain a due diligence defence. The criminal exposure under PROGA is worth noting.[16] The Head of Payments, the Chief Compliance Officer, and any senior executive in charge of the relevant part of the business at the time of an offence are personally liable - subject only to a defence of no knowledge or documented due diligence. Check whether your D&O insurance covers this exposure. Most criminal liability exclusions will apply. If you are an investor or board member: There is no nuanced regulatory risk in this sector anymore. A product is either permitted or prohibited. Investment due diligence must include a Rule 9 analysis of every product in the target's portfolio, an assessment of re-determination risk in the product roadmap, and a review of the target's financial intermediary arrangements.[17] PROGA makes this a board-level issue. Every person in charge of and responsible for the relevant part of the business is personally liable, subject to a defence of documented due diligence and lack of knowledge.[18] Independent directors and non-executive directors not involved in actual decision-making are expressly excluded from this exposure - but executive directors and C-suite managers with oversight of gaming product lines are not. Board minutes and compliance briefings from before May 1 will matter enormously if liability is contested after it. If you are an advertiser, celebrity, or influencer: PROGA prohibits any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes or induces participation in an online money game.[19] The Act's definition of advertisement cross-refers to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - which captures audio, visual, digital, and social media content. A lifestyle post featuring a gaming app can constitute an indirect promotion. Ongoing ambassador contracts and social media arrangements tied to gaming products need immediate legal review for termination rights and continuing obligations. This publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitutes legal advice. Authors: Tanishq Acharya, Senior Associate - https://ksandk.com/people/tanishq-acharya/  Srishti Rathore, Associate - https://ksandk.com/people/srishti-rathore/  [1]https://www.meity.gov.in/documents/act-and-policies/promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-act-2025-and-its-corrigenda-kTMxQjMtQWa?pageTitle=Promotion-and-Regulation-of-Online-Gaming-Act,-2025-and-its-Corrigenda [2] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/8a7f103cefc68ed8aaa2ebc9a2ed7c13.pdf [3] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/04/7e0b02d37fd07f81fa48578a9996aa85.pdf [4] The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 [5] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 proposed a co-regulatory verification regime through MeitY-recognised self-regulatory bodies. No such body was registered before PROGA superseded this framework. [6] Rule 9 of the Rules. [7] Section 2(j) of the PROGA. [8] Rule 10(2) of the Rules. [9] Rule 11 of the Rules. [10] https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/18bae7782749f36ebb062fdb0b2607ea.pdf [11] Rule 20 of the Rules. [12] Rule 26 of the Rules. [13] Rule 12(1)(a)(v) of the Rules. [14] Rule 19(1) of the Rules. [15] Rule 19(2) of the Rules [16] Section 5, 9 and 11 of PROGA. [17] Rule 19 of the Rules. [18] Section 11 of PROGA. [19] Section 6 of PROGA.
19 May 2026
Press Releases

King Stubb & Kasiva Secures Delhi High Court Direction to Social Media Platforms on Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights Complaint

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is pleased to announce a positive development in the personality rights suit filed on behalf of Shri Pawan Kalyan, Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and celebrated actor. On December 12, 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, directed major social media intermediaries, Meta, Google and X, to examine and act on complaints relating to unauthorised commercial use of Shri Kalyan’s persona within one week, and to communicate any reservations they may have directly to him. The matter has been listed for further consideration on December 22, 2025. The suit underscores the growing importance of safeguarding personality rights in a rapidly expanding digital landscape. The Court’s directions reflect an encouraging emphasis on accountability and responsible content management across online platforms, helping to ensure meaningful protection of an individual’s name, likeness and identity. King Stubb & Kasiva welcomes the Court’s proactive stance and remains committed to advancing the protection of personality rights and digital identities for public figures and private individuals alike. The firm remains committed to championing personality rights and safeguarding digital identities for public figures and private individuals, as part of its broader focus on technology law, digital rights, and intellectual property protection.   For media enquiries, please contact: Shruti Thapa Contact No – 9101333234, [email protected] For more information visit https://ksandk.com/contact-us/ / [email protected]
19 May 2026

When a Prefix Is Not Enough: Deceptive Similarity and the Essential Feature Doctrine

By Himanshu Deora Introduction In a significant ruling dated February 10, 2026, the Delhi High Court revisited core principles of trademark law particularly prior use, deceptive similarity, and the essential feature doctrine, in the context of competing marks in the same commercial space. The dispute arose from the long-standing use of the mark “ARUN” by the petitioner in relation to sewing machines and parts, and the subsequent registration of the mark “AIC ARUN” by a competing entity operating in the same industry and geographical market. The case presented a classic conflict between prior user rights and subsequent registration, requiring the Court to assess whether the addition of a corporate prefix was sufficient to distinguish the marks.1 The Court ultimately held that the prefix “AIC” did not sufficiently distinguish the impugned mark from the dominant and distinctive element “ARUN,” and ordered partial rectification of the register. Historical Adoption and Statutory Rights in “ARUN” The petitioner established long-standing use of the mark “ARUN” dating back to 1962, including through predecessor entities and registered user arrangements. Over time, the mark was also formally registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, consolidating both statutory and common law rights. While other entities had adopted marks incorporating “ARUN,” the petitioner asserted that its use was prior, continuous, and commercially significant, thereby entitling it to protection against confusingly similar marks. Evidence of Goodwill and Acquired Distinctiveness The petitioner substantiated its claim of goodwill and distinctiveness through extensive evidence, including: Long-standing commercial use spanning several decades; Newspaper advertisements and cautionary notices issued to trade channels; Circulars warning against infringement; Prior enforcement actions against infringers; and Audited sales figures demonstrating sustained commercial growth. This evidence supported the conclusion that the mark “ARUN” had acquired secondary meaning within the relevant market. Even though “ARUN” is a common personal name, the Court reaffirmed that a descriptive or ordinary word can become distinctive through long, exclusive, and continuous use. Registration of “AIC ARUN” and Rectification Proceedings The respondent applied for registration of “AIC ARUN” in 2007, claiming use since 2004. The mark was advertised and subsequently registered in Class 7 for identical goods (sewing machines and parts). Notably, the Trade Marks Registry had cited the petitioner’s earlier “ARUN” marks in its examination report. However, the petitioner did not oppose the application under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at the advertisement stage. The petitioner later initiated rectification proceedings under Sections 47 and 57, seeking removal or modification of the impugned mark on the ground of deceptive similarity and prior rights. Defences Raised by the Respondent The respondent advanced two principal arguments: Statutory Validity of Registration: The respondent relied on the presumption of validity attached to a registered trademark. “ARUN” as Publici Juris: It was contended that “ARUN” had become common to the trade (publici juris), and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation. The Court rejected the publici juris argument, noting the absence of evidence demonstrating widespread, uncontrolled use of “ARUN” in the relevant market. Mere existence of similar marks on the register does not establish that a term has become generic or common to the trade. Clarification: Publici Juris vs Genericness A key correction in legal reasoning is necessary here: Genericness refers to a term that denotes the product itself and is incapable of trademark protection. Publici juris refers to a term commonly used in the trade, which may weaken exclusivity but does not automatically negate protection. The Court correctly applied trademark principles (not copyright law) in holding that dilution of distinctiveness through widespread use must be proven with credible evidence failing which, prior rights prevail. Deceptive Similarity and the Essential Feature Doctrine The central issue before the Court was whether the addition of the prefix “AIC” sufficiently distinguished the mark “AIC ARUN” from “ARUN.” Applying the essential feature doctrine, the Court held: The dominant and distinctive component of the impugned mark was “ARUN”; The prefix “AIC,” being a corporate abbreviation, had minimal distinctiveness; The visual and phonetic identity of “ARUN” remained unchanged. The Court relied on the principle of the average consumer with imperfect recollection, and identified the following factors supporting a likelihood of confusion: Phonetic identity of the dominant element (“ARUN”); Visual prominence of “ARUN” within the composite mark; Identity of goods (sewing machines and parts); Overlapping trade channels and consumer base; Geographic proximity of the parties. In these circumstances, the Court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar, and the prefix was insufficient to avoid confusion. Failure to Oppose vs Right to Rectification The respondent argued that the petitioner’s failure to oppose the mark under Section 21 barred subsequent rectification under Sections 47 and 57. The Court rejected this contention and clarified that: Opposition and rectification are distinct remedies; Failure to oppose does not create a permanent bar to rectification; Rectification serves the broader purpose of maintaining the purity of the register. This position is consistent with established trademark jurisprudence. Consideration of Precedents The Court distinguished authorities where marks were held to be common to the trade due to lack of evidence in the present case. It relied on established principles from cases such as: Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Ltd. (2012)2 Greaves Cotton Ltd. (2011) These decisions reiterate that mere addition of prefixes or suffixes to the dominant feature of a mark does not eliminate deceptive similarity. Exercise of Powers under Section 57 Instead of cancelling the respondent’s mark in its entirety, the Court exercised its powers under Section 57 to partially rectify the register by directing deletion of the word “ARUN” from “AIC ARUN.” This nuanced approach: Preserved the respondent’s ability to continue business under “AIC”; Prevented misappropriation of the petitioner’s goodwill; Balanced competing commercial interests. The Registrar was directed to implement the modification within six weeks. Key Legal Principles Reinforced This decision reaffirms several important principles: Prior use prevails over subsequent registration, particularly where goodwill is established; Even common or personal names can acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning; The essential feature doctrine remains central to assessing deceptive similarity; Addition of corporate prefixes or suffixes does not negate infringement; Failure to oppose does not extinguish the right to seek rectification; Section 57 empowers courts to order partial rectification to balance equities. Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores that trademark protection is rooted in commercial reality, not merely formal registration. While registration confers statutory rights, it does not override the superior rights of a prior user with established goodwill. By ordering partial rectification, the Court adopted a pragmatic and equitable approach, ensuring both protection of established rights and continuity of legitimate business operations. The ruling serves as a clear reminder: minor additions such as corporate prefixes cannot legitimise appropriation of the essential feature of an established mark, particularly where such use is likely to cause confusion or dilute accrued goodwill. (Case No. C.O.(Comm.IPD-TM) 651/2022, Judgement No. 2026:DHC:1038), ↩︎ The Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Ltd., (2013) 53 PTC 1 (Del). ↩︎ Authored by Himanshu Deora, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/himanshu-deora/ https://ksandk.com/
07 May 2026

Public Utilities as Fiduciaries, Not Arbitrary Authorities: Calcutta High Court Quashes Inflated Electricity Demand

By Nivedita Bhardwaj Introduction The supply of electricity, a critical public utility, is not merely a commercial activity but a statutory obligation imbued with public law responsibilities. Distribution licensees often state-controlled entities, operate within a framework that demands fairness, transparency, and accountability. Disputes relating to excessive billing, defective meters, and retrospective demands frequently test the limits of administrative discretion. In a significant ruling in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill (F.M.A. 179 of 2023, decided February 2026)1, the Calcutta High Court emphatically held that a public utility functions as a fiduciary, not an authoritarian administrator. The Court set aside a supplementary electricity demand of over ₹47 lakh raised by West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, finding it to be speculative, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to statutory regulations. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Electricity Law and Metering Obligations Under the Electricity Act, 2003: Section 55 mandates supply of electricity through a correct and duly tested meter Section 181 empowers State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to frame binding regulations, including supply codes In West Bengal, the governing framework is the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations. Key provisions include: Regulation 3.3.1: Presumes the correctness of a meter installed by the licensee unless proven defective through appropriate testing (typically by an accredited laboratory) Regulation 3.6.1: Permits revised or average billing only after a defect is established, and upon determination of the period during which the meter was defective These provisions make it clear that the power to issue supplementary bills is conditional and evidence-based, not discretionary. Factual Background The respondent, Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill, was an industrial consumer receiving high-tension electricity supply through a metering system involving a potential transformer (PT). In July 2019, WBSEDCL replaced the meter and PT during routine maintenance In November 2019, it conducted an inspection and alleged a polarity reversal in the PT, purportedly causing under-recording of consumption for approximately 140 days On this basis, WBSEDCL issued a supplementary demand of ₹55.8 lakh (later revised to ₹47.06 lakh), along with late payment surcharge The consumer challenged the demand before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and subsequently the Electricity Ombudsman. Although both forums noted the absence of conclusive evidence, the demand was effectively sustained, prompting WBSEDCL’s appeal before the High Court. Issues Before the Court The Division Bench considered the following key issues: Whether the potential transformer (PT) forms part of the “meter” for the purpose of regulatory presumption of correctness Whether WBSEDCL had proved the existence and duration of the alleged defect Whether the revised billing under Regulation 3.6.1 was legally sustainable Whether surcharge and interest could be levied on a demand lacking legal foundation Court’s Analysis PT as Integral to the Metering System The Court held that the potential transformer is an integral component of the metering apparatus. Consequently, it falls within the scope of Regulation 3.3.1, and the presumption of correctness applies to the entire metering system. This presumption could only be rebutted through credible technical evidence, which WBSEDCL failed to provide. Failure to Establish Defect and Its Duration A central finding of the Court was that WBSEDCL failed to discharge its evidentiary burden: No laboratory test report or technical certification was produced There was no clear determination of when the alleged defect began or ended The Court emphasised that revised billing requires precise identification of the defect period (terminus a quo and terminus ad quem). In the absence of such evidence, the demand was reduced to mere conjecture. Limits on Average Billing The Court clarified that Regulation 3.6.1 does not grant a blanket or discretionary power to raise average bills. Average billing is permissible only after a defect is conclusively established It cannot be used to retrospectively impose liability based on assumptions The impugned demand, therefore, lacked jurisdictional foundation. Perversity and Administrative Law Principles The Court found the Ombudsman’s order to be perverse, relying on principles laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal2, that a decision unsupported by evidence or based on irrelevant considerations is legally unsustainable. Further, invoking Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner3, the Court reiterated that: The validity of an administrative or quasi-judicial order must be judged solely on the reasons recorded therein Authorities cannot supplement deficiencies through subsequent justification Public Utility as Fiduciary In a significant doctrinal observation, the Court held that: A public utility discharges a fiduciary function toward consumers Its powers must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in good faith The issuance of a speculative demand, coupled with surcharge and threat of disconnection, was characterised as administrative high-handedness. The Court further held that the Interest or late payment surcharge cannot be levied on an invalid demand and a void demand cannot be validated by the passage of time or accrual of penalties. Operative Directions The Court dismissed WBSEDCL’s appeal and issued the following directions: Quashed the supplementary demand of ₹47.06 lakh Directed waiver of late payment surcharge and interest Ordered adjustment of the amount deposited by the consumer against future bills Set aside disconnection notices issued on the basis of the impugned demand Disposed of connected applications without costs Conclusion The judgment in WBSEDCL v. Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill is a strong reaffirmation of consumer protection in the realm of public utilities. It underscores that: Meter correctness is presumed unless disproved through credible evidence Supplementary billing must rest on proven defects and defined timelines Administrative discretion cannot override statutory safeguards By characterising electricity distribution as a fiduciary function, the Court has elevated the standard of accountability expected from utilities. The ruling serves as a clear warning against arbitrary billing practices and strengthens the jurisprudence on fairness, reasonableness, and evidentiary discipline in regulatory governance. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Jyotish Chandra Rice Mill & Ors., F.M.A. No. 179 of 2023 (Calcutta High Court, Feb. 2026). ↩︎ State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 ↩︎ Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ↩︎ Authored by Nivedita Bharadwaj, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/nivedita-bhardwaj/
07 May 2026

Strengthening Merger Oversight in India

By Surbhi Kapoor Introduction The merger control regime in India has undergone significant transformation following recent reforms under the Competition Act, 2002. Pursuant to the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 and subsequent regulations operationalised in 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has introduced a more structured, modern, and principle-driven framework for reviewing combinations. Key reforms include the introduction of the Deal Value Threshold (DVT), refinement of exemption rules, formal recognition of the concept of material influence within the definition of control, changes in the assessment of competitive overlaps, streamlined approval timelines, and the establishment of mechanisms to monitor compliance with post-approval conditions. In May 2025, the CCI issued updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) clarifying the implementation of these reforms. Between late 2024 and December 31, 2025, the CCI approved 162 combination filings, approximately 12.36% of which were notified under the DVT framework reflecting its growing practical significance.1 Deal Value Threshold: Expanding the Scope of Notification Traditionally, combinations were notifiable based on asset and turnover thresholds prescribed under the Act. However, the introduction of the Deal Value Threshold, pursuant to the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 and operationalised through regulations in 2024, has significantly expanded the scope of notifiable transactions. Under this framework, a transaction must be notified where: The deal value exceeds INR 20 billion; and The target enterprise has substantial business operations in India (SBOI). Importantly, DVT-based notifications apply irrespective of whether traditional asset or turnover thresholds are met, and the de minimis (target) exemption is not available in such cases. The CCI has adopted a broad interpretation of “deal value”, which includes: Cash and non-cash consideration; Deferred payments and earn-outs; Non-compete fees and licensing arrangements; Any additional consideration payable within a specified period post-closing. Where deal value is not explicitly ascertainable, parties are expected to undertake a reasonable, good-faith estimation based on available information. Substantial Business Operations in India (SBOI) For the DVT to apply, the target must have substantial business operations in India. The regulations and accompanying guidance provide indicative criteria for determining SBOI. A target is generally considered to meet this threshold where: Its Indian turnover constitutes at least 10% of its global turnover, and exceeds INR 5 billion; or In digital markets, a significant proportion (typically 10% or more) of its users are located in India.2 These thresholds ensure that transactions with a meaningful nexus to Indian markets are subject to regulatory scrutiny. Redefining “Control”: The Material Influence Standard The concept of “control” remains central to merger notification requirements. Under Indian competition law, “control” has been interpreted expansively by the CCI and now expressly includes the ability to exercise material influence over the management or strategic commercial decisions of an enterprise. This approach, developed through decisional practice and now codified, recognises that control may arise even in the absence of majority shareholding. Factors that may indicate control include: Rights to appoint or remove directors or key managerial personnel; Veto rights over business plans, budgets, or strategic decisions; Shareholding coupled with governance or contractual rights. While shareholding above 25% may, depending on accompanying rights, indicate the ability to exercise material influence, control is ultimately assessed on a case-by-case basis. Importantly, not all investor protections constitute control. Rights such as: Information rights; Tag-along or exit rights; Anti-dilution protections; generally do not, in isolation, amount to control. The CCI has also clarified that a change in control includes not only a shift from joint to sole control, but also a change in the quality or degree of influence, such as enhanced governance rights or exit of an existing controlling shareholder. Commercially Sensitive Information (CSI) The updated FAQs provide clarity on what constitutes commercially sensitive information (CSI). CSI includes: Pricing strategies, cost structures, and profit margins; Market shares and customer data; Production levels and capacity; Business plans, R&D strategies, and internal reports. Conversely, the following are generally not considered CSI: Publicly available information; Historical data not relevant to current decision-making; Aggregated or anonymised data; Standard financial statements prepared under accounting norms. These clarifications are particularly relevant in assessing permissible information exchange during transaction evaluation and overlap analysis. Revised Exemption Framework The 2024 reforms have narrowed and refined the scope of exemptions, particularly in relation to minority investments. To qualify as a solely for investment exemption, an acquirer must: Hold not more than 25% of shares or voting rights; Not acquire control; Not obtain board representation or observer rights; Not access CSI; Not have horizontal, vertical, or complementary overlaps with the target (except in limited cases where shareholding is below 10% and other conditions are met). Other exemptions include: Incremental acquisitions, provided they do not result in control or new rights; Intra-group transactions, where there is no change in control; Demerger transactions, where shareholding remains proportionate. Overall, exemptions are now more conditional and narrowly construed. Interconnected Transactions The CCI requires that interconnected transactions be notified as a single combination. Interconnectedness is assessed based on factors such as: Simultaneous execution; Conditionality between transactions; Common commercial objective; Financial interdependence; Evidence of a shared “meeting of minds.” Even transactions that may be exempt individually may become notifiable when part of a larger interconnected structure. Open Offers and Market Purchases The revised framework permits certain acquisitions such as open offers and market purchases to be completed prior to CCI approval, subject to safeguards. Key conditions include: Filing notice within the prescribed timeline from the triggering acquisition; Not exercising voting or control rights prior to approval; Maintaining the target as a separate economic entity. While economic benefits (such as dividends) may be received, control rights remain suspended until approval. Overlap Assessment and Affiliate Test The revised framework expands the concept of affiliates for overlap assessment. An enterprise may be considered an affiliate not only based on shareholding or board representation, but also where it has: The right or ability to access commercially sensitive information; or The ability to exercise material influence. This broader test impacts: Identification of horizontal, vertical, and complementary overlaps; Eligibility for the green channel route. Approval Timelines and Target Exemption The reforms have introduced stricter timelines: The CCI must form a prima facie opinion within 30 calendar days; The overall review period has been reduced from 210 days to 150 days. Where no prima facie opinion is formed within the statutory period, the combination may, subject to applicable conditions, be deemed approved. The de minimis (target) exemption has also been revised: Assets in India ≤ INR 4.5 billion; or Turnover in India ≤ INR 12.5 billion. However, this exemption does not apply to DVT-based filings. Monitoring Post-Approval Compliance The CCI now has explicit powers to appoint an independent monitoring agency to oversee compliance with conditions attached to merger approvals. The monitoring agency must: Be independent and free from conflicts of interest; Track implementation of remedies; Report instances of non-compliance; Maintain confidentiality of sensitive information. Costs of monitoring are typically borne by the parties to the transaction. Conclusion The reforms introduced between 2024 and 2025 mark a structural evolution of India’s merger control regime. The introduction of the Deal Value Threshold, formal recognition of material influence, refinement of exemptions, expansion of overlap assessment, and streamlined timelines collectively enhance both regulatory certainty and enforcement capability. The framework reflects a shift toward substance over form, ensuring that transactions with a real impact on Indian markets are subject to scrutiny, irrespective of traditional thresholds. Parties engaging in transactions involving India must now adopt a proactive and structured approach, carefully assessing notification triggers, control dynamics, competitive overlaps, and compliance obligations at an early stage. https://www.cci.gov.in/images/whatsnew/en/faq-book-english-compressed1747724324.pdf ↩︎ The Competition Act defines ‘turnover’ as the turnover which has been certified by the statutory auditor on the basis of the last available audited accounts of the company in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in parties notify a transaction. Such turnover in India is determined by excluding intra-group sales, indirect taxes, trade discounts and all amounts generated through assets or business from customers outside India, as certified by the statutory auditor. ↩︎ Authored by Surbhi Kapoor, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/surbhi-kapoor/ https://ksandk.com/
07 May 2026

D&O Insurance in the Age of Data Governance: Premium Realities under India’s DPDP Regime

Introduction India’s enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) marks a decisive shift toward a modern data protection regime anchored in accountability, consent, and enforcement. While the statute is primarily directed at “data fiduciaries,” its implications extend well beyond operational compliance. At the boardroom level, the Act has triggered a reassessment of governance responsibilities, risk allocation, and critically Directors and Officers (“D&O”) insurance. A key question now confronting corporates and insurers alike is whether the DPDP Act has materially altered the D&O risk landscape. The emerging answer is nuanced but unmistakable: increased premiums and tighter underwriting are not only real, but structurally justified. The DPDP Framework and Board-Level Accountability The DPDP Act imposes obligations on entities that determine the purpose and means of processing personal data. These include: lawful processing based on consent or legitimate use; implementation of reasonable security safeguards; prompt breach notification; and accountability for third-party data processors. Although the statute does not expressly create automatic personal liability for directors, it embeds a governance expectation: boards must ensure that adequate systems, controls, and oversight mechanisms are in place. This expectation aligns with broader principles of fiduciary duty under Indian company law, where directors are required to act with due and reasonable care. Consequently, any failure in data governance may be framed not merely as a compliance lapse, but as a failure of oversight, a cornerstone trigger for D&O claims globally. The Changing Risk Profile for Directors The DPDP Act introduces a risk environment characterised by three features: High-Value Regulatory Penalties The statute contemplates significant monetary penalties, potentially up to ₹250 crore per instance. While such penalties are imposed on the company, they often catalyse derivative claims, shareholder actions, or regulatory scrutiny of board conduct. Expanded Litigation Pathways Data breaches, consent failures, or misuse of personal data may give rise to: regulatory proceedings before the Data Protection Board; civil claims from affected individuals; and shareholder actions alleging governance failures. In each case, directors may be named not for the breach itself, but for inadequate supervision or risk management. Attribution through Governance Failures Modern D&O jurisprudence increasingly centres on whether boards exercised appropriate oversight. Under the DPDP regime, lapses such as failure to implement cybersecurity frameworks, inadequate vendor due diligence, or delayed breach response can be attributed to board-level neglect. Insurance Market Response: Premiums, Exclusions, and Scrutiny The Indian insurance market supported by global reinsurers has responded predictably to this evolving risk: Premium Inflation: Data-intensive sectors such as technology, fintech, healthcare, and e-commerce are witnessing noticeable increases in D&O premiums. Insurers are pricing in the uncertainty of enforcement and the potential for high-value claims. Narrowing Coverage: Policies are increasingly: carving out cyber-related incidents or subjecting them to sub-limits; excluding regulatory fines where legally permissible; and tightening definitions of “wrongful acts” to limit exposure. Higher Retentions and Co-Insurance: Insured entities are being required to retain a greater portion of risk, reflecting insurers’ cautious stance. Enhanced Underwriting Due Diligence: Underwriters now routinely evaluate: existence of a data protection officer or equivalent function; maturity of cybersecurity infrastructure; incident response protocols; vendor and processor risk management frameworks; and board-level reporting mechanisms on data governance. In effect, insurance pricing is becoming a proxy for governance quality. The Interplay Between Cyber Insurance and D&O Cover A critical development in the post-DPDP landscape is the functional separation between cyber insurance and D&O insurance. Cyber insurance addresses first-party and operational losses such as forensic investigation, system restoration, and breach notification costs. D&O insurance, by contrast, responds to claims alleging mismanagement, breach of duty, or failure of oversight by directors and officers. Historically, some overlap existed between these products. However, insurers are now actively delineating boundaries, resulting in potential coverage gaps if organisations rely on D&O policies alone. A coordinated insurance strategy is therefore essential. Legal Position: Personal Liability versus Allegational Risk It bears emphasis that the DPDP Act does not, in itself, impose strict personal liability on directors for every contravention. However, two factors sustain D&O exposure: Derivative and secondary liability frameworks under Indian law may still implicate directors where offences occur with their consent, connivance, or attributable neglect. D&O policies are triggered by allegations, not final adjudications. Even unproven claims can generate substantial defence costs. Thus, the rise in premiums reflects not only actual liability risk, but also the cost of defending governance-related claims in an increasingly litigious environment. Strategic Considerations for Boards In this evolving landscape, boards must move beyond a compliance-centric approach and adopt a governance-led strategy. Key measures include: Institutionalising Data Governance: Establish formal reporting lines to the board on data protection risks and compliance status. Documenting Oversight: Maintain detailed records of board deliberations, risk assessments, and decisions relating to data governance. Strengthening Vendor Management: Ensure contractual and operational safeguards when engaging data processors, with clear allocation of responsibilities. Testing Incident Response Mechanisms: Conduct periodic simulations to evaluate breach readiness and response timelines. Aligning Insurance Architecture: Review D&O and cyber policies holistically to identify and address coverage gaps. Such steps not only mitigate legal exposure but also favourably influence underwriting outcomes, potentially stabilising or reducing premium escalation. Conclusion The DPDP Act represents more than a regulatory milestone; it signals a broader transformation in how data risk is perceived and governed in India. For directors and officers, this transformation translates into heightened scrutiny, expanded allegational exposure, and a recalibrated insurance market. The increase in D&O premiums is neither incidental nor temporary. It is a rational response to a legal regime that elevates data governance to the core of corporate accountability. Organisations that proactively embed robust oversight mechanisms will not only enhance compliance but also position themselves advantageously in negotiations with insurers. In the final analysis, D&O insurance under the DPDP era is no longer a passive safeguard but an active reflection of governance maturity. Authored by Aniket Ghosh, Partner  https://ksandk.com/people/aniket-ghosh/ https://ksandk.com/
07 May 2026

Strengthening REIT Governance in India: An Analysis of SEBI’s 2023 Regulatory Reforms

By Aurelia Menezes Introduction India’s Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) regime has witnessed significant regulatory evolution in recent years, driven by the need to enhance governance standards, strengthen investor protection, and align with global best practices. In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) introduced a series of amendments and circulars impacting REITs, particularly through changes to the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations (LODR Regulations), the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014, and the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021.1 These reforms collectively aim to improve transparency, institutional accountability, and stakeholder participation within the REIT ecosystem. Enhanced Governance Framework under LODR Amendments, 2023 The amendments to the LODR Regulations mark a significant step toward harmonising REIT governance with that of listed companies. Independent Directors and Board Oversight:The revised framework clarifies the definition and eligibility criteria for independent directors, reinforcing objectivity and reducing conflicts of interest at the board level. This is particularly relevant for REIT Managers, where governance oversight is centralised. Senior Management Accountability:SEBI has introduced greater clarity around the roles, responsibilities, and disclosure obligations of senior management personnel, ensuring enhanced accountability in decision-making processes. Auditor Independence and Rotation:Provisions relating to auditor eligibility and mandatory rotation have been strengthened to safeguard audit independence and improve financial reporting quality. Expanded Scope of Limited Review:The requirement for limited review now extends to entities whose financials are consolidated with REITs (including HoldCos and SPVs), thereby enhancing transparency across the REIT structure. REIT-Specific Governance Alignment SEBI has extended several LODR compliance requirements to REITs by adapting terminology and governance constructs to suit their unique structure. Key definitional alignments include: “Listed entity” → REIT Manager “Board of Directors” → Board of the Manager “Subsidiary” → HoldCo / Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) “Compliance Officer” → Company Secretary2 This harmonisation ensures consistency in regulatory interpretation while preserving the structural distinctiveness of REITs. Reforms under SEBI (NCS) Regulations, 2023 Amendments to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021 introduced important safeguards for debenture holders. Nominee Director Rights of Debenture Trustees In the event of a default (as defined under the SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993), debenture trustees are empowered to nominate a director to the board of the issuer (including REIT Managers, where applicable). Entities are required to: Incorporate such provisions in their trust deeds and constitutional documents; and Appoint nominee directors within prescribed timelines. This reform strengthens creditor protection and enhances oversight in stressed scenarios. Key Amendments to REIT Regulations (2023) SEBI’s 2023 amendments to the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 introduce several governance-focused reforms: Unitholder Nomination Rights Eligible unitholders holding at least 10% of outstanding units are now entitled to nominate a director to the board of the REIT Manager. This reform: Enhances investor participation in governance; Introduces checks on managerial decision-making; and Aligns with global stewardship practices. Such nominations are subject to eligibility criteria and evaluation mechanisms prescribed by the Manager and must comply with SEBI’s stewardship principles. Sponsor Holding and Governance Reforms SEBI has refined provisions relating to sponsor lock-in and minimum holding requirements. Sponsors and sponsor groups are generally required to maintain a minimum holding (typically 15%) for a specified period post-listing, ensuring alignment of interests between sponsors and unitholders. Introduction of Self-Sponsored REITs A key structural reform is the introduction of the self-sponsored REIT model, wherein the Manager assumes both managerial and sponsor roles. This framework: Enables mature and institutionally robust Managers to operate independently; Provides an exit pathway for existing sponsors; and Introduces flexibility in REIT structuring. However, conversion to a self-sponsored model is subject to stringent eligibility and compliance requirements prescribed by SEBI. Key SEBI Circulars Impacting REITs (2023) SEBI supplemented regulatory amendments with multiple circulars to operationalise governance and compliance requirements: Offer for Sale (OFS) Framework:A standardised mechanism was introduced for the sale of REIT units through stock exchanges, improving liquidity and price discovery. Virtual Unitholder Meetings:The permission to conduct unitholder meetings via video conferencing, which was initially introduced during the pandemic, has been made permanent, enhancing accessibility and participation. Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) Requirement:REITs with listed debt securities must obtain and report a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI), strengthening transparency in financial transactions. Mandatory Dematerialisation:Securities of HoldCos and SPVs underlying REIT structures are required to be held in dematerialised form, improving traceability and reducing operational risks. Enhanced Compliance Reporting:REIT Managers must submit the Annual Secretarial Compliance Reports; and the Quarterly Governance Compliance Reports, both within prescribed timelines using standardised formats. Unit Pricing Framework:Revised guidelines for pricing REIT units in public issuances and institutional placements aim to improve transparency and flexibility. Trading Window Restrictions:Insider trading norms, including trading window restrictions, have been extended more broadly to listed entities, including REITs. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Mechanism:SEBI has operationalised an ODR portal to facilitate efficient resolution of investor disputes through mediation and arbitration. Investor Grievance Redressal via SCORES:The SEBI Complaints Redress System mandates time-bound resolution of investor complaints, reinforcing accountability. Conclusion SEBI’s 2023 regulatory reforms represent a significant advancement in the governance architecture of REITs in India. By strengthening board independence, enhancing disclosure standards, empowering investors, and introducing structural innovations such as self-sponsored REITs, the regulatory framework has become more robust and investor-centric. These developments not only align India’s REIT regime with global best practices but also reinforce market confidence, improve transparency, and support sustainable growth in the real estate investment sector. As the REIT ecosystem continues to mature, stakeholders including sponsors, managers, institutional investors, and regulators must proactively adapt to this evolving compliance landscape to fully realise the benefits of these reforms. https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListing=yes&sid=1&ssid=3&smid=0%20(Accessed:%2007%20January%202024). ↩︎ SEBI. (2021, August 3). Securities and Exchange Board of India (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014. ↩︎ Authored by Aurelia Menezes, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/aurelia-menezes https://ksandk.com/
07 May 2026

Digital Forced Labour in the Age of AI: A Human Rights Perspective

By Rohitaashv Sinha Introduction The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital platforms has fundamentally transformed the nature of work. Labour is no longer confined to physical workplaces; instead, it is increasingly mediated through digital infrastructures that enable cross-border participation in global labour markets. While this transformation has enhanced efficiency, flexibility, and access to economic opportunities, it has also produced new and often invisible forms of labour exploitation. One such emerging phenomenon is digital forced labour, which raises serious concerns under international human rights and labour law frameworks. This article examines digital forced labour through a human rights lens, analysing its characteristics, legal implications, and regulatory challenges, with particular attention to vulnerable populations, including children. Digital Forced Labour and Human Rights Digital Forced Labour (DFL) may be understood as labour performed through digital platforms under conditions that undermine genuine consent. While not always involving physical coercion, such labour is often driven by economic compulsion, asymmetrical power structures, and restrictive platform governance. Typical forms of digital labour include: Data labelling and annotation for AI systems Content moderation Micro-tasking (e.g., CAPTCHA solving, tagging, categorisation) These forms of work are frequently characterised by: Extremely low and inconsistent remuneration Lack of transparency in task allocation and payment systems Absence of formal contractual protections Limited or no grievance redressal mechanisms Workers often operate under opaque algorithmic systems, where refusal to perform tasks may result in penalties, suspension, or deactivation without explanation. Crucially, workers are rarely informed about how their labour contributes to downstream AI systems or commercial applications. Contrary to the perception of platform work as flexible and autonomous, many workers function within highly controlled digital environments, marked by surveillance, dependency, and limited bargaining power. The absence of identifiable employers and the fragmentation of work further dilute accountability. Algorithmic Control and Economic Coercion A defining feature of digital forced labour is the use of algorithmic management systems to control labour conditions. Platforms determine: Task allocation Wage calculation Performance evaluation Continued access to work These automated systems often lack transparency and accountability. Workers may be “deactivated” or penalised without due process, effectively excluding them from their primary source of livelihood. Over time, economic dependency on such platforms may erode meaningful choice, creating conditions analogous to coercion. While not traditionally recognised as “force,” such structural and economic compulsion aligns with evolving interpretations of forced labour in international law. Transnational Nature and Regulatory Gaps Digital labour markets are inherently transnational. Companies frequently outsource labour to jurisdictions with lower labour standards and weaker enforcement mechanisms. This results in: Diffused accountability Regulatory arbitrage Limited access to legal remedies for workers The lack of jurisdictional clarity makes enforcement of labour standards particularly challenging. Workers often do not know which legal regime governs their work, further exacerbating their vulnerability. Digital Child Labour This includes: Content creation (videos, livestreams, gaming content) Data labelling and repetitive micro-tasks Participation in monetised digital ecosystems controlled by adults or intermediaries In many cases: Children lack control over their earnings and digital identity Work conditions involve long hours, psychological pressure, and performance metrics tied to monetisation There is little to no regulatory oversight regarding age verification, working conditions, or compensation Additionally, children face heightened risks of: Data exploitation and loss of privacy Online manipulation, harassment, and blackmail Misuse of their likeness through emerging technologies such as deepfakes In extreme cases, children may be compelled to produce digital outputs or virtual assets without informed consent or fair compensation. Existing legal frameworks largely designed for physical labour contexts are inadequate to address these evolving risks. Legal Framework: International Human Rights Law The prohibition of forced labour is well established under international law, though its application to digital contexts requires interpretative expansion. Key instruments include: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Prohibits slavery and servitude (Article 4) and recognises the right to just and favourable conditions of work International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Prohibits forced or compulsory labour (Article 8) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Guarantees fair wages, safe working conditions, and a dignified standard of living ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)1: Defines forced labour as work exacted under menace of penalty and without voluntary consent Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105): Mandates the elimination of all forms of forced labour Protocol of 2014 to Convention No. 29: Recognises contemporary forms of forced labour and strengthens obligations on States While these instruments provide a robust normative foundation, they were conceived prior to the rise of platform-based and AI-driven labour systems. Consequently, they do not explicitly address: Algorithmic control Platform accountability Data exploitation as a form of labour extraction Judicial Interpretation: Expanding the Concept of Forced Labour Indian constitutional jurisprudence has adopted an expansive interpretation of forced labour2 under Article 23 of the Constitution, which is instructive in the digital context. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India3: The Supreme Court held that labour extracted under economic compulsion may constitute forced labour. Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan4: Payment of wages below the statutory minimum was deemed violative of Article 23, even absent physical coercion. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India5: The Court linked forced labour to violations of human dignity and Article 21 (right to life), imposing a positive obligation on the State to eradicate such practices. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation6: Recognised the right to livelihood as an integral component of the right to life. These precedents support the argument that economic dependency, unfair remuneration, and structural inequality hallmarks of digital labour platforms, may fall within the constitutional understanding of forced labour. State Obligations and Regulatory Challenges States are obligated under both constitutional and international law to: Prevent forced labour Protect workers from exploitation Ensure access to effective remedies However, regulatory responses to digital labour remain inadequate due to: Classification of workers as independent contractors Lack of platform accountability Absence of transparency in algorithmic systems Weak enforcement across jurisdictions The result is a regulatory vacuum in which workers operate without meaningful protections. The Way Forward Legal Recognition of Platform Labour: Clear classification frameworks are needed to determine employment status and extend labour protections to platform workers. Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability: Platforms must be required to disclose decision-making processes affecting workers, including task allocation and deactivation. Strengthening Child Protection Frameworks: Specific safeguards must be introduced to regulate children’s participation in digital economies, including consent, compensation, and working conditions. Access to Remedies: Workers must have access to effective grievance redressal mechanisms, including cross-border dispute resolution systems. International Cooperation: Given the global nature of digital labour, harmonised international standards are essential. Conclusion The digital transformation of labour has not eliminated forced labour; rather, it has reshaped it into more subtle and technologically mediated forms. Digital forced labour operates through economic coercion, algorithmic control, and regulatory gaps, challenging traditional legal definitions of “force.” While existing human rights frameworks provide a strong normative foundation, they are insufficiently equipped to address the complexities of AI-driven labour systems. Vulnerable populations particularly children, remain at significant risk. A rights-based approach, grounded in transparency, accountability, and dignity, is essential to ensure that technological progress does not come at the cost of fundamental human rights. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer aptly observed, the law must evolve with changing times; in the age of AI, it must do so with a firm commitment to safeguarding human dignity in the digital sphere. https://www.ilo.org/publications/major-publications/global-estimates-modern-slavery-forced-labour-and-forced-marriage ↩︎ MANU/SC/0039/1985. ↩︎ MANU/SC/0038/1982 ↩︎ MANU/SC/0254/1983. ↩︎ MANU/SC/0051/1983. ↩︎ MANU/SC/0039/1985. ↩︎ Authored by Rohitaashv Sinha https://ksandk.com/people/rohitaashv-sinha/ https://ksandk.com/
07 May 2026

RERA in Practice: Regulatory Discipline, Litigation Trends, and Strategic Implications for the Indian Real Estate Sector

By Adnan Siddiqui Introduction The enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) marked a structural shift in the regulation of India’s real estate sector. Prior to RERA, the regulatory landscape was fragmented and largely reactive, relying on general contract law, consumer protection mechanisms, and state-level regulations that proved inadequate to address systemic issues such as project delays, diversion of funds, opaque disclosures, and asymmetric bargaining power between developers and homebuyers. RERA introduced a sector-specific regulatory regime aimed at institutionalising transparency, financial discipline, and accountability in real estate development. Nearly a decade after its enactment, the law has reshaped industry practices, triggered significant litigation, and influenced investment patterns in the sector. This article examines RERA as a transformational regulatory instrument, analysing its operational mechanisms, evolving jurisprudence, and practical implications for developers, investors, and homebuyers. The Regulatory Gap Prior to RERA Before RERA, disputes between homebuyers and developers were primarily addressed through: The Indian Contract Act, 1872 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Consumer Protection legislation State apartment ownership laws While these laws governed contractual and property rights, they did not regulate the real estate development process itself. Consequently, several systemic issues persisted: Chronic project delays, often extending years beyond promised timelines Diversion of funds from one project to another Misleading advertisements and incomplete disclosures Lack of accountability for construction quality Inefficient dispute resolution mechanisms The absence of a dedicated regulator meant that buyers frequently had to pursue lengthy litigation through consumer forums or civil courts. RERA sought to address these structural deficiencies by introducing preventive regulation rather than purely remedial enforcement. Core Regulatory Architecture Under RERA Mandatory Project Registration RERA requires developers to register real estate projects with the respective State Real Estate Regulatory Authority before: advertising, marketing, or selling units in the project. Registration is mandatory where: the land area exceeds 500 square metres, or the project includes more than eight apartments. Projects that had not received a completion certificate at the time of RERA’s commencement were also brought within the regulatory framework. The registration requirement has effectively created a regulatory gatekeeping mechanism, preventing the launch of unapproved or under-documented projects. Disclosure and Transparency Obligations A defining feature of RERA is the digital disclosure regime requiring developers to upload detailed project information on the regulator’s online portal, including: sanctioned plans and layout approvals land title details and encumbrances project timelines and construction schedules status of statutory approvals details of contractors, architects, and engineers These disclosures must be periodically updated, allowing buyers and investors to monitor project progress. The requirement represents a shift toward information symmetry in real estate transactions, enabling market participants to make more informed decisions. Financial Discipline Through Escrow Mechanisms One of the most consequential provisions of RERA is the requirement that 70% of the amounts realised from allottees be deposited in a dedicated escrow account. These funds may be withdrawn only in proportion to the percentage of project completion, and withdrawals must be certified by: an engineer, an architect, and a chartered accountant. This mechanism was designed to address a long-standing industry practice where developers diverted funds from one project to finance unrelated developments, contributing to large-scale project delays. The escrow requirement has therefore introduced financial ring-fencing and project-specific funding discipline. Strengthening Homebuyer Rights RERA significantly expands the rights available to homebuyers (referred to as “allottees” under the Act). Key rights include: Right to Timely Possession: If a developer fails to complete the project within the declared timeline, the allottee may choose to withdraw from the project and claim a refund with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest for every month of delay. This provision fundamentally alters the risk allocation in real estate transactions, shifting the burden of delays onto the developer. Standardisation of Sale Agreements: RERA mandates the use of a model agreement for sale, limiting the scope for one-sided contractual clauses that previously favoured developers. A key reform is parity in interest liability, both developers and buyers must pay the same rate of interest in case of default. This requirement has strengthened contractual fairness and enforceability. Structural Defect Liability: Developers are responsible for rectifying structural defects or workmanship deficiencies reported within five years of possession. The defect liability provision has introduced a post-possession accountability framework, incentivising better construction practices. Institutional Framework: Regulators and Tribunals Real Estate Regulatory Authority Each state and union territory must establish a Real Estate Regulatory Authority responsible for: project registration compliance monitoring enforcement actions grievance redressal The Authority also plays a quasi-judicial role in adjudicating complaints relating to violations of the Act. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Appeals against decisions of the Authority or the adjudicating officer lie before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). A notable feature of the appellate framework is that developers must deposit a prescribed percentage of the penalty or compensation amount before filing an appeal, which discourages frivolous litigation. Evolving Judicial Interpretation Since its enactment, RERA has generated extensive litigation across High Courts and the Supreme Court, shaping the interpretation of the statute. Courts have consistently emphasised the consumer-centric nature of the legislation, often interpreting its provisions in favour of homebuyers. Judicial decisions have also clarified important issues such as: the concurrent jurisdiction of RERA authorities and consumer courts the scope of refund and compensation rights the liability of developers in delayed projects This evolving jurisprudence continues to define the contours of the RERA regime. Market Impact: Structural Changes in the Real Estate Sector Increased Institutional Investment The regulatory clarity introduced by RERA has significantly improved investor confidence in the Indian real estate market. Institutional investors, including private equity funds and real estate investment trusts (REITs), now view the sector as more transparent and predictable. Consolidation of the Developer Landscape Compliance requirements under RERA have increased the cost of regulatory adherence and project management. As a result: smaller and unorganised developers have exited the market, while larger, better-capitalised developers have expanded their market share. This consolidation has contributed to the formalisation of the real estate sector. Improved Consumer Trust RERA’s enforcement mechanisms and digital transparency have enhanced public confidence in real estate transactions. Buyers today have access to: verified project information, statutory remedies, and specialised adjudicatory forums. This has strengthened the credibility of the sector, particularly in metropolitan markets. Continuing Challenges in Implementation State-Level Variations: Because RERA is implemented by state authorities, significant variations exist in rules, procedures, and enforcement practices across jurisdictions. This has created compliance complexity for developers operating across multiple states. Enforcement Capacity: Several state regulators face resource constraints and case backlogs, which can delay adjudication of complaints. Project Structuring and Regulatory Arbitrage: Certain developers have attempted to structure projects in ways that avoid RERA registration thresholds, such as segmenting developments into smaller phases. Regulators continue to address such practices through stricter interpretation of the Act. The Future of Real Estate Regulation in India Nearly a decade after its introduction, RERA has fundamentally altered the governance of real estate development in India. Going forward, the effectiveness of the framework will depend on: greater harmonisation of state-level rules, stronger enforcement capacity, and increased regulatory coordination with insolvency and consumer protection regimes. If implemented consistently, RERA has the potential to transform India’s real estate market into a more transparent, institutionally driven, and investor-friendly sector. Conclusion The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 represents one of the most significant regulatory reforms in India’s property sector. By introducing mandatory disclosures, financial safeguards, and specialised dispute resolution mechanisms, the legislation has sought to rebalance the relationship between developers and homebuyers while enhancing market discipline. Although implementation challenges remain, RERA has already played a critical role in formalising the sector, improving transparency, and restoring trust in real estate transactions. Its continued evolution through regulatory practice and judicial interpretation will shape the future trajectory of India’s real estate market. Authored  by - Rajesh Sivaswamy, Senior Partner https://ksandk.com/people/rajesh-sivaswamy/ Contributed by - Sindhuja Kashyap, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/sindhuja-kashyap/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/
30 April 2026

From Brick to Byte: Decoding the Legal Architecture of REITs in India

By Nayana Shivaraj The evolution of India’s real estate sector has long been constrained by high entry barriers, opacity, and illiquidity. The introduction of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), however, marks a decisive shift, transforming real estate from a traditionally asset-heavy investment into a market-linked, regulated financial instrument. At the heart of this transition lies a robust legal framework crafted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which has sought to strike a careful balance between investor protection and market innovation.   REITs as a Legal Innovation REITs, by design, are not merely financial products, they are legal constructs that reimagine ownership. Structured as trusts, they enable fractional investment in income-generating real estate, while insulating investors from the operational complexities of property management. The governing regime, encapsulated under the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014, reflects a deliberate attempt to align India’s real estate market with global investment standards, while adapting to domestic regulatory realities. The Three-Tier Structure: Ensuring Accountability A defining feature of the Indian REIT framework is its tripartite structure: Sponsors, who set up the REIT and contribute assets; Trustees, who hold assets in fiduciary capacity; and Managers, who undertake operational and investment decisions. This separation is not merely procedural, it is foundational. By distributing responsibilities, the framework embeds checks and balances, mitigates conflicts of interest, and reinforces fiduciary accountability.   Regulatory Guardrails: Stability Over Speculation SEBI’s regulatory approach to REITs has been notably conservative, prioritizing stability over rapid expansion. Key requirements—such as mandating that at least 80% of assets be invested in completed, income-generating properties and enforcing mandatory distribution norms, underscore a clear policy intent: REITs are to function as yield-oriented instruments, not speculative vehicles. Similarly, the requirement of a broad investor base ensures diversification and reduces concentration risks, aligning with the broader objectives of market integrity. The 2024 Amendments: A Turning Point Recent amendments to the REIT Regulations signal a maturing regulatory outlook. The introduction of Small and Medium REITs (SM REITs) is particularly noteworthy. By lowering entry thresholds and formally recognising fractional ownership structures, SEBI has effectively acknowledged the growing appetite for alternative real estate investments. This move not only legitimises emerging market practices but also expands the investment universe beyond large institutional assets. Equally significant is the reclassification of REITs as equity instruments for mutual funds. This seemingly technical shift has far-reaching implications, enhancing liquidity, facilitating institutional participation, and integrating REITs more deeply into mainstream capital markets.   Interplay of Regulators: A Multi-Layered Framework While SEBI remains the principal regulator, the REIT ecosystem operates within a broader regulatory matrix. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through its evolving stance on lending to REITs, has opened additional avenues for capital access. Concurrently, the tax regime, particularly the pass-through status accorded to certain income streams, plays a pivotal role in shaping investor returns and market attractiveness. This multi-regulatory interplay reflects the hybrid nature of REITs, situated at the intersection of real estate and financial markets.   Bridging Markets: The Larger Significance From a policy perspective, REITs serve a dual function. They provide investors with access to stable, income-generating assets, while enabling developers to unlock capital tied up in completed projects. In doing so, REITs contribute to capital recycling, a critical requirement in a capital-intensive sector like real estate. More importantly, they introduce a degree of transparency and governance that has historically eluded the sector.   Persistent Gaps and Emerging Questions Notwithstanding their promise, REITs in India remain concentrated in commercial office assets, limiting sectoral diversification. Retail participation, though improving, is still tempered by limited awareness and understanding. The regulatory recognition of fractional ownership platforms through SM REITs also raises important questions around compliance, valuation standards, and investor protection, areas that will require continued regulatory vigilance. Conclusion: A Framework in Transition India’s REIT regime is no longer in its infancy, it is in a phase of calibrated expansion. The legal framework has demonstrated both resilience and adaptability, responding to market developments without compromising on core safeguards. The trajectory ahead will depend on how effectively the law continues to evolve in tandem with innovation. If recent reforms are any indication, REITs are poised to play a defining role in bridging India’s real estate and capital markets, one regulatory refinement at a time. Authored by - Nayana Shivaraj, Associate https://ksandk.com/people/nayana-shivaraj/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/
30 April 2026

The Fine Print of Property Ownership: Decoding Leasehold and Freehold in India

By Nidhi Sharma The distinction between leasehold and freehold property is a fundamental concept in Indian real estate law, with significant legal and practical implications for buyers, developers, and investors. Understanding these systems is essential, particularly in a country where land ownership is closely regulated and often complex. Understanding Freehold Property Freehold property refers to absolute ownership of both the land and the structure built on it. The owner has full rights to use, transfer, mortgage, or sell the property without requiring permission from any superior authority (subject to applicable laws and local regulations). This form of ownership is generally considered more secure and desirable, as it grants long-term control and fewer restrictions. From a legal perspective, freehold ownership minimizes dependency on third parties and reduces the risk of disputes relating to title or renewal. It also enhances the property’s market value and ease of transfer, making it a preferred choice for residential buyers and financial institutions.   Understanding Leasehold Property Leasehold property, on the other hand, involves ownership rights that are limited to a specific period, granted by the lessor (often a government authority or development body). The lessee has the right to occupy and use the property for the duration of the lease, which may range from 30 to 99 years or more. Legally, leasehold arrangements come with conditions. These may include restrictions on transfer, subletting, structural modifications, and usage. In many cases, prior approval from the lessor is required for sale or mortgage. Additionally, lease renewal is not always automatic and may involve additional costs or revised terms.   Key Legal Implications Transfer and Marketability Freehold properties are easier to transfer, as they do not require third-party approvals. Leasehold properties, however, often require consent from the lessor, which can delay transactions and affect marketability. Financing and Mortgages Financial institutions generally prefer freehold properties due to clear ownership rights. Leasehold properties, especially those nearing the end of the lease term, may face challenges in securing loans. Title Certainty and Due Diligence Leasehold properties demand more rigorous legal due diligence. Buyers must review lease terms, remaining tenure, renewal clauses, and compliance with conditions. Any breach of lease terms can lead to penalties or even cancellation. Conversion Rights In many Indian states, leasehold properties can be converted into freehold upon payment of conversion charges and compliance with regulations. While this offers flexibility, the process can be time-consuming and subject to administrative discretion. Regulatory and Compliance Risks Leasehold properties are more susceptible to regulatory intervention. Changes in government policy or land-use regulations can impact rights and obligations under the lease. Long-Term Security Freehold ownership provides perpetual rights, whereas leasehold ownership is time-bound. As the lease term diminishes, the value of the property may decline, affecting both resale potential and investment returns.   Practical Considerations for Buyers Buyers must carefully assess their objectives before choosing between leasehold and freehold property. While leasehold properties may sometimes be more affordable or located in prime areas developed by authorities, they come with additional legal layers. Freehold properties, though often more expensive, provide greater autonomy and long-term security.   Conclusion The legal implications of leasehold and freehold property systems in India are far-reaching, influencing ownership rights, transaction processes, financing, and long-term value. While freehold ownership offers simplicity and certainty, leasehold arrangements require careful legal scrutiny and ongoing compliance. For stakeholders in the real estate sector, a clear understanding of these distinctions is crucial to making informed and legally sound decisions. Authored by - Nidhi Sharma, Associate https://ksandk.com/people/nidhi-sharma/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/
30 April 2026

From Policy Concept to Market Instrument: The Regulatory Framework for Virtual PPAs in India

By Nivedita Bhardwaj Introduction India’s move towards a clean energy future has resulted in the development of innovative market instruments that will help facilitate the growth of renewable energy while meeting obligations imposed on obligated entities. To this end, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has proposed regulatory amendments to the Indian power market that will formally incorporate VPPAs (Virtual Power Purchase Agreement) into the market. The amendments are known as the “Draft Amendments” and will provide clarity regarding the legal status of VPPAs, where they will be traded in the OTC (Over-the-Counter) power market and the regulatory frameworks which will govern the OTC power market and REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) trading. Regulatory Developments The draft guidelines for VPPAs were released by CERC on May 22, 20251, and were made available for stakeholder input until June 20, 2025, with a subsequent extension of the deadline to July 11, 2025. These draft guidelines are intended to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory framework for VPPAs, which are a new product in the Indian electricity market. On June 17, 2025, CERC published a draft of the first amendment to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Power Market) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2025, requesting comments from stakeholders with an initial deadline of July 14 and a second deadline of August 18, 2025, and requesting comments concerning both regulatory drafts that have recently been established after the publication of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Power Market) Regulations, 2021 and the Draft VPPA Guidelines. The public hearing on the Draft VPPA Guidelines and the Draft Power Market Amendment was held on August 18, 2025. On September 22, 2025, CERC published the Draft of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Renewable Energy Certificates for Renewable Energy Generation) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2025 for which the amendments are intended to modify the existing regulations regarding REC’s under the Renewable Energy Certificate Roadmap for Renewable Energy Generation (RCO) compliance. The Indian government has set a renewable energy target of 500 GW of renewable energy by 2030, to improve the overall security of electricity supply and fulfil commitments to reduce climate change through renewable energy. To meet these objectives, a minimum Renewable Consumption Obligation has been implemented for different groups of end users, including distribution licensees, open access consumers, and captive customers. A designated consumer may satisfy their obligation to increase their usage of renewable energy by consuming renewable energy directly or by purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates. After reviewing international best practices, the CERC has determined that virtual power purchase agreements (“VPPAs”) provide an option for designated consumers to meet their Renewable Consumption Obligation (“RCO”) targets. Due to the innovative structure of VPPAs, the CERC sought a definition of their regulatory status from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”). On January 31, 2025, SEBI characterized VPPAs as bilateral, non-tradable, and non-transferable over-the-counter contracts. Additionally, SEBI stated that in the event that a VPPA qualifies as a non-transferable specific delivery contract under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act of 1956, then the regulatory authority for these types of contracts would rest with the CERC under its jurisdiction. As a result of SEBI’s opinion, on March 3, 2025, the Ministry of Power requested the CERC to create rules to regulate VPPAs in accordance with the format of an over-the-counter contract. This initiated the drafting of the proposed VPPA Guidelines, as well as proposed amendments. Draft Amendment to the Electricity Market Regulations – Overview of Key Features The proposed amendment to the Electricity Market Regulations is intended to integrate Virtual Power Purchase Agreements (VPPAs) into the Indian electricity market.2 The proposed amendment will define VPPAs, recognize VPPAs as an instrument of the electricity market and incorporate them into the framework governing Over-The-Counter (OTC) transactions. VPPAs are defined as a non-transferable OTC contract based on specific delivery, as per the SEBI’s interpretation of OTC contracts. Furthermore, the proposed amendment broadens and redefines Critical Terms like “market;” “OTC Market;” “OTC platform;” and “member of an OTC platform” to allow for a larger number of transactions to take place via OTC platforms. It is expected that OTC platforms will facilitate the execution of new forms of OTC contracts, including VPPAs and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), through online communication and transparency. In addition to expanding and redefining OTC contracts, the proposed amendment to the Electricity Market Regulations will also expand the types of OTC contracts that can be executed through the OTC market to include, but not be limited to, VPPAs, RECs, capacity contracts, battery energy storage systems, and power banking agreements. In addition, the proposed amendment requires that the structure and implementation of VPPAs comply with guidelines issued by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). Renewable Power Purchase Agreements are structured in a way that allows for a relationship between an end-user of electricity or a third-party buyer and a renewable energy producer. The third-party buyer can be defined under the Energy Conservation Act of 2001. The end-user/buyer will pay an agreed-upon VPPA price for the entire duration of the contract.3 The renewable energy producer is required to supply the electricity generated to the Power Exchanges and/or to other methods as authorized by the Electricity Act of 2003. A VPPA is essentially a financial agreement between two entities and is settled bilaterally. The difference between the VPPA price and the current market price settled periodically based on the difference between the strike price and reference market price. The VPPA price is established by mutual agreement between the two entities, through a trader, and/or is listed on an Over-the-Counter platform. VPPAs have been formally recognized in the Draft Power Market Amendment as valid “over the counter” contracts, which allow for their inclusion in the larger Electricity Marketplace. The definition of “market” has been changed to include platforms where electricity, RECs, and other types of Energy Saving Certificates that are approved by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission can be traded In the area of scheduling, the Draft Power Market Amendment aligns OTC contracts (including VPPA) with the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 and the Indian Electricity Grid Code, 2023 by replacing or deleting the existing references to the previous open access and connectivity regulation with appropriate provisions in line with the new regulatory framework. OTC Platforms and Regulatory Oversight OTC platform regulation will now allow for the facilitation of transactions between buyers and sellers of all OTC contracts, as well as their creation based on the mutual agreement, competitive bidding, or at the direction of the Regulatory Authority. OTC platform operators will be required to maintain minimum net worths of Rs.350 million (from Rs.10 million). OTC platform registration periods will extend to ten years from five years. Although OTC platforms provide a means for buyers and sellers of OTC contracts to conduct transactions, they remain prohibited from assuming Counterparty credit risk. CERC will also expand its oversight and inspection activities to include OTC platforms, allowing CERC to intervene in the case of non-compliance, market manipulation, etc., of OTC platforms. REC Transactions under VPPAs In addition to these regulations, the Draft REC Amendment introduces regulations related to Statutory RECs created by RE generating stations engaged in VPPA transactions. Statutory RECs generated in this manner are automatically transferred to the consumer (or designated consumer) through the VPPA and can be used to satisfy Renewable Purchase Obligations and Renewable Consumption Obligations.. Once used, these RECs are extinguished, although surplus certificates may be carried forward for future compliance. Importantly, such RECs are not permitted to be traded. Conclusion This conclusion summarizes the Draft Amendment as being a systematic approach for incorporating Virtual Power Purchase Agreements (VPPAs) into the Indian power market, supporting the extension of renewable energy and ensuring compliance with mandated obligations under the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). Draft Amendments clarify and recognise VPPAs as a new purchasing tool by standardising how VPPAs will operate within the context of contract, market setting and settlement processes. The Draft Amendments provide a framework within which certain established guidelines will govern the use of VPPAs, but there are still limitations regarding both the transferability and tradability of environmental attribute certificates, as well as the narrow eligibility criteria for buyers. This could impact the ability of a company to utilize these VPPAs on a larger scale. However, given India’s goal of achieving climate and renewable energy commitments, the Draft Amendments will enhance private sector participation in renewable energy projects. https://cercind.gov.in/2025/draft_reg/Draft%20Guidelines%20for%20VPPAs.pdf ↩︎ https://cercind.gov.in/2025/draft_reg/DN_PMR_Amendment.pdf ↩︎ https://cercind.gov.in/2025/draft_reg/EM-PMR_amendments.pdf ↩︎ Authored  by - Nivedita Bhardwaj, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/nivedita-bhardwaj/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/
30 April 2026

Force Majeure in Times of War: Navigating Contractual Risk Under Indian Law in the Context of the Iran-Israel-US Conflict

By Sukrit Kapoor Introduction The resurgence of geopolitical conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States has once again foregrounded the vulnerability of international commercial arrangements to external shocks. For Indian businesses engaged in cross-border trade, energy procurement, logistics, and manufacturing, the ripple effects of such a conflict ranging from disrupted shipping routes to sanctions and supply shortages, pose significant challenges to contractual performance.  In this context, the doctrine of force majeure assumes heightened relevance. However, its invocation under Indian law is neither automatic nor expansive. It is governed by a strict legal framework that prioritises contractual intent, demands demonstrable causation, and imposes rigorous procedural obligations. This article examines the legal contours of force majeure in India, with particular emphasis on liability, performance, procedural compliance, and dispute risks in a war-driven disruption scenario. The Legal Framework: Sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act Contractual Force Majeure under Section 32 Indian law does not recognise force majeure as a standalone doctrine. Instead, it is embedded within the statutory scheme of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Where a contract expressly provides for a force majeure clause, its operation is governed by Section 32, which deals with contingent contracts. The rights and obligations of the parties are thus determined strictly by the language, scope, and conditions set out in the clause. Courts in India have consistently upheld the primacy of contractual terms, emphasising that force majeure must be interpreted within the “four corners” of the agreement. Consequently, the inclusion or omission of terms such as “war,” “sanctions,” or “government action” becomes determinative. Doctrine of Frustration under Section 56 In the absence of a force majeure clause, parties may seek recourse under Section 56, which embodies the doctrine of frustration. However, Indian courts apply this provision narrowly. A contract is rendered void only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful, and not merely difficult or commercially burdensome. The threshold for frustration is therefore significantly higher than that for invoking a contractual force majeure clause. War as a Force Majeure Event: Scope and Limitations  Recognition of War and Allied Events War, armed conflict, hostilities, embargoes, and sanctions are traditionally recognised as force majeure events and are often expressly included in commercial contracts. In the context of the Iran-Israel-US conflict, such events may prima facie fall within the scope of a well-drafted clause. The Requirement of Direct Causation Notwithstanding such recognition, Indian courts require a clear and proximate causal link between the force majeure event and the inability to perform contractual obligations. The mere existence of war does not suffice. The party invoking force majeure must demonstrate that the event has directly prevented performance. Thus, disruptions such as closure of critical shipping routes, government-imposed trade restrictions, or complete unavailability of essential raw materials may satisfy this requirement. Conversely, increased costs, logistical inconvenience, or market volatility are unlikely to meet the threshold. Liability, Performance, and the Distinction from Breach Suspension of Obligations: A valid invocation of force majeure typically results in the suspension of contractual obligations for the duration of the event. The affected party is relieved from liability for non-performance during this period, provided the invocation is justified and procedurally compliant. Continuity and Resumption of Performance: Importantly, force majeure does not automatically extinguish contractual obligations. Where partial performance remains possible, parties are expected to continue performing to that extent. Upon cessation of the force majeure event, performance must resume within a reasonable time. Wrongful Invocation as Breach: An improper or unsupported invocation of force majeure may itself constitute a breach of contract. In such cases, the non-performing party may be exposed to damages, termination, and indemnity claims. The distinction between legitimate force majeure and breach therefore assumes critical importance. Indemnity and Risk Allocation  The relationship between force majeure and indemnity is governed by contractual drafting. While many agreements exclude liability for failure caused by force majeure, such exclusions are not universal. Pre-existing breaches remain actionable notwithstanding the occurrence of a force majeure event. Similarly, indemnity obligations towards third parties may survive, depending on the structure of the contract. The allocation of risk in such scenarios must therefore be assessed with reference to indemnity clauses, limitation of liability provisions, and survival clauses. Bona Fides and the Risk of Mala Fide Invocation Indian courts scrutinise the conduct of parties invoking force majeure to ensure that the doctrine is not used as a pretext to evade contractual obligations. A bona fide invocation is typically characterised by a demonstrable causal nexus, prompt communication, documentary evidence, and genuine mitigation efforts. In contrast, indicators of mala fide conduct include pre-existing financial distress, selective non-performance, failure to explore alternatives, and delayed invocation. Where a court finds that force majeure has been invoked in bad faith, it may reject the defence and award damages for breach. The requirement of good faith, though not codified, operates as an implicit standard in judicial evaluation. Procedural Requirements: Notice, Mitigation, and Compliance Notice Obligations: Force majeure clauses invariably require prompt notice to the counterparty. Such notice must typically include details of the event, its impact on performance, and the obligations affected. Many contracts also mandate periodic updates and a final notice upon cessation or termination. Failure to comply with notice requirements may disentitle a party from relying on force majeure, even where the underlying event is valid. Duty to Mitigate: The affected party is under an obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the force majeure event. This may include exploring alternative suppliers, routes, or modes of performance. A failure to mitigate can undermine the credibility of the claim. Timeliness of Invocation: Force majeure must be invoked at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Delayed invocation raises questions regarding causation and bona fides, and may weaken the legal position of the invoking party. Delay, Damages, and Termination The consequences of force majeure depend on the nature and duration of the disruption. Temporary impediments typically result in extension of time without liability for damages. However, prolonged force majeure events may trigger termination rights, often after a specified period such as 30 to 90 days. Where force majeure is validly invoked, damages for non-performance during the affected period are generally excluded. Conversely, an invalid invocation exposes the party to contractual damages, including liquidated damages where applicable. Dispute Resolution and Jurisdictional Considerations Disputes relating to force majeure are inherently fact-specific and frequently arise in the context of differing interpretations of causation, mitigation, and procedural compliance. Such disputes are commonly resolved through arbitration, particularly in cross-border contracts, or before Indian courts. Jurisdiction and governing law are determined by the contract and remain unaffected by the occurrence of a force majeure event. Indian adjudicatory forums have demonstrated a consistent preference for strict interpretation and evidentiary rigour in such matters. Conclusion The Iran-Israel-US conflict highlights the increasing intersection between geopolitics and commercial law. While force majeure remains a vital contractual safeguard, its successful invocation under Indian law requires more than the mere occurrence of an external event. It demands precise drafting, clear causation, procedural discipline, and demonstrable good faith. In an environment of heightened global uncertainty, businesses must move beyond boilerplate clauses and adopt a proactive approach to contractual risk management. Ultimately, force majeure is not a doctrine of convenience, but one of careful calibration, where the balance between contractual certainty and equitable relief is maintained through strict legal scrutiny. Authored by - Sukrit Kapoor, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/sukrit-kapoor/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/
30 April 2026

From Human Cartels to Digital Coordination: Rethinking Section 3(3) in Algorithmic Markets

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction Traditionally, competition law has viewed cartels as the product of deliberately coordinated human activities. These include activities such as price-fixing, market allocation, limiting output, and bid-rigging. Cartels have historically required the existence of explicitly articulated agreements or tacitly agreed upon actions through communication and conscious coordinated strategic actions among competing businesses. Therefore, within this interpretation of cartels, Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits agreements made by businesses that are in the same or similar lines of business, presumes that any such agreement would result in an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC), and thus punishes such conduct. In both India and globally, the enforcement of cartel conduct has focused on identifying intent, demonstrating concerted action, and establishing communication through either direct (overt) or circumstantial (covert) evidence such as parallel conduct supported by plus factors. However, in industries where pricing algorithms (or AI-based pricing systems) are used to set prices (like e-commerce, ride-sharing services, airlines, hotels, and e-commerce), the anthropocentric framework is increasingly tested. In sectors such as aforementioned, firms use pricing algorithms that monitor current market conditions continuously (either directly or indirectly), observe the pricing of its competitors, and set price levels accordingly, within real-time intervals. Machine-learning algorithms in particular are capable of generating sustained, parallel pricing results in the absence of direct (overt) communication and conscious coordination. As such, some markets will show cartel effects (e.g., higher average prices, less dispersion in pricing among competitors, lower levels of competition) even when conventional evidence of an agreement does not exist. The advancement of algorithms poses a key challenge regarding the interpretation of the Competition Act as it relates to Section 3(3). When determining whether the coordination through algorithms could fit under section 3(3) of the Competition Act 2002. The relevance of this issue is important as the Peak AAEC assumption is only available where there is an agreement, as notified in section 2(b). The uncertainty surrounding E-commerce markets where coordinated behaviour could happen unintentionally, as well as the lack of existing mechanisms for disciplinary enforcement, calls into question the current interpretation of the Act. Indian courts have consistently ruled that price parallelism alone does not contravene section 3 of the Competition Act. In Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court cautioned against equating conscious parallelism with cartelisation, recognising that similar conduct may naturally arise in oligopolistic markets. At the same time, decisions such asFx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.1 show the Competition Commission of India’s readiness to infer agreements from indirect facilitation even in the absence of direct horizontal communication. To Reconceptualise Algorithmic Collusion: Human Interaction with Smart Machines For many years, the basis for the study of Cartels (Collusion) is that the participants have intentionally worked with one another through some form of communication and mutual understanding prior to engaging in any conduct. Algorithmic collusion removes this assumption, providing that the pricing decision is made with minimal human intervention by an Automated System which is capable of Learning, Predicting, and Reacting to Market Behaviour. In order to determine whether Algorithmic Collusion fits within Section 3(3) we need to develop a framework that allows for distinguishing different types of Algorithmic Collusion from one another. According to various entities including OECD, there are different models of human versus algorithmic involvement with respect to collusion. The first model is the messenger/executor model, where firms agree to collude on their own through mutual consent and then use algorithms to implement and monitor that cartel. This type of collaboration obviously meets the criteria outlined in Section 3(3) because it is based on mutual agreement between humans. An alternative model for algorithmic collusion is the hub-and-spoke model, whereby a common platform or provider for algorithms coordinates competition between firms. While these firms do not speak to each other directly, the algorithms centralised nature fosters coordinated outcomes. In support of this model India’s jurisprudence view regarding indirect facilitation can be confirmed by the case of Fx Enterprise Solutions v Hyundai Motor India Limited where a vertical arrangement had been found to facilitate horizontal price coordination. The most difficult model of collusion would be the autonomous algorithm model, where independently operating bots observing both markets and competitors learn that co-operation leads to a higher profit than fighting with each other. Such co-operation is produced through cartel-like outcomes without any prior agreement or communication and will be the basis for future litigation and testing of Section 3. Algorithmic Collusion and Tacit Coordination Autonomous algorithmic collusion may appear similar to lawful tacit collusion or conscious parallelism, which competition law tolerates due to the absence of agreement. However, this comparison overlooks key differences. Tacit coordination in oligopolistic markets is constrained by human limitations, strategic uncertainty, and fragile expectations. Algorithmic systems, by contrast, reduce uncertainty, react instantly to deviations, and stabilise coordinated outcomes over time. Artificial intelligence therefore increases the likelihood, durability, and effectiveness of coordination, resulting in greater consumer harm. Under Indian competition law, the delineation of “independent actions” from “communications” helps to assess whether there’s a violation under section 3 of the Act. In addition, the mention of “parallel pricing” in the section implies great difficulty in proving illegal agreements for businesses that utilize algorithms when establishing their pricing strategies. If any conclusion is drawn regarding algorithmic parallelism, it will essentially undermine the possibility of successful licensing or prosecuting any unlawful agreement established between online entities. Under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 Proof of an “Agreement” under Section 3(3) does not require communication or intent, but instead focuses on whether an ‘Agreement’ exists (defined as an ‘agreement’ in Section 2(b) as any arrangement, understanding or agreement by two or more companies operating together). This broad definition allows for the possibility of prosecuting algorithmic collusion when companies knowingly and intentionally develop and utilize pricing algorithms that coordinate prices. The challenge now is to establish whether an independent algorithmic pricing arrangement has progressed from “unilateral conduct” to an “attributable agreement” for design, development and deployment of algorithms that produce coordinated prices amongst competing companies. Can Algorithms Be Considered to Have “Agreed” Under Section 3(3)? Indian Courts understand that Cartels are essentially hidden and that agreements can be assumed based on the actions and circumstances of the parties involved. The Supreme Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Limited v. CCI2 has confirmed that the cumulative evidence of circumstances can be used to establish an agreement under Section 3; however, the Courts have cautioned against treating parallel behaviour as being equal to collusion, as illustrated by the Rajasthan Cylinders case3 which established that both parties must provide “plus factors” to indicate collusion. Algorithmic Collusion disrupts this equilibrium. Where companies utilise similar or compatible algorithms to set prices, monitor one another and react to competitors, sustained parallel pricing may be an indication of something more than rational interdependence, it may also be indicative of coordination through algorithms producing cartel-like effects without the use of quantitative methods of communication. A common defence to Algorithmic Collusion is the assertion that there is an absence of human intent as the prices are determined by autonomous systems; however, this undermines the very reason for the existence of Section 3 of the Competition Act. Competition law attributes the conduct of the enterprise to the enterprise themselves and not the methods or tools that they have adopted in order to undertake business. Algorithms are an integral part of an enterprise’s structure and are established and executed by the enterprise with certain goals in mind. The enterprise that chooses to establish a system that has the potential to produce collusive behaviour and that is always likely to produce anti-competitive behaviour should not be exempt from liability for these results because the enterprise is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the system. Indirectly, Indian law lends credence to this conclusion by establishing that in Fx Enterprise Solutions, liability arose from a system’s coordinated structure and functionality rather than from explicit communications. The reasoning behind this approach is equally applicable to algorithmic pricing systems that operate on the basis of generic market signals. It is therefore possible to take a principled approach to this issue by changing the focus of the analysis from the subjective intent of firms to their awareness or foreseeability of the circumstances in which the use of a particular algorithm may weaken competition and sustain supra-competitive prices. Thus, if one firm knows or ought to know that its use of algorithmic pricing systems results in weakened competition, or sustains supra-competitive prices, that firm’s continued use of that pricing algorithm can be seen to amount to an “action in concert” as defined in Section 2(b), regardless of whether that firm intended to engage in an anti-competitive act. There is ample support in comparative jurisprudence, as illustrated in Eturas UAB v. Lithuania, to hold firms liable for knowing of and acquiescing to the existence and operation of an anti-competitive system. Indian law is well positioned to adopt this reasoning and apply it without necessitating the creation of a new legal doctrine or framework. Conclusion The rise of algorithmic pricing has created the need to rethink how to enforce cartel provisions in Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The law was originally created to address agreements between people, but algorithms create new dimensions of illegal conduct because they can create cartels based solely on the interaction of algorithms. Firms should not be able to say that it is legal or acceptable to engage in algorithmic collusion, just because it has been made through an algorithm. Section 3(3) does not preclude the use of circumstantial evidence to infer the existence of cartel-type behaviour, therefore, there should be no reason to prevent the making of algorithms to facilitate collusive activity. Further, since these algorithms function as “autonomous” systems, firms cannot use the argument of the delegation of authority to avoid liability when it is foreseeable that the actions of these autonomous systems will result in sustained anti-competitive damage. At the same time, enforcement must remain principled. An effects-based interpretative approach focusing on market outcomes, foreseeability, and control over algorithm design offers a balanced solution. As markets become increasingly governed by code rather than communication, competition law must evolve to scrutinise the competitive implications of algorithms themselves. Fx Enter. Sols. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., MANU/CO/0041/2017 ↩︎ Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Comm’n of India MANU/SC/0588/2017 ↩︎ Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/1108/2018 ↩︎ Authored  by - Aniket Ghosh, Partner https://ksandk.com/people/aniket-ghosh/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/ 
30 April 2026

Karta’s Personal Liability Where HUF Assets Are Insufficient to Satisfy an Arbitral Award: Bombay High Court Clarifies Position

By Athira T.S Introduction The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) occupies a distinctive position in Indian law. While not a separate juristic entity in the same manner as a corporation or partnership, the HUF is nevertheless recognised for purposes of property ownership, taxation, and litigation. The affairs of the HUF are managed by the Karta, who exercises wide powers in relation to the management of joint family property and, in many cases, the conduct of family businesses. Legal Framework Governing HUF Liability Under classical Hindu law, a joint family consists of lineal descendants from a common ancestor along with their spouses and unmarried daughters. Property held by the family is collectively owned by the coparceners, with the Karta acting as the manager of the joint estate. The Karta traditionally enjoyed broad managerial powers, including authority to: manage joint family property; represent the HUF in legal proceedings; enter into contracts for purposes of family benefit or necessity; and conduct business on behalf of the joint family. While historically the position of Karta was generally occupied by the senior-most male member, judicial developments and statutory reforms have clarified that women may also act as Kartas where they are the senior-most coparceners. The Karta’s acts, when undertaken for legal necessity, family benefit, or in the ordinary course of business, are capable of binding the joint family estate. Liability of Coparceners and the Karta in Commercial Transactions A Hindu joint family is distinct from corporate entities in that it does not possess an independent legal personality. Nevertheless, courts recognise the HUF as a unit for certain legal purposes, particularly in matters relating to property and business operations. Where a Karta carries on a trading business on behalf of the HUF, the general principles governing liability are well established: Joint family property is primarily liable for debts incurred in the course of such business. Coparceners are liable only to the extent of their interest in the joint family property, unless they have independently participated in or authorised the transaction. The Karta may incur personal liability to third parties, particularly in commercial dealings where he represents the HUF and contracts on its behalf. The Supreme Court recognised these principles in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraogi v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass1 (1952), noting that while coparceners’ liability is limited to their share in the joint family property, the Karta managing a trading business may incur personal liability toward third parties dealing with the business. Such liability arises from the Karta’s representative role in commercial transactions and the authority he exercises in conducting the business. However, the extent of personal liability may depend on the nature of the transaction and the contractual arrangements between the parties. Abolition of the Doctrine of Pious Obligation Historically, Hindu law recognised the doctrine of pious obligation, under which sons were required to discharge their father’s debts, provided the debts were not incurred for immoral or illegal purposes. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 significantly altered this position by abolishing the doctrine in respect of debts incurred after the amendment. Consequently, sons are no longer automatically liable for their father’s debts merely by virtue of this doctrine. Importantly, however, the abolition of the doctrine does not affect the established principles governing the Karta’s liability in commercial transactions conducted on behalf of a trading HUF. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against HUFs The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that arbitral awards are enforceable in the same manner as decrees of a civil court. Under Section 36, once an award becomes enforceable, the successful party may initiate execution proceedings against the judgment debtor. Where the judgment debtor is a HUF engaged in business, creditors may ordinarily proceed against joint family assets. The question that arises in practice is whether execution may extend to the personal assets of the Karta where the joint family property proves insufficient. This question formed the central issue before the Bombay High Court in the present case. The Bombay High Court’s Decision Factual Background In Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF, the petitioner had obtained an arbitral award against a HUF operating a trading business under the name Nishant Enterprises. When the award holder initiated execution proceedings, it emerged that the joint family assets were insufficient to satisfy the award amount. The award holder therefore sought to proceed against the personal immovable property of the Karta. The Karta objected to this course of action, arguing that the arbitral award had been passed against the HUF and not against him in his individual capacity, and therefore his personal assets could not be attached. Issues Before the Court The principal questions before the Court were: Whether the Karta of a trading HUF may incur personal liability for business debts incurred on behalf of the HUF, and Whether an arbitral award against the HUF may be executed against the Karta’s personal assets where joint family property is insufficient. Court’s Reasoning Justice G.S. Kulkarni examined the established principles of Hindu law governing trading HUFs and the liability arising from commercial transactions undertaken by the Karta. The Court observed that when a Karta conducts business on behalf of a joint family, he represents the HUF in dealings with third parties and exercises substantial authority in the conduct of the business. In such circumstances, creditors dealing with the business are entitled to rely on the Karta’s authority and may hold him personally liable where the joint family estate is unable to discharge the debt. Relying on established jurisprudence, including Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraogi, the Court reaffirmed the distinction between the liabilities of coparceners and the Karta: Coparceners are liable only to the extent of their share in the joint family property, unless they have independently participated in the transaction. The Karta, by contrast, may incur personal liability in respect of commercial obligations undertaken in the course of the HUF business. Accordingly, the Court held that where joint family property is insufficient to satisfy the arbitral award, execution proceedings may extend to the Karta’s personal assets, subject to the determination of liability in the execution proceedings. Directions of the Court On the facts of the case, the Court permitted the execution proceedings to continue and allowed the attachment of the Karta’s personal immovable property, in addition to the assets of the HUF, in order to satisfy the arbitral award. The decision clarifies that an award creditor need not initiate separate proceedings where the legal principles governing liability permit execution against the Karta personally. Significance of the Decision The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces several important principles relevant to creditors and HUF-managed businesses: Trading HUFs do not operate as liability shields comparable to corporate structures. The Karta may incur personal liability for commercial obligations undertaken on behalf of the HUF. Arbitral awards against a trading HUF may, in appropriate circumstances, be executed against the Karta’s personal assets where joint family property is insufficient. For creditors, the judgment provides clarity regarding enforcement strategies when dealing with family-run businesses. For HUFs engaged in commercial activity, it serves as a reminder that the managerial authority of the Karta carries with it significant legal exposure. Conclusion The Bombay High Court’s decision in Manjeet Singh T. Anand v. Nishant Enterprises HUF reiterates a long-standing principle of Hindu law: the Karta of a trading joint family may incur personal liability for obligations arising from the family business. Where joint family assets are insufficient to satisfy an arbitral award, creditors may seek execution against the Karta’s personal property, subject to the applicable legal principles. The judgment is particularly significant in the context of modern commercial disputes involving family-run enterprises. It highlights that while the HUF structure remains an important legal and economic institution, it does not operate as a complete shield against personal liability in commercial transactions conducted by the Karta. Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraogi v. Onkarmal Ishar Dass, AIR 1952 SC 60 : 1952 SCR 1104 ↩︎ Authored by Athira T.S, Associate Partnerhttps://ksandk.com/people/athira-t-s/ Firm Website: https://ksandk.com/
30 April 2026
Press Releases

KSK secures interim injunction protecting upcoming film against defamatory content

Bengaluru, March 18, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) has successfully secured an ex parte interim injunction on behalf of its client, Mythri Movie Makers, before the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, in a significant matter concerning protection against defamatory and malicious content relating to the upcoming film Ustaad Bhagat Singh. The Hon’ble Court, after hearing the Plaintiff and perusing the pleadings and documents on record, was pleased to grant an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendants, including X Corp, YouTube LLC, Google India Private Limited, BigTree Entertainment Pvt Ltd, IMDb.com Inc., and Meta Platforms Inc., from telecasting, transmitting, publishing, or distributing any false, malicious, defamatory, or derogatory content concerning the film. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. It further held that in the absence of interim protection, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, thereby justifying urgent relief. The Court also recognized the applicability of “John Doe” principles against unknown parties, reinforcing the Plaintiff’s right to safeguard its interests against anonymous or unidentified actors. The matter was argued by Mr. Navod Prasannan (Partner), who led the proceedings on behalf of the Plaintiff. The KSK team advising on the matter comprised Mr. Navod Prasannan (Partner), Mr. Rahul Mehta (Partner), Mr. Arpit Choudhury (Partner), Mr. Atul Menon (Partner), Mr. Krunal Mehta (Associate Partner), Mr. Naren Shetty (Senior Associate), Ms. Mehak Chaichani (Associate), and Ms. Akalya Ravichandran (Associate). This order marks an important step in protecting creative works from premature and potentially damaging content dissemination, particularly in the digital ecosystem. The matter is next listed for further hearing on April 27, 2026.
19 April 2026
Press Releases

KSK Secures Supreme Court Victory for Hamdard; Rooh Afza Classified as ‘Fruit Drink’

New Delhi, February 25, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) successfully represented Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories before the Supreme Court of India in a significant VAT classification dispute concerning its flagship product, Sharbat Rooh Afza, under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. In a reportable judgment (2026 INSC 195), a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court and held that Rooh Afza is classifiable as a “fruit drink” under Entry 103 of Schedule II (Part A), attracting VAT at the concessional rate of 4% instead of 12.5% under the residuary entry for the period 2008-2012. The Court ruled that regulatory or licensing classification cannot control or curtail the interpretation of a fiscal entry. It further held that the Revenue has failed to discharge further held that the burden lies on the Revenue to justify classification under a residuary entry, which was not discharged in the present case. Lastly, the Court held that resort to the residuary entry is impermissible where classification under a specific entry is reasonably and sustainably possible. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Hamdard, briefed by the KSK team comprising Aditya Bhattacharya (Partner), Vipin Upadhyay (Partner), Simran Tandon (Associate Partner), Ritwik Tyagi (Associate), and Akriti Sharma (Associate). The ruling is an important precedent on VAT/GST classification of traditional beverage concentrates and limits on the use of residuary entries by tax authorities. About King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) King Stubb & Kasiva is a full-service Indian law firm with a pan-India presence and a team of over 200 legal professionals. The firm advises multinational corporations, financial institutions, government bodies, and emerging businesses across key practice areas including corporate and M&A, dispute resolution, taxation, intellectual property, regulatory, media and entertainment, employment and technology laws.
18 March 2026
Press Releases

KSK Secures Supreme Court Victory for Hamdard; Rooh Afza Classified as ‘Fruit Drink’

New Delhi, February 25, 2026: King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) successfully represented Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories before the Supreme Court of India in a significant VAT classification dispute concerning its flagship product, Sharbat Rooh Afza, under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. In a reportable judgment (2026 INSC 195), a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court and held that Rooh Afza is classifiable as a “fruit drink” under Entry 103 of Schedule II (Part A), attracting VAT at the concessional rate of 4% instead of 12.5% under the residuary entry for the period 2008–2012. The Court ruled that regulatory or licensing classification cannot control or curtail the interpretation of a fiscal entry. It further held that the Revenue has failed to discharge further held that the burden lies on the Revenue to justify classification under a residuary entry, which was not discharged in the present case. Lastly, the Court held that resort to the residuary entry is impermissible where classification under a specific entry is reasonably and sustainably possible. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Hamdard, briefed by the KSK team comprising Aditya Bhattacharya (Partner), Vipin Upadhyay (Partner), Simran Tandon (Associate Partner), Ritwik Tyagi (Associate), and Akriti Sharma (Associate). The ruling is an important precedent on VAT/GST classification of traditional beverage concentrates and limits on the use of residuary entries by tax authorities. About King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) King Stubb & Kasiva is a full-service Indian law firm with a pan-India presence and a team of over 200 legal professionals. The firm advises multinational corporations, financial institutions, government bodies, and emerging businesses across key practice areas including corporate and M&A, dispute resolution, taxation, intellectual property, regulatory, media and entertainment, employment and technology laws.
10 March 2026

Sector – Specific Anti – Trust Challenges in India

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction Competition law in India starts with a simple idea: free, fair markets work better for everyone. They push companies to be efficient, help consumers, and keep innovation alive. That’s the whole point behind the Competition Act, 2002. It replaced the old MRTP Act, which was all about controlling monopolies, and brought in a modern approach that fits with what’s happening in the rest of the world. On paper, this law doesn’t pick favourites; it’s supposed to cover all sectors equally. But in practice, things get messy. The way anti-trust issues show up can look completely different depending on the industry. Technology, market structures, how consumers behave, and the whole regulatory environment all change from one sector to another. So, enforcing competition law isn’t as simple as following a rulebook. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has noticed this, too. What counts as anti-competitive in one sector might be business as usual in another. Take something that’s fine in manufacturing, it can turn into a serious problem in digital markets. Or, what regulators ignore in utilities might cause a fuss elsewhere. The CCI and Indian courts have to walk a tightrope, keeping things fair and competitive, but also paying attention to the quirks and rules in each sector. The Statutory Framework and Its Sector-Neutral Approach The Competition Act, 2002 casts a wide net. It bans anti-competitive agreements (that’s Section 3), stops firms from abusing their market power (Section 4), and keeps an eye on mergers and acquisitions (Sections 5 and 6). What stands out? The Act doesn’t carve out special rules for different sectors. Instead, it leans on economic ideas, things like defining the relevant market, figuring out who holds dominance, spotting any serious harm to competition (AAEC), and watching out for consumer harm. This neutral setup gives the law some flexibility, but it also makes life tricky for those who have to enforce it. The same legal tests apply whether you’re looking at digital platforms built on networks, massive infrastructure projects, fast-moving pharmaceutical markets, or tightly regulated public utilities. So, where does real difference show up? Not in the law’s wording, but in how you define the market, decide who’s dominant, and measure competitive harm. Courts keep saying that competition cases have to be grounded in the facts and sensitive to the sector in question, even though the legal framework stays the same for everyone. Challenges In India Digital Markets: Data, Network Effects, and Gatekeeper Power Digital markets are a whole different ballgame. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta run platforms that connect users, sellers, advertisers, and developers all at once. A lot of the time, these services are free, so the usual price-based tests don’t really work. The CCI has figured out that dominance here isn’t just about market share. It’s about who controls the data, the algorithms, the whole ecosystem. Network effects kick in, basically, the more people use a platform, the harder it is for anyone else to compete. That’s how you end up with “winner-takes-most” situations. The CCI has started cracking down on things like self-preferencing, forcing exclusive pre-installation, tying products together, and giving unfair access to platform data. All of these can be considered abuse under Section 4. But it’s not always clear-cut. Sometimes, what looks like innovation actually pushes rivals out. Integrating a platform might help consumers, but it can also lock out competition. Indian regulators and courts are paying close attention to what’s happening in places like the EU, but they’re also trying to figure out what works for India’s fast-growing digital world. Telecommunications Sector: Dominance in a Regulated Market Telecom is a whole other challenge because it’s so heavily regulated. From spectrum licenses to pricing and quality rules, everything is overseen by bodies like TRAI. This brings up the constant problem of who gets to decide, sector regulators or the CCI? Anti-competitive issues in telecom usually revolve around predatory pricing, cartels, or dominant players squeezing out smaller ones. When big companies with deep pockets come in and slash prices, it can drive out the competition. But courts have been clear: just because there’s aggressive competition doesn’t always mean something anti-competitive is going on. Pharmaceutical Sector: Innovation, Patents, and Market Power Competition law and intellectual property rights run right into each other in the pharmaceutical world. Patents give companies a legal monopoly, but sometimes firms stretch that power, stalling generic drugs or clinging to market control longer than necessary. The CCI has looked into tricks like patent evergreening, refusing to license, jacking up prices, and tight supply deals that keep out rivals. One big headache here is finding the sweet spot between rewarding innovation and making sure people can actually afford medicine. Claims about sky-high prices aren’t simple, they need real economic digging, especially when you factor in R&D bills, regulatory hurdles, and public health needs. The CCI tends to tread carefully, knowing that too much interference can scare off the very innovation it’s supposed to support. Then there’s the web of deals between drugmakers, distributors, and hospitals. These vertical agreements sometimes shut out competition or lead to price-fixing. India’s pharmaceutical supply chain is messy and spread out, which makes cracking down even tougher. The CCI often has to rely on deep market studies rather than jumping to conclusions. Energy and Utilities: Competition in Natural Monopolies Energy and utilities are tricky. Some parts, like transmission grids or distribution networks, just work better as natural monopolies, so they’re regulated instead of opened up to competition. But in other areas, like power generation or fuel supply, competition matters and old habits die hard. The usual red flags here? Blocking rivals from key infrastructure, unfair pricing, or favouring companies with inside connections. The “essential facilities” doctrine has gained momentum, compelling dominant utilities to provide competitors with fair access. Courts get that competition law has to respect the way these sectors work, but they won’t let regulatory monopolies hide anti-competitive behaviour. The real challenge: make sure there’s competition for the market, even when there can’t be much competition inside it. Enforcement Challenges and Institutional Constraints Enforcing competition law in India isn’t a walk in the park. The CCI faces limits on how much it can investigate, economic expertise is still growing, and cases can drag on for ages. Throw in digital markets and highly regulated industries, and you need a whole new level of economic and technical know-how. Coordination with sector regulators? Still a work in progress. Agreements are on paper, but overlapping powers often slow things down and leave businesses guessing. There’s a growing call for specialised benches and clearer, sector-specific rules. Tools like settlements, commitments, and leniency programs are starting to show up. These help make enforcement quicker and more flexible, especially in complicated sectors where drawn-out litigation can kill innovation or stall investment. Conclusion India’s sector-specific anti-trust issues really show how one-size-fits-all laws run into trouble with messy, real-world markets. The Competition Act gives regulators a lot to work with, but how well it works depends on context and the maturity of the institutions using it. Indian competition law is slowly turning more nuanced, paying closer attention to the quirks of digital platforms, regulated utilities, innovation-heavy industries, and big infrastructure. As India’s economy grows more complex, competition law has to keep up. The goal is to strike the right balance, boosting efficiency, stopping market abuses, and letting honest businesses compete. Staying sharp on economic analysis, tuning into each sector’s realities, and making sure regulators talk to each other will be key if India wants a competition regime that’s both strong and ready for the future.  
02 March 2026

E-Commerce and Competition Law

By Aniket Ghosh Introduction The rapid expansion of e-commerce in India has raised significant concerns regarding market dominance, fair competition, and regulatory oversight. One of the most prominent legal confrontations in this domain arose when the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated an investigation against Amazon and Flipkart, two of India’s largest e-commerce platforms, for alleged anti-competitive practices. This move was challenged before the Karnataka High Court, culminating in a landmark decision that clarified the scope of judicial review over preliminary investigations ordered by specialized statutory authorities. Informational History of the Case1 This controversy began when DVM (Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh), an organization that represents micro, small and medium sized enterprises filed its original complaint with CCI in January 2020. In the complaint, the DVM alleged that Flipkart and amazon engaged in anti-competitive practices contrary to Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act of 2002. On 13 January 2020, the CCI, after considering the information placed before it, passed an order under Section 26(1)2 directing the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation. Amazon subsequently challenged this order by filing a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court in February 2020. On 14 February 2020, the High Court granted an interim stay on the investigation. In September 2020, the CCI approached the Supreme Court challenging the interim stay. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Karnataka High Court with directions for expeditious disposal. The proceedings continued before the High Court until 11 June 2021, when the stay order was quashed, allowing the investigation to proceed. Finally, in September 2021, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Amazon and Flipkart. Complaint by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh DVM alleges that Amazon and Flipkart are abusing their market power by entering into vertical agreements with preferred sellers (or choice sellers) using a selective process and engaging in indirect control of the selected vendor. Specifically, during launching an Android or iOS mobile device, these online retail platforms provided preferred sellers with advantages to the detriment of competing sellers. CCI’s investigation was based on four main practices Exclusive launch arrangements on mobile phones Promotion of preferred sellers Selling their products through deep discounts Listing certain sellers before others According to CCI, each of these practices raises concerns over potential foreclosure of the market and potential complications regarding the need to compete with others fairly through the use of online marketplaces. Amazon and Flipkart have presented several arguments to challenge the validity of the CCI’s order before the Karnataka High Court. These two companies argue that the CCI’s order surpasses the goal of the Competition Act, and that the CCI’s decision to initiate an investigation into the actions of Amazon and Flipkart was based on insufficiently established jurisdictional facts proving that the actions of either Amazon or Flipkart significantly prejudicially impacted competition. Also, they argued that the original informer’s complaint was motivated and initiated by the Confederation of All India Traders, who have previously filed multiple unsuccessful complaints against both Amazon and Flipkart. Additionally, the Petitioners argued that prior to this, the CCI has not followed its past practice of providing a hearing prior to forming an opinion based on evidence. The companies also argued that the CCI’s order was illegal since it was not based on sufficient evidence, nor was it based on an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate concerning the alleged illegal actions of Amazon and Flipkart. Lastly, the companies argued that the CCI’s order constituted Abuse of Process, inflicting undue hardship upon both Amazon and Flipkart. The Senior Counsel for Flipkart has stated that exclusivity of selling products is up to the independent choice of the seller and thus the platform of Flipkart should not be liable for those choices made by sellers. Submissions of the Competition Commission of India The CCI defended its order by characterizing it as an administrative direction under Section 26(1), which merely initiates a departmental investigation and does not determine rights or impose civil consequences. It was contended that judicial review of such orders is limited and can only be exercised in cases of mala fide intent or abuse of jurisdiction, neither of which had been alleged. The Commission further submitted that there is no sector-specific regulator governing e-commerce in India and that the allegations raised involved complex issues of inter-platform and intra-platform competition. It was also argued that the source or motivation of the informant was irrelevant, as the Commission’s focus remained on the substantive competition concerns disclosed in the information. Three main issues were identified by the Karnataka High Court on which they would make their decision: Is the order made under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act an administrative order? Is it necessary to give a party a chance to respond to the allegation and to hold a hearing before the investigating authority gives an order to investigate? Was there a valid basis for the court to intervene in the order of the Enforcement Directorate? Judgements of the Court For the first two questions, the Karnataka High Court held that an order made under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is administrative in nature, quoting authorities such as CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.3 (CCI vs SA India) and CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.4 (CCI vs BA India) which confirmed that the threshold for making a prima facie opinion as to whether or not there has been an infringement is relatively low, and does not involve an extensive analysis of the evidence. The Court points out that Section 26(1) does not require prior notice or hearing to be given to a person before an order to investigate is made. These types of procedural rules only come into play after the Director General submits a report to the Commission, in accordance with Section 26(4). The preliminary investigation does not produce a civil consequence and is conducted in strict confidence. With respect to the third issue, the Court noted that the CCI had examined the information in detail and applied its mind before forming a prima facie opinion. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Conclusion In this decision, the Karnataka High Court stated that it would have been premature for the court to get involved in an investigation being conducted by an expert regulatory body at this point in time. The court noted that the review of judicial authority is limited at the initial stages of an investigation and should not try to prejudge matters that are better left to expert regulators. The judgment reinforces the independence of the CCI but also illustrates the lack of a regulatory framework governing e-commerce in India. The lack of clear guidelines will create a number of issues for parties involved in any type of litigation or regulatory proceedings, as well as adding to attorneys’ and regulators’ uncertainty over the law. A thorough, balanced approach is needed to ensure that competition is maintained in a manner that encourages innovation, consumer welfare and investment confidence in today’s growing digital market. CCI Order Case no. 40 0f 2019 https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/40-of-2019.pdf?download=1 ↩︎ Competition Act, 2000, § 19, Acts of Parliament, 2000. * Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N Banerjee AIR 79 1958 SCR 514 ↩︎ CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 744 (India) ↩︎ CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 521 (India). ↩︎
02 March 2026

Major GST Win: Clinical Trial Services for Foreign Clients Are Exports & Tax Free Retrospectively

By Aditya Bhattacharya Contributed by Vipin Upadhyay In a significant victory for the Indian pharmaceutical and research services industry, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has ruled that clinical trial services and allied pharmaceutical R&D services provided to recipients located outside India qualify as “export of services” under GST law. The ruling also held that the key GST place of supply notification which clarified this position operates retrospectively, thereby invalidating long-standing GST demands for earlier years. Background: GST Dispute on Clinical Trials M/s Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd., an Indian company engaged in conducting clinical trials and observations studies, entered into agreements to provide services to pharmaceutical and research entities located abroad. Despite this, the GST authorities treated these services as domestic taxable supplies for the period April 2018 to March 2019, on the basis that the services were performed in India. They denied export status and demanded GST, arguing that the vital notification clarifying the place of supply was prospective only. The Legal Issue The core questions before the High Court were: Do clinical trial and other pharma R&D services rendered in India to foreign recipients qualify as “export of services” under the IGST Act? Does Notification No. 04/2019-Integrated Tax (dated 30 September 2019) operate retrospectively, especially for the period before its issuance? Statutory Framework Section 13 of the IGST Act, 2017 determines the place of supply of services. Generally: If a service recipient is located outside India, the place of supply is treated as the recipient’s location (making it an export under GST). However, under Section 13(3)(a), where services are supplied in respect of goods made physically available to the service provider, the place of supply could be where the service is performed. To remove ambiguity in the pharmaceutical sector, the Central Government issued Notification No. 04/2019-Integrated Tax under Section 13(13) of the IGST Act, clarifying that certain R&D services (including clinical trials) provided to foreign entities shall have the place of supply as the location of the recipient abroad. 37th GST Council’s Role This notification was issued following recommendations made during the 37th GST Council Meeting (20 September 2019), where concerns were raised about competitive disadvantages faced by Indian pharma companies due to GST ambiguities on export of R&D services. High Court’s Key Findings On 8 December 2025, the Karnataka High Court delivered its judgment holding: Clinical Trial Services Are Export Services The petitioner’s clinical trial and pharma R&D services provided to foreign recipients satisfy the export conditions under Section 13(2) of the IGST Act. The place of supply is the location of the foreign recipient outside India and hence such services are not subject to GST. The Notification Is Retrospective The Court examined the language, object, and context of Notification No. 04/2019 and held that it was clarificatory, elucidatory, and beneficial. Relying on established precedents (including Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.), the Court reaffirmed that clarificatory notifications operate retrospectively to remove doubts and prevent double taxation. GST Demands Quashed By applying the notification retrospectively, the Court quashed the GST demands raised on the petitioner for services supplied during April 2018 to March 2019. Both the adjudication order and appellate order upholding the GST liability were set aside. What This Means for the Pharma & R&D Sector Immediate Benefits: Companies engaged in clinical trials and other pharma R&D services for foreign clients can treat such supplies as exports, free from GST, even for pre-2019 periods. This eliminates legacy GST demands based on retrospective application of place-of-supply rules. Broader Implications: Reinforces the application of common law principles that clarificatory and beneficial notifications have retrospective effect. Provides tax certainty for cross-border service providers in the pharmaceutical, biotech, and research sectors. Tax Strategy & Compliance Insights Professionals and taxpayers may consider: Re-opening past GST assessments where export status was denied for pharma R&D/clinical trial services. Reviewing place-of-supply positions in light of this ruling for other cross-border services. Evaluating how retrospective notifications impact input tax credits and refund positions. Conclusion The Karnataka High Court’s ruling is a game-changer for Indian service exporters in the pharmaceutical R&D space. By affirming that exports of clinical trial services are non-taxable and that the clarifying a notification applies retrospectively, the court has provided robust legal support for international competitiveness and eliminated significant tax uncertainties.  
02 March 2026
Press Releases

Abhishek Paliwal joins King Stubb & Kasiva as Partner in the Corporate Practice in New Delhi

King Stubb & Kasiva has appointed Abhishek Paliwal as a Partner in its Corporate practice, further strengthening the Firm’s capabilities across M&A, capital markets, corporate governance, and regulatory advisory. Abhishek brings with him over 12 years of experience in corporate and capital markets law, with deep expertise in SEBI regulations, Companies Act, FEMA advisory, IPOs, corporate governance, and compliance advisory. He has advised listed companies, startups, capital market intermediaries, and multinational corporations on complex regulatory and transactional matters. Prior to joining King Stubb & Kasiva, Abhishek, he was a Practice Head at law firms and was a member of the Brand Building Committee of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI). Commenting on Abhishek’s joining, Mr. Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva, said: “Abhishek’s induction as Partner reflects our focus on strengthening key practice areas. His experience in corporate, capital markets, and regulatory advisory will further solidify our corporate practice and will add significant value to our corporate and transactional practice. Abhishek Paliwal added: “I am pleased to join King Stubb & Kasiva and be part of a Firm that has built a strong reputation across corporate and regulatory advisory. I look forward to working closely with the team to support clients on their corporate, governance, and compliance requirements.”
03 February 2026
Press Releases

Atul N Menon joins King Stubb and Kasiva as Partner in Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice

King Stubb & Kasiva has appointed Atul N Menon as a Partner in its Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice. Atul joins the Firm after being a Partner at SAGA Legal, and prior to that, he was Counsel at AZB & Partners, where he advised and represented clients in complex commercial and regulatory disputes. He holds a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, and an LL.M. in International Dispute Resolution  from Queen Mary University of London. With over 13 years of experience, Atul has represented clients before the Supreme Court of India, several High Courts, and key regulatory and investigative forums, advising on a wide range of white-collar, financial, and audit-related criminal matters, in addition to arbitrations, civil suits, and shareholder disputes. He has advised and represented leading Indian and multinational corporations in high-stakes criminal investigations involving white-collar offences, financial irregularities, and auditing issues, appearing before courts as well as enforcement and investigation agencies. As a key member of litigation teams, Atul has been involved in some of the country’s most high-profile and transformative litigations, with notable successes in insider trading cases, money laundering investigations, and proceedings under foreign exchange laws. His experience also includes representing Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries in sensitive regulatory and criminal matters. He has also acted for banks and financial institutions in recovery proceedings and has advised corporates on oppression and mismanagement, mergers, capital reductions, and restructuring matters. He also serves on the Advisory Council of the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law and is a member of the youth wings of leading international arbitration institutions, including YIAG, YICCA, and YMCIA. His work has been recognised through his inclusion in BW LegalWorld’s “40 Under 40” list of legal elites (2024) and his recognition as a “Future Star” for White-Collar Crime by Benchmark Litigation (2025). Commenting on Atul’s joining, Mr. Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner of King Stubb & Kasiva, said: “We are delighted to welcome Atul to the partnership. His sharp litigation acumen, deep expertise in white-collar and regulatory matters, and extensive experience across courts and investigative forums bring immense value to our clients. At KSK, we continue to strengthen a future-ready disputes practice capable of handling complex, high-stakes, and evolving legal challenges.” Atul added, “I am pleased to join King Stubb & Kasiva at an important inflection point in the Firm’s growth. KSK’s strong credentials in complex litigation, white-collar, and regulatory matters, coupled with its progressive and collaborative culture, make it a compelling platform. I look forward to working with the team to further strengthen the disputes practice and to advising clients on high-stakes, strategically critical matters.”
28 January 2026
Press Releases

Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against AI-Generated Misuse of Akira Nandan’s Identity

The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad-interim relief in favour of Akira Desai alias Akira Nandan, restraining the unauthorised AI-generated misuse of his identity and infringement of his personality, publicity and privacy rights. The suit challenged large-scale creation and circulation of AI-generated and deepfake content, including fake accounts and misleading posts across digital platforms, falsely portraying the plaintiff as being associated with various cinematic and commercial projects. This included a full-length AI-generated film depicting him as a lead actor, resulting in public deception and unauthorised commercial exploitation. By an order dated January 23, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela restrained the defendants and unidentified John Doe parties from creating, publishing or disseminating the impugned AI-generated film “AI LOVE STORY (Telugu) 4K”, or from using the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, voice or other personality attributes through AI, generative AI, machine learning or deepfake technologies. The Court also directed the immediate takedown of infringing links. The Court observed that the creation of an AI-generated film itself demonstrated the commercial value of the plaintiff’s identity, and that continued circulation would cause irreparable harm. The Court further directed Meta Platforms Inc. to notify users responsible for the infringing URLs within 72 hours, failing which the content was to be removed, and to disclose BSI and IP login details of the account holders within three weeks. The Court relied on DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. and a recent order in Ranganathan Madhawan v. G Filmz Studioz & Ors. Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak was briefed by advocates Himanshu Deora (Partner), Rahul Mehta (Partner), Arpit Choudhary (Partner), Krunal Mehta, Karen Koya, Dhwani Vora, B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu, Anupriya Alok, Shambhavi Sharma, Sanat Saswadkar, Shambhavi Bharadwaj and Divya Bhushan, of King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK).
27 January 2026
Press Releases

KSK Law Firm Secures Major Victory for Allcargo Logistics in Trademark Infringement Case

In CS (COMM) 1113/2025, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Allcargo Logistics Limited, restraining the defendants from using the mark “VRS ALLCARGO” or any other mark deceptively similar to “ALLCARGO” in relation to logistics and allied services King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK), through its Intellectual Property practice led by Himanshu Deora, Partner - IP, has successfully represented Allcargo Logistics Limited, a leading Indian multinational logistics company, in a significant trademark enforcement matter before the Delhi High Court, securing robust judicial protection for the globally recognised ALLCARGO brand. Founded in India and operating across 180 jurisdictions worldwide, Allcargo has emerged as a global logistics powerhouse, delivering integrated supply chain solutions spanning multimodal transport, contract logistics, express distribution, and logistics infrastructure. The ALLCARGO brand has, over decades, come to represent scale, reliability, and trust in the international logistics ecosystem. The Delhi High Court recognised the long-standing reputation, extensive use, and goodwill associated with the ALLCARGO mark and restrained the unauthorised use of deceptively similar marks by infringing entities, reinforcing the importance of strong trademark enforcement for Indian companies with global operations. The matter was argued by Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, Delhi High Court, with Himanshu Deora and KSK’s Intellectual Property team playing a pivotal role in developing the enforcement strategy, managing filings, and steering the litigation to a successful outcome.
29 December 2025
Press Releases

KSK Secures Key Directions from Telangana High Court Reinforcing Procedural Fairness in Tax Investigations

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is pleased to share a significant tax litigation update arising from proceedings involving Miles Education Pvt. Ltd. before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. In its order, the Court issued important directions to the investigating authorities, underscoring that inquiries must be conducted strictly during working hours, statements must be recorded voluntarily, and established judicial safeguards must be adhered to at all times. In a subsequent proceeding, the Court further emphasised the need for discretion during investigations, particularly to ensure protection of client confidentiality. These orders reaffirm the judiciary’s continued focus on procedural fairness, protection of individual rights, and responsible conduct by regulatory authorities. The observations serve as a timely reminder that investigative powers must be exercised within the bounds of law and due process. KSK welcomes the Court’s intervention and remains committed to safeguarding constitutional and procedural protections in regulatory and enforcement proceedings. The matters were handled by KSK’s team comprising Vipin Upadhyay - Partner, K. Vidya – Partner Designate, and Sai Charan B. V. N – Principal Associate who briefed Senior Advocate Avinash Desai in both writ petitions.
29 December 2025
Press Releases

King Stubb & Kasiva Advises IGT Solutions on the Acquisition of Yexle Limited

King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is pleased to announce that the firm served as the lead counsel for IGT Solutions, an EQT Group portfolio company renowned for its digital and data-driven transformation solutions, in its acquisition of Yexle Limited, a UK-headquartered IT services company with operations across the United States, India, and Australia. Yexle specialises exclusively in the design, development, and delivery of digital solutions built on the Appian low-code automation platform. This cross-border transaction strengthens IGT Solutions’ technology services capabilities and reinforces its strategic focus on expanding expertise in automation-led digital transformation. The transaction was led by KSK’s Senior Partner Rajesh Sivaswamy and Associate Partner Surbhi Kapoor, who acted as lead counsel, supported by Udita Arya, Ashok Neelakandhan, Akriti Sharma, Mona Rawat, and Hariom Bajpai. Their combined expertise ensured the seamless execution of this complex, multi-jurisdictional acquisition. This successful outcome was further enabled by the dedicated support of Yogeshwar Dutt (Senior Vice President & Head - Corporate Development at IGT Solutions), Radha Papinani (GGC at IGT Solutions), and Megha Grewal (Senior Legal Counsel at IGT Solutions).
15 December 2025
Press Releases

KSK Welcomes Two New Partners to the Firm

King Stubb & Kasiva is extremely proud to announce the addition of two distinguished legal professionals, Adnan Siddiqui and Nivedita Bhardwaj, as Partners. Their wealth of expertise and versatile experience shall immensely enhance KSK's Real Estate and Corporate Practices. Adnan Siddiqui – Partner, Real Estate Practice: Adnan Siddiqui joins KSK with expertise in advising startup firms, manufacturing units, and leading real estate developers. His well-rounded portfolio includes contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) Development Program, where he was instrumental in shaping amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act and enhancing road safety measures in the country. Adnan’s proficiency also extends to real estate litigation and IT laws, making him a versatile asset to the firm. His legal acumen promises to further strengthen KSK's Real Estate Practice. Nivedita Bhardwaj – Partner, Corporate Practice Nivedita Bhardwaj joins KSK as a Corporate Partner, bringing with her a distinguished track record in venture capital and private equity transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and general corporate commercial practice matters. Advising clients across industries including fintech, e-commerce, FMCG, and gaming, Nivedita is well-positioned to contribute transformative strategies to KSK's Corporate Practice. The addition of Adnan Siddiqui and Nivedita Bhardwaj to KSK’s team marks yet another significant milestone in our journey toward enhancing our service offerings. Our newest Partners’ arrival reinforces our commitment to delivering tailored and impactful legal solutions, ensuring clients benefit from a blend of deep expertise.  
21 January 2025
Content supplied by King, Stubb & Kasiva