King, Stubb & Kasiva

Green Hydrogen Projects in India: Financing, Regulation and Infrastructure Challenges Shaping the Sector in 2026

04 June 2026

Restructuring and Insolvency

Insolvency and Stressed Infrastructure Assets in India: Opportunities, Risks and Resolution Trends in 2026

04 June 2026

Dispute Resolution: arbitration

The Fourth Party at the Indian Tribunal Table

When two parties agree to arbitrate, they agree to place their dispute before a person, or a panel of persons, whom they trust to decide it. That is the whole of the bargain. Everything else, the seat, the rules, the language and the timetable, is machinery built around a single human act of judgment. It is worth holding that picture in mind, because a quiet change is taking place at the tribunal table. A new presence has pulled up a chair, and it is neither party, nor counsel, nor the arbitrator. Scholars of online dispute resolution gave it a name some years ago. Drawing on the work of Ethan Katsh and Janet Rifkin, they called technology the fourth party, sitting alongside the two disputants and the neutral and increasingly shaping what happens between them. The phrase was coined for the modest software of an earlier internet. It fits the arbitration room of 2026 far better than it fitted the one it was written for. The argument of this piece is narrow and important. So long as artificial intelligence in arbitration does the work of a clerk, it raises little that the existing law cannot handle. The moment it begins to shape the decision rather than merely speed up the typing, it stops behaving like a tool and starts behaving like a participant, and at that moment a set of Indian rules built entirely around human actors begins to misfire. The fourth party is not a metaphor to be admired. It is a problem to be located precisely, and Indian arbitration law, as it happens, gives us unusually sharp instruments for locating it. What the fourth party actually means The fourth party idea is best understood by contrast with the third. The third party in any dispute is the neutral, the mediator or the arbitrator, brought in to do what the two sides cannot do for themselves. The fourth party is the technology that increasingly assists, and sometimes supplants, that neutral. In its original and innocent form it was the platform that scheduled the mediation and held the documents. In its present form it is a system that can read the evidence, draft the analysis and propose the outcome. The point of the phrase is to make us notice that the technology is no longer merely infrastructure sitting in the background. It has moved into the foreground, close enough to the decision to deserve a name. It is essential to separate two modes of deployment of AI, because the entire analysis turns on the distinction. The first is clerical. A tool that transcribes a hearing, translates a document, organises an index or corrects the spelling in a draft does work that is real but not dispositive, and nobody sensible loses sleep over it. The second is dispositive, or close to it. A tool that weighs the evidence, assesses credibility, decides which line of authority to prefer or drafts the operative reasoning of an award is doing the very thing the parties appointed a human to do. The fourth party becomes a legal problem only in this second mode, and much of the confusion in the current debate comes from a failure to say which mode is in issue. The arbitrator we choose, and why we choose that one Indian law, like the law of most arbitral jurisdictions, treats the appointment of an arbitrator as personal. The choice is intuitu personae, made in respect of the particular individual and their particular qualities, their expertise, their judgment and their reputation for fairness. This is not sentiment. It is the reason the parties are bound by the award of a person whom they did not have to accept and could have rejected. Because the appointment is personal, the mandate that flows from it is non delegable. An arbitrator may take administrative help, but may not hand over the decision to someone else, because the someone else is not the person the parties chose. This principle already has a well known stress point that long predates artificial intelligence, namely the tribunal secretary. The international debate about how much a tribunal secretary may properly do, and at what point assistance shades into the secretary becoming a fourth arbitrator who improperly shares in the decision, is precisely the debate we are about to have again, only this time with a machine in the secretary’s chair. The lesson from that earlier debate applies directly. The line was never drawn at research, summarising or drafting, all of which a secretary may properly do. It was drawn at the decision itself, which must remain the arbitrator’s own. A language model is, for this purpose, a tireless and untrustworthy tribunal secretary, and the same line governs it. It may assist up to the point of decision. It may not make the decision, and it must not be permitted to make the decision in substance while a human merely ratifies the output. The Indian reality sharpens this point rather than softening it. A very large share of Indian arbitration is conducted by sole arbitrators, frequently retired judges, who carry heavy lists and lean, quite properly, on juniors and clerks to manage the paper. The institutional scrutiny that a tribunal secretary attracts in a large international reference is often simply absent in a domestic one. Into that environment now arrives a tool that will draft a confident analysis on request, at no marginal cost, at any hour of the night. The temptation to let it do more than it should is therefore greatest exactly where the supervision is thinnest. A rule that depends on busy sole arbitrators policing themselves, with no institutional check standing behind them, is a rule that will be honoured unevenly, and that is a reason to make the expectation explicit rather than to leave it to good intentions. A disclosure regime aimed at the wrong actor Here the fourth party exposes a genuine gap. Indian law polices the integrity of the decision maker through Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules introduced in 2015. An arbitrator must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality, and certain relationships render a person ineligible altogether. The entire apparatus is trained on the human arbitrator. It asks whether that person is independent, whether that person has a conflict, and whether that person can be trusted to hold the balance even. It asks nothing at all about the tool that may be shaping that person’s reasoning, because when the apparatus was designed there was no such tool. Consider how odd this sits. If a retired judge sitting as a sole arbitrator has a remote past association with one of the parties, the law requires disclosure and may require recusal. If the same arbitrator runs the entire dispute through a commercial artificial intelligence system whose training data, commercial alignments and systematic leanings are entirely unknown, the law currently requires nothing, because the system is treated as a pencil rather than as a participant. The disclosure regime is looking hard at the arbitrator and not at all at the fourth party that may be doing a meaningful part of the arbitrator’s thinking. That is no criticism of the draftsman of 2015, who could not have foreseen it. It is simply an identification of where the next reform must look. Equality of arms, and a recent warning from the Supreme Court The Indian courts have, if anything, been moving in the opposite direction to complacency about who controls the decision maker. In Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) reported as 2024 INSC 857, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in November 2024 that clauses allowing one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or to confine the other side’s choice to a panel curated by that one party, offend the principle of equality under the Act and the guarantee of equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution. The reasoning built on earlier decisions such as TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. reported as (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. reported as (2020) 20 SCC 760, which established that a person ineligible to act as an arbitrator cannot validly appoint one either. The thread running through these decisions is a deep judicial insistence that neither side should hold a structural advantage in constituting the tribunal, because the tribunal is the heart of the bargain and must be equally the tribunal of both parties. Now place the fourth party against that thread. If the arbitral process leans heavily on an artificial intelligence system, and one party has access to a more powerful system than the other, or worse, if the tribunal itself relies on a system supplied or shaped by interests aligned with one side, the equality that the Supreme Court was so anxious to protect is quietly disturbed, not at the visible stage of appointment but at the invisible stage of reasoning. The Court closed the front door to a stacked tribunal. The fourth party can walk in through a window the Court was not yet looking at. Section 18 of the Act states the same value in the language of procedure, requiring that the parties be treated with equality and that each be given a full opportunity to present its case. A fourth party that one side can afford and the other cannot, or that systematically favours the kind of argument it was trained on, is a Section 18 problem wearing technological clothing. The provision is broad enough to reach it. What is missing, for now, is the habit of looking. The equality concern is not an abstract one either. Indian arbitration frequently pits a well resourced entity, a public sector undertaking, a bank or a large contractor, against an individual, a small supplier or a sub-contractor. The Supreme Court in the railway electrification case was alive to exactly this imbalance when it struck down panels curated by the stronger party. Now imagine that the stronger party deploys a sophisticated and expensive analytical system across the entire reference while the weaker party cannot, or that the tribunal itself adopts a tool whose defaults quietly reward the kind of voluminous, well organised submission that only the stronger party can produce. The inequality does not announce itself. It is laundered through the appearance of neutral efficiency. The lesson of the railway electrification judgment is that Indian law cares about structural advantage in the constitution and the conduct of the tribunal, and the fourth party is entirely capable of delivering such an advantage through the back door. The honest counter The strongest objection to all of this must be met head on, because it is a good one. Every arbitrator already uses tools. They use Manupatra and SCC Online, they use juniors and clerks, they use their own libraries and their own past awards. Nobody calls a legal database a fourth party or demands that it be disclosed and conflict checked. Why should a language model be any different? The answer is that the difference lies not in the tool being electronic but in the tool generating rather than retrieving. A database returns what a human asked for, and the human then evaluates it. A generative system proposes conclusions, frames the analysis and supplies reasoning that a tired or busy human may adopt with less scrutiny than they would give a junior, precisely because the output reads as finished and confident. The risk is not the technology in itself. It is the seductive completeness of the output and the human tendency to defer to it. That is what makes the generative tool a candidate for participant status when the database never was. This is not armchair psychology. The tendency to over rely on automated output, sometimes called automation bias, is well documented, and it is strongest under precisely the conditions in which arbitrators work, namely time pressure, large volumes of material and a confident, fluent answer that arrives already formatted. A junior who hands up a weak note invites correction, because the human relationship makes scrutiny natural. A machine that hands up a polished one invites adoption, because there is no relationship to mediate the scrutiny and the polish itself does the persuading. The danger is therefore not that arbitrators are careless. It is that the tool is built to be believed, and any rule that ignores this human factor is regulating the wrong thing. There is a fair reply to my own argument too, and intellectual honesty requires me to state it. One might say that all of this collapses into the simple and existing rule that the arbitrator must apply their own mind, so that no new concept of a fourth party is needed at all. I have some sympathy with that view, and in a sense the fourth party is only a vivid way of naming a failure of the old duty. But the vividness earns its keep. Naming the fourth party forces the system to ask a question it would otherwise skip, which is not merely whether the arbitrator applied their mind, but to what, and shaped by what, that mind was applied. The old duty asks about the arbitrator. The fourth party asks about the influence upon the arbitrator, and that is the question the present moment requires. Where the line falls So where does the line fall in practice? It falls; at influence over the dispositive reasoning. Below that line, in the clerical and the merely assistive, the fourth party is a tool, needs no special treatment, and the existing law is sufficient. At or above that line, where the system shapes the assessment of evidence, the choice of authority or the operative reasoning of the award, three things should follow. The arbitrator should disclose the use, because the parties are entitled to know what is in the room. The arbitrator must independently own every step of the reasoning, so that the award is genuinely their own and not a ratified output. And the institutions, when they next revise their rules, should extend the logic of Section 12 and the spirit of the railway electrification judgment to ask not only whether the human decision maker is independent, but whether the fourth party at the table is independent too. None of this requires heroic drafting. An institution could achieve most of it with a single default provision: that any use of a generative artificial intelligence tool by the tribunal which bears on the assessment of evidence or the reasoning of the award must be disclosed to the parties, that the tribunal remains personally responsible for every finding, and that any tool so used must meet stated standards of confidentiality and security. Parties who wished to contract out of the default could do so, by agreement, as party autonomy permits. Parties who said nothing would receive a sensible rule rather than a vacuum. That is precisely how arbitral institutions have introduced every other procedural innovation of the last two decades, from emergency arbitrators to expedited timelines, and there is no good reason the fourth party should be handled any differently. The fourth party is not a reason to keep artificial intelligence out of arbitration. It is a reason to keep it in its seat. Indian law has spent the last decade being unusually careful about who gets to constitute and influence a tribunal, and that care is exactly the right instinct to bring to this question. The arbitrator whom the parties chose must remain the one who decides. The fourth party may pull up a chair, take notes, hand up a draft and make itself useful in a hundred ways. What it may never do is pick up the pen that the parties placed, deliberately and personally, in a human hand. By Navod Prasannan, Advocate and Partner, King Stubb & Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/navod-prasannan/

04 June 2026

Projects and Energy

ESG and Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in India: The Investment and Regulatory Shift Reshaping Infrastructure in 2026

India’s infrastructure story is no longer being driven solely by scale, speed, and capital expenditure. In 2026, investors, lenders, regulators, and project developers are increasingly asking a different set of questions: How sustainable is the asset? Can the project withstand climate disruption? Does the governance framework inspire institutional confidence? Will the project remain financeable over the next twenty years? Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) considerations have moved far beyond corporate sustainability reports and boardroom policy discussions. Today, ESG has become deeply embedded in infrastructure financing, project valuation, regulatory approvals, investment due diligence, and long-term asset bankability across India. From renewable energy parks and green hydrogen corridors to data centres, battery storage projects, logistics infrastructure, urban mobility systems, and industrial corridors, ESG-linked financing structures are now influencing how infrastructure is planned, funded, operated, and monetised. For businesses and infrastructure sponsors, this is no longer a reputational issue alone. ESG compliance is increasingly tied to access to capital, cost of borrowing, investor participation, and long-term project viability. Why ESG Has Become Central to Infrastructure Financing Infrastructure assets inherently carry long-duration environmental and social impact. A highway, airport, energy project, industrial cluster, or data centre affects surrounding ecosystems, labour structures, land usage patterns, emissions profiles, and local communities for decades. As a result, institutional investors now evaluate infrastructure projects through a much broader lens than traditional financial metrics. Project lenders and global infrastructure funds increasingly assess: Climate resilience and environmental exposure Governance transparency and compliance culture Community engagement and rehabilitation mechanisms Labour welfare and operational sustainability Carbon intensity and transition planning Long-term regulatory stability This shift is fundamentally changing infrastructure finance in India. Projects with weak ESG frameworks are now more likely to face financing delays, regulatory scrutiny, reputational concerns, investor hesitation, and refinancing difficulties. In contrast, projects demonstrating robust ESG alignment are attracting stronger institutional participation and more competitive financing structures. ESG Is No Longer Limited to Renewable Energy Projects For several years, ESG investing in India was closely associated with solar and wind energy assets. That approach has now expanded dramatically. In 2026, ESG scrutiny extends across nearly every major infrastructure sector, including: Airports and aviation infrastructure Roads and expressways Urban infrastructure and metro systems Data centres and digital infrastructure Industrial parks and logistics hubs Smart warehousing and AI infrastructure Battery storage and clean mobility ecosystems Even sectors traditionally considered carbon-intensive are now expected to demonstrate credible sustainability transition strategies. This evolution reflects a broader global reality: institutional capital increasingly prefers infrastructure assets capable of delivering both financial returns and long-term sustainability alignment. Sustainable Infrastructure Capital Is Flooding Into India India’s infrastructure expansion aligns closely with global climate and sustainability investment themes. Large sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, development finance institutions, climate-focused private equity platforms, and multilateral lenders are actively increasing exposure to sustainable infrastructure investments in India. The attraction is clear: India requires massive infrastructure expansion over the next decade Energy transition projects continue to scale rapidly Climate-focused financing markets are deepening Demand for resilient infrastructure remains strong Long-term infrastructure returns continue attracting institutional investors This combination has accelerated the rise of ESG-linked infrastructure capital across sectors. As a result, developers seeking institutional funding increasingly need sophisticated ESG compliance structures from the earliest stages of project development. Renewable Energy Financing Is Becoming More Sophisticated Renewable energy remains India’s largest ESG-driven infrastructure segment. Solar, wind, hybrid renewable, pumped storage, and battery storage projects continue to attract substantial green financing and sustainability-linked investment. However, the market has matured significantly. Investors are no longer evaluating renewable assets solely on clean energy generation metrics. ESG due diligence now extends to: Land acquisition practices Biodiversity impact assessments Community engagement models Water usage management Supply chain sustainability Labour compliance frameworks In other words, environmental alignment alone is no longer sufficient. Institutional investors increasingly expect renewable infrastructure developers to demonstrate operational sustainability alongside decarbonisation objectives. Data Centres Have Become a Major ESG Conversation India’s rapidly expanding digital economy has turned data centres into one of the country’s fastest-growing infrastructure sectors. At the same time, they have emerged as highly ESG-sensitive assets. Data centres consume enormous amounts of electricity, cooling resources, and physical infrastructure inputs. Consequently, investors now examine: Renewable energy sourcing strategies Energy efficiency architecture Water consumption for cooling systems Carbon intensity metrics Backup energy systems Sustainable construction practices Green data centres are expected to become one of the most important sustainable infrastructure investment themes in India over the next decade. Developers unable to demonstrate credible sustainability planning may increasingly struggle to attract long-term institutional capital. Green Hydrogen and Climate Infrastructure Are Drawing Institutional Attention Green hydrogen continues to emerge as one of India’s most strategically important climate-transition sectors. Hydrogen infrastructure is closely linked with: Industrial decarbonisation Net-zero transition strategies Energy transition financing Climate-focused infrastructure investment As financing activity accelerates, hydrogen projects are increasingly being supported through: Green bonds Sustainability-linked loans Climate-focused infrastructure funds Energy transition private equity platforms Yet these projects also face significant ESG scrutiny. Investors are closely examining renewable sourcing integrity, water usage patterns, land acquisition concerns, and community impact risks before committing long-term capital. ESG Due Diligence Has Become a Core Financing Requirement One of the most significant developments in infrastructure finance is the transformation of ESG due diligence into a central credit assessment tool. Infrastructure lenders and investors now routinely assess: Climate-related operational risks Environmental compliance history Governance systems and board oversight Labour and human rights practices Supply chain sustainability exposure Community relations frameworks Sustainability disclosure systems This shift reflects growing recognition that ESG failures can materially affect operational continuity, project economics, refinancing capability, and long-term asset value. In many transactions, ESG diligence now carries the same strategic importance as financial, technical, and legal due diligence. Sustainable Financing Structures Are Rapidly Expanding India’s sustainable finance ecosystem is evolving quickly, particularly in infrastructure and energy sectors. The market is witnessing growing use of: Green bonds Sustainability-linked loans Transition finance instruments ESG-linked private credit Climate infrastructure funds Sustainability-linked project finance structures Green bonds, in particular, are increasingly financing: Renewable energy assets Sustainable transportation systems Green commercial buildings Climate adaptation infrastructure Energy transition projects As India’s sustainable debt market deepens, ESG-linked financing is expected to become increasingly mainstream across infrastructure sectors. ESG Performance Is Now Affecting the Cost of Capital A major shift occurring across global infrastructure finance is the relationship between ESG performance and financing economics. Projects with stronger ESG profiles increasingly benefit from: Lower borrowing costs Greater institutional participation Improved refinancing opportunities Stronger investor confidence Enhanced long-term valuation Conversely, projects facing governance concerns, climate vulnerabilities, or sustainability controversies may encounter: Higher financing risk premiums Reduced lender appetite Greater regulatory scrutiny Limited institutional participation For infrastructure sponsors, ESG is therefore becoming a financial issue as much as a compliance issue. Governance Has Become the Most Critical ESG Pillar While environmental sustainability often dominates public ESG discussions, governance is increasingly viewed by investors as the most critical infrastructure financing variable. Institutional investors now closely evaluate: Board oversight structures Internal compliance mechanisms Anti-corruption controls Transparency standards Related-party transaction oversight Enterprise risk management systems Weak governance can significantly increase exposure to: Fraud risk Litigation Regulatory action Operational instability Insolvency concerns Governance failures frequently have direct implications for valuation, lender confidence, and institutional participation. Climate Risk Is Reshaping Infrastructure Valuation Climate resilience has become a major investment consideration in long-term infrastructure projects. Investors increasingly assess: Flood exposure Heat stress vulnerability Water scarcity risks Coastal climate exposure Extreme weather resilience Long-term operational sustainability Climate adaptation planning is therefore becoming essential for infrastructure financing. This is particularly relevant for: Coastal infrastructure projects Energy-intensive operations Water-dependent industries Logistics and transportation networks Infrastructure assets incapable of demonstrating long-term climate resilience may face growing financing and operational challenges over time. ESG Regulation and Disclosure Expectations Are Expanding India’s ESG regulatory ecosystem continues evolving rapidly alongside global sustainability reporting standards. Infrastructure companies increasingly face expectations relating to: Sustainability reporting Climate disclosures Governance transparency ESG accountability mechanisms Responsible supply chain management Cross-border investors and international lenders often require compliance aligned with internationally recognised ESG frameworks and sustainability benchmarks. As global financing markets continue integrating climate and ESG considerations into investment mandates, Indian infrastructure developers are increasingly expected to align with international sustainability expectations. Labour, Community Impact, and Social Risk Are Under Greater Scrutiny Infrastructure projects frequently involve complex social impact considerations, including land acquisition, rehabilitation obligations, labour-intensive operations, and community engagement. As a result, investors and regulators increasingly examine: Worker safety standards Labour welfare compliance Local stakeholder engagement Rehabilitation and resettlement mechanisms Human rights considerations Social impact mitigation planning Social instability and community opposition can materially affect project implementation timelines, operational continuity, litigation exposure, and investor confidence. This makes proactive social risk management a critical part of modern infrastructure planning. ESG Disputes and Climate Litigation Are Increasing The next decade is expected to witness significant growth in ESG-related disputes and climate litigation involving infrastructure assets. Potential areas of dispute include: Environmental violations Greenwashing allegations Sustainability disclosure disputes Climate-related liability claims Community impact litigation Governance failures and compliance disputes Such disputes can materially affect financing structures, project approvals, institutional confidence, and reputational standing. Consequently, infrastructure stakeholders increasingly require sophisticated ESG governance and risk-management frameworks to mitigate long-term exposure. ESG Is Influencing Distressed Infrastructure Transactions An emerging trend in India’s distressed infrastructure market is the growing impact of ESG performance on asset recovery and refinancing prospects. Infrastructure assets with poor ESG profiles may increasingly face: Lower recovery valuations Reduced institutional acquisition appetite Higher operational risk perception Refinancing challenges In contrast, sustainable infrastructure assets with strong governance and climate resilience characteristics may attract premium valuations and stronger investor participation during restructuring or insolvency processes. Cross-Border Investors Are Raising ESG Expectations Global infrastructure capital is increasingly governed by international ESG investment frameworks. Cross-border lenders and institutional investors now routinely evaluate Indian projects against: Global sustainability benchmarks Climate-risk standards Responsible investment frameworks Governance transparency requirements ESG reporting expectations As India continues attracting large-scale foreign infrastructure investment, alignment with international ESG standards is becoming commercially essential rather than optional. Technology Infrastructure Is Entering the ESG Mainstream Technology-intensive infrastructure sectors are now firmly part of the ESG ecosystem. This includes: Data centres AI infrastructure Battery storage systems Smart logistics infrastructure Digital industrial ecosystems Investors increasingly examine these assets through the lens of: Energy efficiency Carbon intensity Technology lifecycle sustainability Supply chain transparency Resource consumption patterns The convergence of digital infrastructure growth and climate-focused investing is expected to remain a major trend through the remainder of the decade. The Future of ESG and Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in India India’s sustainable infrastructure market is expected to expand significantly over the coming years. Key trends likely to shape the sector include: Expansion of green bond markets Growth of sustainability-linked private credit Increased climate adaptation financing Greater ESG-linked infrastructure valuation models Stronger sustainability disclosure frameworks Rising institutional allocation toward climate infrastructure Most importantly, ESG is no longer a parallel consideration within infrastructure finance. It is becoming one of the defining foundations of infrastructure investment strategy itself. Conclusion ESG and sustainable financing are fundamentally transforming India’s infrastructure investment landscape. The combination of climate-transition policies, institutional capital inflows, renewable infrastructure growth, sustainability-linked financing structures, and evolving regulatory expectations is reshaping how infrastructure projects are financed, governed, and valued. For developers, lenders, investors, and infrastructure stakeholders, ESG integration now requires far more than symbolic sustainability commitments. It demands sophisticated legal planning, governance oversight, climate-risk management, operational sustainability frameworks, and long-term stakeholder alignment. Infrastructure projects that successfully integrate ESG principles are increasingly better positioned to secure institutional capital, maintain long-term bankability, and navigate the evolving regulatory and investment environment. As India builds the next generation of infrastructure, ESG and sustainable financing are expected to remain central to the country’s long-term economic and industrial transformation. By Aurelia Menezes, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/aurelia-menezes/

04 June 2026

Financial Services

GIFT City’s Next Phase: How India’s IFSC Is Becoming a Global Financial Hub

For years, India-linked international financing transactions were routinely structured through offshore jurisdictions such as Singapore, Dubai, Mauritius or London. Whether it involved fund management, aircraft leasing, offshore debt, private credit or cross-border investment platforms, global capital often flowed into India through foreign financial centres rather than through India itself. That dynamic is now beginning to change. GIFT City’s International Financial Services Centre (“IFSC”) is rapidly evolving from a niche offshore financing zone into a much broader institutional financial ecosystem. What started as an experiment in international banking and foreign currency transactions is now attracting activity across: aircraft leasing, private credit, fund management, sustainable finance, global treasury operations, alternative investment structures, and cross-border capital markets. Importantly, this evolution goes far beyond infrastructure financing alone. The next phase of GIFT City is increasingly about positioning India within the architecture of global finance itself. Why GIFT City Matters Beyond Infrastructure Financing The first wave of interest in GIFT City was driven largely by offshore lending and infrastructure financing. But global investors are now using IFSC structures for a much wider range of financial activities. The reason is straightforward: international investors prefer jurisdictions that offer familiarity, flexibility and efficient cross-border structuring. Historically, India’s domestic regulatory ecosystem often created friction around: Foreign Currency Restrictions – Currency controls and exchange regulations can increase structuring complexity and limit flexibility in capital movement. Cross-Border Financing Approvals – Regulatory approvals for foreign borrowing and financing arrangements may prolong transaction timelines and slow deal execution. Tax Inefficiencies – Unfavourable tax treatment, withholding taxes, and treaty-related issues can reduce overall investor returns and impact transaction economics. Offshore Fund Participation Hurdles – Restrictions on foreign investment structures and participation requirements can limit capital flexibility and access to global funding sources. Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance Burdens – Navigating differing legal, regulatory, and reporting obligations across jurisdictions can increase compliance costs and overall transaction expenses. The IFSC framework was designed to reduce many of these barriers while still operating within an Indian regulatory environment. That combination is what makes GIFT City strategically important. The Real Shift Happening Inside GIFT City The ecosystem is now moving beyond basic offshore banking activity into a much more sophisticated financial platform. Earlier, most activity centred around: international banking units, ECB-linked financing, offshore debt transactions, and foreign currency lending. Today, the conversation has expanded significantly. The IFSC ecosystem is increasingly seeing growth across: Aircraft Leasing – Helps reduce dependence on traditional foreign leasing hubs and supports the development of a domestic aircraft financing ecosystem. Private Credit Platforms – Expands access to alternative sources of capital, providing borrowers and investors with greater financing flexibility beyond conventional banking channels. Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) – Attracts institutional and global investors by offering efficient fund structures and access to diverse investment opportunities. Sustainable Finance – Facilitates ESG-focused investments and supports the growing flow of capital towards environmentally and socially responsible projects. Treasury Operations – Enables multinational corporations and financial institutions to manage global liquidity, cash flows, and risk management functions more efficiently. Offshore Fund Structures – Enhances cross-border capital pooling by providing internationally competitive investment vehicles and regulatory frameworks. Structured Finance – Supports sophisticated financing transactions through tailored financial products, securitisation structures, and risk allocation mechanisms. Top of Form Bottom of Form This is the transition that changes GIFT City from a financing corridor into a financial ecosystem. Aircraft Leasing Has Become One of GIFT City’s Biggest Growth Areas One of the most visible examples of this shift is aircraft leasing. India is one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets, but historically, a substantial portion of aircraft leasing activity was routed through jurisdictions such as Ireland and Singapore. GIFT City is increasingly positioning itself as an India-linked alternative. This matters because aircraft leasing sits at the intersection of: cross-border financing, tax structuring, asset ownership, foreign exchange exposure, regulatory compliance, and international enforcement frameworks. As aviation financing grows, GIFT City is expected to become increasingly relevant for: leasing platforms, airline financing structures, aviation asset management, and cross-border aviation capital arrangements. Why Private Credit Funds Are Increasingly Interested in IFSC Structures Private credit is becoming one of the fastest-growing segments in global finance, particularly as traditional banks face tighter regulatory oversight and exposure limits. Many private credit platforms now seek: flexible structuring, offshore participation capability, international investor access, and foreign currency financing frameworks. This aligns naturally with the IFSC ecosystem. Increasingly, GIFT City structures are being explored for: Structured Lending – Frequently used for infrastructure projects, acquisition financing, and other transactions requiring customized debt solutions. Distressed Investing – Targets special situations, turnaround opportunities, and stressed assets where traditional financing may be limited. Yield-Focused Financing – Provides long-duration capital to borrowers while offering institutional investors opportunities for stable, risk-adjusted returns. Cross-Border Debt Platforms – Facilitates the deployment of international capital into domestic and global investment opportunities through flexible lending structures. Hybrid Financing Structures – Combines debt and equity-like features to support complex transactions, bridge funding gaps, and address unique capital requirements. As India’s capital markets mature, alternative lenders are expected to play a much larger role across infrastructure, real estate, aviation and technology-linked sectors. Sustainable Finance Is Becoming Central to the IFSC Ecosystem Another major trend shaping GIFT City is the rise of ESG-focused capital. Global institutional investors are increasingly allocating capital toward: climate-aligned assets, green financing structures, energy transition platforms, and sustainability-linked investment vehicles. This is creating growing demand for internationally aligned financing ecosystems capable of supporting: green bond issuances, ESG-focused funds, climate-transition financing, sustainability-linked lending, and carbon-related investment structures. For India, this is strategically important because future infrastructure and industrial growth will increasingly depend on access to climate-focused institutional capital. Treasury Operations and Cross-Border Financial Management A quieter but increasingly important trend involves multinational groups exploring GIFT City for treasury and financial management operations. Large businesses increasingly require integrated systems for: foreign currency management, cross-border liquidity planning, treasury centralisation, structured financing, and international cash management. This is the kind of activity typically associated with mature international financial centres. Its gradual emergence within GIFT City signals a deeper level of institutional evolution. Regulation Still Matters: Sophisticated Structures Require Sophisticated Planning Despite increasing flexibility, IFSC-linked transactions are far from legally simple. Many structures continue to involve overlapping considerations relating to: FEMA, tax law, offshore investment rules, beneficial ownership, regulatory approvals, fund structuring, and cross-border compliance. As institutional participation grows, legal and regulatory planning becomes even more important because many transactions now span multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Why International Investors Still Prioritise Arbitration and Enforcement Global investors ultimately care about predictability. That is why many IFSC-linked transactions continue to rely on: international arbitration clauses, English law-governed documents, offshore dispute resolution frameworks, and carefully structured enforcement mechanisms. For institutional capital providers, enforceability often matters just as much as economics. This is particularly relevant for: aviation leasing, private credit, offshore financing structures, and long-duration institutional investments. The Bigger Strategic Question: Can India Build Its Own Global Financial Centre? The larger objective is much broader: to internalise more India-linked financial activity within an internationally competitive Indian ecosystem. In practical terms, that means reducing reliance on foreign offshore jurisdictions for: capital raising, fund management, structured finance, leasing, international banking, and cross-border investment activity. Whether GIFT City can eventually rival established global financial hubs remains an open question. But the direction is becoming increasingly clear. What the Next Decade Could Look Like Over the coming years, GIFT City is expected to see significant expansion across: Aircraft Leasing – Expected to witness increased aviation financing activity as more leasing and financing transactions are structured through IFSC platforms. Private Credit – Likely to expand significantly, providing borrowers with greater access to alternative capital sources beyond traditional banking channels. Sustainable Finance – Projected to see strong growth in ESG-linked financing structures, green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and climate-focused investment products. AIF Platforms – Anticipated to attract greater institutional participation, supported by evolving regulatory frameworks and growing investor interest in alternative assets. Treasury Operations – Expected to become increasingly important for cross-border liquidity management, cash pooling, and global treasury functions. Offshore Fund Structures – Likely to facilitate the creation of larger international capital pools by offering efficient fund domiciliation and investment structures. Digital Finance Ecosystems – Poised for rapid growth through the integration of fintech innovation, digital assets, data-driven financial services, and technology-enabled financial infrastructure. The ecosystem is gradually shifting from a specialised regulatory zone into a broader institutional financial platform. Conclusion GIFT City is entering a much more sophisticated phase of development. The conversation is no longer limited to offshore lending or infrastructure financing alone. Instead, the IFSC ecosystem is increasingly expanding into aircraft leasing, private credit, fund management, sustainable finance and cross-border financial intermediation. That transition is strategically important not only for investors and financial institutions, but also for India’s broader position within global capital markets. As the ecosystem matures, successful IFSC-linked structures will increasingly depend on: regulatory preparedness, cross-border structuring efficiency, governance standards, tax planning, dispute management, and institutional credibility. The next chapter of GIFT City may ultimately be less about competing with domestic financial centres and more about whether India can establish a globally relevant offshore financial ecosystem of its own. By Aditya Bhattacharya, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/aditya-bhattacharya/

04 June 2026

Dispute Resolution

Reconsidering Compromise and FIR Registration: A Doctrinal Analysis of Mandatory FIR Registration under the CrPC and BNSS

Introduction The relationship between compromise settlements and the mandatory registration of FIRs continues to generate significant debate within Indian criminal jurisprudence. A recurring question before courts is whether an attempted settlement between parties can dilute or postpone the statutory obligation of the police to register an FIR where information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence. The issue lies at the intersection of two important legal principles: the mandatory registration of cognisable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the limited doctrine of compounding of offences under Section 320 CrPC. While criminal law recognises settlement in certain private disputes, Indian courts have consistently maintained that serious offences involving public wrongs cannot be neutralised through private compromise. This article examines the statutory framework governing FIR registration, the jurisprudence on compromise in criminal proceedings, and the doctrinal distinction between private disputes and offences affecting public justice. It also analyses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kuldeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2026)[1], which reaffirmed that compromise cannot obstruct FIR registration or investigation in serious offences, particularly under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”). Statutory Framework Mandatory Registration of FIRs under Section 154 CrPC and the BNSS Section 154(1) of the CrPC employs mandatory language by providing that every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence “shall” be reduced to writing and registered as a First Information Report (“FIR”). The Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh[2] authoritatively settled the law by holding that registration of an FIR is compulsory where information discloses a cognisable offence. The Supreme Court clarified that no preliminary enquiry is ordinarily permissible except in narrowly defined categories such as: Matrimonial disputes Commercial transactions Medical negligence cases Cases involving abnormal delay The rationale behind mandatory FIR registration is rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution and the rule of law. The Court recognised that allowing unrestricted police discretion at the pre-registration stage often resulted in selective enforcement and denial of justice in sensitive matters, including caste atrocities, sexual offences, and dowry-related crimes. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 substantially retains this position. The BNSS continues to impose a mandatory duty upon the police to register information disclosing cognisable offences, subject only to limited preliminary enquiry in exceptional categories. Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offences Section 320 CrPC contains an exhaustive list of offences that may be compounded, either with or without court permission. By necessary implication, offences not included within Section 320 are non-compoundable. Section 320(9) expressly states that no offence shall be compounded except as provided under the section. The doctrinal basis for this distinction is clear: Compoundable offences generally involve private disputes with limited societal impact. Non-compoundable offences are treated as wrongs against society and public order. Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised that serious offences involving violence, corruption, sexual crimes, organised crime, or offences under special statutes cannot ordinarily be extinguished through private settlement. Even where courts exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings on settlement grounds, such powers are exercised cautiously and only where the dispute is overwhelmingly private in nature. The SC/ST Act and Public Interest in Prosecution The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 occupies a distinct statutory position within Indian criminal law. Offences under the SC/ST Act are: Cognisable Non-bailable Non-compoundable Section 15A of the Act further strengthens victim protection by requiring prompt recording of statements and ensuring procedural safeguards for victims and witnesses. The legislative objective of the statute is not merely individual grievance redressal, but broader social justice and deterrence against caste-based discrimination and violence. Consequently, attempts at compromise cannot override the State’s obligation to investigate and prosecute offences under the Act. Judicial Principles Governing FIR Registration and Compromise Mandatory Nature of FIR Registration The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari unequivocally held that registration of an FIR is a statutory obligation once information discloses a cognisable offence. The Court observed that police officers cannot act as gatekeepers deciding which offences deserve registration. Any refusal to register an FIR may invite disciplinary as well as legal consequences. This principle is particularly important in cases involving vulnerable communities, where social pressure or power imbalance may otherwise suppress complaints. Limits of Compromise in Criminal Proceedings In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[3], the Supreme Court clarified that criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement grounds only where: The dispute is predominantly civil or personal in nature; and The offence does not have serious societal consequences. The Court specifically excluded heinous offences and offences under special statutes from the scope of compromise-based quashing. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab[4], the Supreme Court reiterated that settlement cannot erase serious criminality affecting society at large. The jurisprudence therefore distinguishes between: Private wrongs capable of settlement; and Public wrongs where prosecution serves a broader societal function. FIRs Based on Police Information Indian criminal procedure does not require that an FIR originate exclusively from the victim’s complaint. Police officers may themselves register FIRs upon receiving credible information regarding a cognisable offence. This principle assumes particular significance in cases involving: Caste-based violence Sexual offences Domestic violence Organised intimidation Victims in such cases may often hesitate to approach authorities due to fear, coercion, or social stigma. Allowing police-generated FIRs ensures that the criminal justice system remains capable of protecting vulnerable persons even where direct complaints are absent. Public Justice versus Private Settlement Indian criminal law fundamentally recognises that certain offences transcend individual harm and affect the social order itself. Permitting private settlements to extinguish prosecution in serious offences would: Undermine deterrence Encourage coercive settlements Enable abuse of power by influential accused persons Weaken public confidence in the justice system The doctrine therefore preserves a balance between restorative settlement in minor disputes and the State’s larger obligation to prosecute offences affecting society. Illustration: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2026) The Supreme Court’s decision in Kuldeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2026) provides a recent and important reaffirmation of these principles. The case involved allegations that the accused: Fired gunshots; and Used caste-based abusive language against the complainant. The High Court granted anticipatory bail partly on the basis that: The parties had attempted settlement; and The FIR was based on a police officer’s statement rather than the complainant’s complaint. The Supreme Court reversed the order. The Court held that: An attempted compromise cannot prevent registration or investigation of a cognisable offence; A police officer’s statement can validly constitute the basis of an FIR; and Victims of caste atrocities may often refrain from directly reporting offences because of social pressure or intimidation. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that offences under the SC/ST Act involve significant public interest considerations and cannot be diluted through private settlement efforts. The judgment strengthens the doctrinal position that criminal law cannot be privatised where the offence impacts public justice and constitutional values. Conclusion The jurisprudence governing compromise and FIR registration reflects a careful balance between individual autonomy and societal interest in criminal prosecution. Indian criminal procedure mandates registration of FIRs where cognisable offences are disclosed, while limiting compromise only to specified categories of minor offences. Judicial decisions such as Lalita Kumari, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh consistently reinforce that serious offences cannot be neutralised through private settlement. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kuldeep Singh further clarifies that attempted compromise has no bearing on the statutory duty to register and investigate cognisable offences, particularly under special legislations such as the SC/ST Act. Ultimately, the doctrine affirms a foundational principle of criminal justice: prosecution of serious offences serves not merely private interests, but the broader constitutional commitment to public justice, equality, and rule of law. By K. Vidya, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/vidya-k/ [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13439 of 2025] ↑ (2014) 2 SCC 1 ↑ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Citation: (2012) 10 SCC 303 ↑ Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab Citation: (2014) 6 SCC 466 ↑

04 June 2026

Dispute Resolution

Challenging ‘Purported Awards’ under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Doctrinal Foundations and Emerging Jurisprudence

Introduction One of the recurring jurisdictional questions in Indian arbitration law concerns the status of a “purported arbitral award” namely, an award rendered in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement or by a tribunal lacking inherent jurisdiction. The issue raises a fundamental doctrinal question: can such an award be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), or is it a legal nullity that may simply be ignored? The debate lies at the intersection of several foundational principles of arbitration law, including competence-competence, separability of arbitration agreements, minimal judicial intervention, and the finality of arbitral awards. It also probes the conceptual distinction between: A non-existent arbitral award; and A void but legally existing arbitral award. Indian courts have increasingly adopted the view that even jurisdictional objections relating to the absence of a valid arbitration agreement must ordinarily be raised within the statutory framework of Section 34. This approach reflects the broader judicial position that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained and exhaustive code governing challenges to arbitral awards in India. This article analyses the doctrinal foundations governing “purported awards” under Indian arbitration law, the scope of Section 34 challenges to arbitral awards, the treatment of jurisdictional defects in arbitral proceedings, and the evolving judicial approach towards nullity arguments in arbitration disputes. The issue assumes considerable significance in commercial arbitration disputes involving forged arbitration clauses, invalid arbitration agreements, lack of arbitral jurisdiction, and challenges to awards rendered by improperly constituted tribunals. Statutory Framework Governing Challenges to Arbitral Awards Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the primary statutory mechanism for setting aside arbitral awards in India. The provision permits courts to set aside arbitral awards on limited grounds, including: Incapacity of a party; Invalidity of the arbitration agreement; Lack of proper notice; Decisions beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; Improper composition of the arbitral tribunal; and Conflict with the public policy of India. Importantly, Section 34(3) prescribes a strict limitation period of three months (extendable by thirty days in limited circumstances) from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. Indian arbitration jurisprudence has therefore consistently treated Section 34 as the exclusive statutory remedy for challenging arbitral awards, including awards allegedly rendered without jurisdiction. Competence-Competence and Jurisdictional Objections Section 16 of the Arbitration Act incorporates the doctrine of competence-competence, which empowers an arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections relating to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16(2) specifically requires jurisdictional objections to be raised before the arbitral tribunal itself. Thereafter, a party aggrieved by the tribunal’s determination may challenge the resulting award under Section 34. Section 34(2)(a)(ii) expressly permits courts to set aside arbitral awards where the arbitration agreement itself is invalid. Consequently, the statutory framework contemplates that even challenges based on lack of arbitral jurisdiction must ordinarily be addressed through Section 34 proceedings. This approach reinforces the legislative objective of minimising parallel proceedings and preserving procedural discipline in arbitration disputes. Exhaustive Nature of Section 34 Indian arbitration law is substantially modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Courts have therefore repeatedly emphasised that the Arbitration Act constitutes a complete and self-contained code. In Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.[1], the Supreme Court held that recourse against arbitral awards is ordinarily confined to the statutory remedies specifically provided under the Arbitration Act. This principle has significant implications for purported awards. If parties were permitted to bypass Section 34 by treating certain awards as nullities outside the statutory framework, it would undermine: The finality of arbitral proceedings; The statutory limitation period under Section 34(3); and The legislative policy favouring certainty and minimal judicial intervention in arbitration matters. Accordingly, Indian courts have generally discouraged collateral attacks on arbitral awards outside the framework of Section 34 proceedings. Distinguishing Non-Existent Awards from Void Awards A central doctrinal issue concerns the distinction between: An arbitral award that is legally non-existent due to absence of jurisdiction; and An arbitral award that exists but is void or liable to be set aside. Certain judicial authorities have recognised that where no arbitration agreement existed at all, the arbitrator lacks inherent jurisdiction and the resulting award may constitute a nullity. However, even in such situations, courts have increasingly taken the view that the declaration of nullity must ordinarily be obtained through judicial proceedings under Section 34 rather than through collateral challenges or by simply ignoring the award. This approach reflects practical and policy considerations. A purported award may continue to appear valid to third parties, enforcement courts, or commercial counterparties unless formally set aside. Permitting parties to disregard awards unilaterally would create significant uncertainty within the arbitral system. Scope of Judicial Review under Section 34 The scope of interference under Section 34 remains deliberately narrow. Courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral awards and cannot ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own interpretation of contractual disputes. However, judicial interference is permissible where the award suffers from: Patent illegality; Violation of natural justice; Jurisdictional defects; or Conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law. In Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority[2] and Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.[3], the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 34 review is confined to exceptional circumstances involving patent illegality or public policy violations. The jurisprudence therefore seeks to balance arbitral finality with judicial supervision necessary to preserve procedural legitimacy and jurisdictional integrity. Fraud, Invalid Arbitration Agreements, and Purported Awards Indian courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates all legal acts. Consequently, an arbitral award obtained through fraudulent means or based on a forged arbitration agreement may be liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) on grounds of conflict with public policy. This becomes particularly relevant where: Arbitration clauses are fabricated or forged; Consent to arbitration is absent; or The tribunal assumes jurisdiction without a legally enforceable arbitration agreement. Even in such cases, however, Indian courts generally require parties to invoke the statutory challenge mechanism under Section 34 rather than treating the award as automatically void without judicial determination. The Concept of a ‘Purported Award’ A “purported award” refers to a decision rendered by a tribunal that allegedly lacked jurisdiction due to absence of a valid arbitration agreement or because the tribunal exceeded the scope of its authority. The argument advanced in support of the nullity doctrine is that where jurisdiction never existed, no legally recognisable arbitral award could have come into existence at all. Accordingly, such an award should not require formal setting aside proceedings. However, this approach raises serious difficulties within the framework of the Arbitration Act. First, it potentially creates a parallel mechanism for challenging arbitral awards outside Section 34. Second, it undermines the mandatory limitation regime under Section 34(3), since parties could theoretically challenge awards indefinitely by characterising them as nullities. Third, it conflicts with the legislative policy underlying the Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law, both of which contemplate annulment proceedings as the principal remedy against jurisdictionally defective awards. Indian courts have therefore increasingly favoured the position that jurisdictional defects must ordinarily be adjudicated through Section 34 proceedings. UNCITRAL Model Law and International Arbitration Practice Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law similarly provides an exhaustive framework for setting aside arbitral awards, including awards rendered without jurisdiction or in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. Model Law jurisdictions generally require parties to pursue annulment proceedings rather than disregard arbitral awards unilaterally. The Indian approach aligns with this broader international arbitration framework and reinforces India’s pro-arbitration policy aimed at ensuring certainty, enforceability, and procedural discipline in arbitral proceedings. Impact of N.N. Global Mercantile on Jurisdictional Challenges The Constitution Bench judgment in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd.[4] further clarified the doctrine of separability and the treatment of arbitration agreement validity under Indian law. The Court emphasised that once an arbitral award is rendered, issues relating to the validity or enforceability of the arbitration agreement must ordinarily be addressed within the statutory challenge framework under Section 34. This reinforces the broader judicial trend against collateral challenges to arbitral awards outside the Arbitration Act. Policy Considerations and Finality of Arbitral Awards Requiring challenges to purported awards to be brought under Section 34 serves several important policy objectives: Preservation of certainty and finality in arbitration proceedings; Prevention of indefinite collateral attacks on arbitral awards; Maintenance of procedural discipline and limitation periods; and Alignment with international arbitration standards. Although critics argue that requiring formal setting aside proceedings for jurisdictionally defective awards imposes unnecessary procedural burdens, Indian arbitration jurisprudence has largely prioritised finality and certainty over informal nullity arguments. Conclusion The concept of a “purported arbitral award” highlights the doctrinal distinction between non-existent awards and void but legally existing awards under Indian arbitration law. However, the prevailing judicial position increasingly recognises that even where an arbitral tribunal allegedly lacked jurisdiction, parties must ordinarily seek formal relief under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Indian courts have consistently treated the Arbitration Act as a self-contained and exhaustive code governing challenges to arbitral awards. Consequently, jurisdictional objections, allegations of invalid arbitration agreements, and claims of nullity are generally required to be adjudicated within the statutory framework and limitation regime prescribed under Section 34. The emerging jurisprudence including recent judicial developments concerning purported awards and invalid arbitration agreements reinforces the broader policy objectives of arbitral finality, certainty, and minimal judicial intervention. As arbitration continues to play an increasingly central role in commercial dispute resolution in India, the treatment of purported awards under Section 34 will remain a significant issue in the evolving landscape of Indian arbitration jurisprudence. By Deepika Kumari, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/deepika-kumari/ (2011) 8 SCC 333 ↑ (2015) 3 SCC 49 ↑ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 522 ↑ (2023) 7 SCC 1 ↑

04 June 2026

Corporate and Commercial

Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act: Variance of Contract and Limitation of Surety Liability upon Unilateral Enhancement of Credit Facilities

Introduction Contracts of guarantee play a critical role in modern banking and commercial lending transactions. Financial institutions routinely rely on personal guarantees and corporate guarantees to secure repayment obligations where borrowers lack sufficient collateral security. At the same time, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 incorporates important statutory protections to ensure that a surety’s liability is not unfairly expanded beyond the terms originally consented to. One of the most significant safeguards is contained in Section 133 of the Contract Act, which provides that any variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, made without the consent of the surety, discharges the surety in respect of transactions subsequent to such variance. The provision reflects a foundational principle of Indian suretyship law: A surety’s liability is consensual and cannot be unilaterally enlarged without the surety’s approval. An important question that frequently arises in banking disputes and loan recovery litigation is whether unilateral enhancement of a borrower’s credit facility amounts to a “variance” under Section 133, and if so, whether such enhancement limits or discharges the liability of the guarantor. This issue assumes considerable practical significance in cases involving enhancement of cash credit limits, restructuring of loan facilities, modification of sanctioned borrowing arrangements, and disputes concerning the extent of guarantor liability in banking transactions. This article examines the scope of Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the doctrinal relationship between Sections 128, 133, and 139, and the evolving judicial interpretation of unilateral variations in credit facilities and discharge of surety liability under Indian banking and contract law. Statutory Framework Governing Contracts of Guarantee Contracts of Guarantee under Section 126 Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a contract of guarantee as a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of default. The three principal parties to a contract of guarantee are: The creditor; The principal debtor; and The surety or guarantor. Section 128 further provides that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise agreed by contract. However, this principle of co-extensive liability is not absolute or unlimited. The surety’s liability remains subject to the statutory protections contained in Sections 133 to 139 of the Contract Act. Variance of Contract under Section 133 Section 133 provides that any variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, made without the consent of the surety, discharges the surety with respect to transactions taking place after the variance. A “variance” generally refers to any material alteration in the underlying contractual arrangement that changes the nature or extent of the surety’s risk without consent. Importantly, Section 133 is triggered by the fact of alteration itself. The provision does not require the surety to establish actual financial prejudice or loss arising from the modification. The statutory policy underlying Section 133 is clear: A surety remains bound only to the obligations voluntarily undertaken; Creditors cannot unilaterally expand the surety’s exposure; and Any material increase in risk without consent attracts statutory protection. This principle is particularly relevant in disputes concerning unilateral enhancement of sanctioned credit limits and modifications of loan arrangements by banks and financial institutions. Distinction Between Sections 133 and 139 Indian suretyship jurisprudence often distinguishes between the operation of Sections 133 and 139 of the Contract Act. Section 133: Variance of Risk Section 133 concerns alteration of contractual risk itself. The provision applies where the creditor and principal debtor materially vary the underlying contractual arrangement without the surety’s consent. The discharge arises automatically upon proof of variance. Section 139: Impairment of Surety’s Remedy Section 139 applies where the creditor acts inconsistently with the rights of the surety and thereby impairs the surety’s eventual remedy against the principal debtor. Unlike Section 133, Section 139 ordinarily requires proof that the creditor’s conduct prejudiced the surety’s legal rights or recovery remedies. Typical examples include: Release of securities; Collusion with the debtor; or Conduct reducing the surety’s ability to seek reimbursement. The doctrinal distinction is therefore important: Section 133 addresses alteration of risk exposure; Section 139 addresses impairment of recovery rights. Partial Nature of Discharge under Section 133 Judicial interpretation has consistently recognised that discharge under Section 133 is generally partial rather than absolute. Where the creditor alters the contractual arrangement without the surety’s consent, the surety is discharged only in respect of transactions occurring after the variance. Liability for obligations incurred before the alteration ordinarily continues to subsist. This approach strikes a balance between: Preserving contractual certainty for lenders; and Protecting sureties against unanticipated enlargement of liability. The law therefore prevents unilateral expansion of risk while ensuring that the surety remains accountable for obligations originally undertaken. Supreme Court Decision in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel The principles governing unilateral enhancement of credit facilities were recently examined in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel[1]. Factual Background The dispute arose from a cash credit facility of ₹4 lakh extended by Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. to certain borrowers against personal guarantees furnished by sureties. Subsequently, the bank unilaterally enhanced the credit limit without obtaining the consent of the guarantors. Following this enhancement, the borrowers drew amounts exceeding the originally sanctioned facility. The central issue before the Court was whether such unilateral enhancement constituted a “variance” under Section 133 and whether the sureties could be held liable for the increased exposure. Court’s Reasoning The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Sections 128, 133, and 139 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court held that enhancement of the credit limit without the consent of the sureties amounted to a material variance in the contractual arrangement. The judgment clarified that Section 133 is attracted immediately upon material alteration of the underlying contract, irrespective of whether the surety proves actual prejudice or financial harm. Accordingly, the sureties were discharged from liability in respect of amounts advanced beyond the original sanctioned limit. However, the Court also reaffirmed that the surety’s liability remained co-extensive with the original facility under Section 128. Consequently, the guarantors continued to remain liable for the original ₹4 lakh facility together with applicable interest. Clarification on Section 139 The Court rejected the argument that Section 139 applied to the facts of the case. It observed that impairment of remedy under Section 139 requires conduct by the creditor that prejudices the surety’s legal remedies against the principal debtor. Mere enhancement of exposure, without more, does not impair the surety’s reimbursement rights because the surety continues to retain full legal recourse against the principal debtor for any amount lawfully paid. The decision therefore provides important doctrinal clarity regarding the distinction between variance under Section 133 and impairment of remedy under Section 139. Position within Existing Jurisprudence Reaffirmation of Partial Discharge The judgment reinforces the established principle that discharge under Section 133 is ordinarily partial rather than total. The surety is discharged only with respect to liabilities arising from the altered arrangement, while obligations under the original contractual structure continue to survive. Clarifying the Scope of Co-Extensive Liability The decision also refines the interpretation of Section 128 by emphasising that co-extensive liability does not mean unlimited liability. The surety’s obligation remains bounded by: The original contractual framework; and Statutory protections contained in the Contract Act. This is especially important in modern banking transactions involving restructuring, enhancement of facilities, and revision of credit arrangements. Practical Implications for Banks and Financial Institutions Need for Surety Consent in Loan Enhancements Banks and lenders must ensure that any enhancement of sanctioned credit facilities or modification of loan terms is carried out only after obtaining the express consent of guarantors. Failure to secure such consent may prevent recovery of enhanced amounts from the surety. Drafting of Guarantee Agreements Financial institutions may increasingly incorporate clauses permitting: Enhancement of credit limits; Restructuring of facilities; and Variation of borrowing arrangements within specified limits. However, absent clear contractual authorisation, statutory protections under Section 133 will continue to prevail. Litigation Strategy in Banking Recovery Proceedings The judgment indicates that courts are likely to segregate liabilities in disputes involving enhanced facilities: The principal debtor may remain liable for the entire debt; The surety’s liability may be restricted to the originally guaranteed exposure. This distinction is likely to significantly impact banking recovery suits, insolvency proceedings, and enforcement actions involving personal guarantees. Conclusion The decision in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel reinforces the protective architecture governing contracts of guarantee under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. By holding that unilateral enhancement of credit facilities constitutes a variance under Section 133, the Court reaffirmed the principle that a surety’s liability cannot be enlarged without consent. The judgment also provides important doctrinal clarity regarding the relationship between Sections 128, 133, and 139, while balancing commercial certainty with fairness to guarantors. Ultimately, the ruling highlights that suretyship is not a mechanism for unlimited or open-ended liability. Rather, it remains a carefully defined contractual obligation grounded in consent, statutory protection, and clearly delineated risk allocation. By Siddartha Karnani, Partner – King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/siddartha-karnani-2/ 2026 INSC 205 ↑

04 June 2026

Real Estate

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act: Bombay High Court Clarifies That Compensation Is Not Capped by the Foundational Award

04 June 2026

Projects and Energy

Investing in Indian Infrastructure: What Foreign Investors Need to Evaluate Beyond Financing

04 June 2026

Projects and Energy

Change in Law in Power Purchase Agreements: Coal Block Cancellation and the Allocation of Contractual Risk

Introduction The long-term stability of India’s power sector depends not only on generation capacity and infrastructure growth, but also on the legal and regulatory certainty governing fuel supply arrangements. Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs”), particularly those executed through competitive bidding under the Electricity Act, 2003, are structured on commercial assumptions relating to the long-term availability, pricing, and sourcing of coal. When those assumptions are disrupted by judicial or regulatory intervention, a critical legal and commercial question arises: who bears the resulting economic burden? The “change in law” doctrine in Indian power sector contracts seeks to address this issue by reallocating risks arising from supervening legal or regulatory developments. However, the scope of the doctrine particularly whether it extends to judicial invalidation of resource allocation regimes has remained a contentious issue in electricity jurisprudence. This article examines the evolving legal framework governing change in law clauses in Indian PPAs, with a particular focus on coal block cancellation cases, allocation of contractual risk in infrastructure projects, and the treatment of judicial decisions as change in law events under Indian electricity law. It also analyses recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that has significantly expanded the interpretation of these provisions in the context of fuel supply disruptions in the power sector. Legal and Contractual Framework Governing Change in Law in Indian PPAs Tariff Regulation under the Electricity Act, 2003 The Electricity Act, 2003 forms the foundation of tariff regulation and contractual structuring in India’s power sector. Section 61 emphasises tariff determination based on commercial principles, consumer interest, efficiency, and recovery of reasonable costs. Section 63 permits tariff adoption through competitive bidding, while Section 79 vests the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”) with jurisdiction over inter-state generating companies and related disputes. Within this statutory framework, PPAs operate as sophisticated risk allocation instruments. They seek to preserve the commercial viability of power generators while simultaneously ensuring tariff certainty for distribution companies (“DISCOMs”). In large-scale infrastructure and thermal power projects, fuel supply risks, regulatory changes, and governmental interventions are carefully allocated between parties through contractual mechanisms such as force majeure clauses, indemnity provisions, and change in law clauses. Structure and Purpose of Change in Law Clauses in Power Purchase Agreements Change in law clauses in Indian PPAs are designed to protect parties against unforeseen legal and regulatory developments occurring after a specified cut-off date. These clauses generally: Define “law” broadly to include statutes, subordinate legislation, notifications, governmental actions, and judicial decisions; Prescribe a contractual cut-off date after which compensation mechanisms become operational; and Provide for restitutionary relief intended to restore the affected party to the same economic position it would have occupied had the change not occurred. Such provisions are commercially significant in long-term infrastructure projects because they preserve investor confidence and mitigate regulatory uncertainty in India’s energy sector. Without these protections, projects financed on narrow tariff assumptions could become commercially unviable due to external legal developments beyond the control of contracting parties. Principles Governing Interpretation of Commercial Contracts Under Indian contract law and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, courts generally apply the plain meaning rule while interpreting commercial contracts, with limited reliance on extrinsic evidence. Indian courts have consistently emphasised: The sanctity of commercial bargains; Respect for negotiated allocation of contractual risks; and Harmonious interpretation of contractual clauses. These principles assume particular importance in infrastructure and energy contracts where multiple provisions including indemnity clauses, force majeure clauses, and change in law clauses may overlap. Courts have therefore sought to interpret such provisions in a manner that preserves the commercial intent of sophisticated parties rather than rewriting the contractual bargain. Evolution of the “Change in Law” Doctrine in Indian Electricity Jurisprudence Indian courts have gradually adopted a broader and commercially pragmatic interpretation of change in law provisions in power sector contracts. In Energy Watchdog v. CERC[1], the Supreme Court recognised that changes in Indonesian coal pricing regulations affecting imported coal costs could trigger compensatory relief under change in law provisions. Similarly, in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Ltd.[2], environmental regulations introduced after the contractual cut-off date were treated as qualifying change in law events. The underlying rationale across these decisions is that where a substantive legal or regulatory development fundamentally alters the cost assumptions underlying a PPA, the contractual equilibrium must be restored to preserve the economic bargain originally contemplated by the parties. This evolving jurisprudence has significantly shaped the treatment of regulatory risk in Indian infrastructure and energy projects. Can Judicial Decisions Constitute a “Change in Law”? One of the most significant doctrinal developments in recent years concerns whether judicial decisions themselves may qualify as change in law events under PPAs. Many Indian PPAs expressly define “law” to include judgments, decrees, or interpretations issued by courts of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, courts have increasingly recognised that judicial interventions can trigger change in law protections where they materially alter the legal framework governing a project. This becomes especially relevant where judicial decisions: Invalidate existing allocation regimes; Extinguish previously vested rights relating to natural resources; or Restructure regulatory frameworks governing critical infrastructure sectors. In highly regulated industries such as electricity generation and coal mining, judicial decisions can produce commercial consequences comparable to legislative or executive action. Indian courts have therefore moved towards recognising that judicial invalidation of resource allocation frameworks may amount to a change in law event capable of triggering restitutionary compensation under PPAs. Distinguishing Indemnity Clauses from Change in Law Clauses A recurring contractual issue in infrastructure disputes concerns the distinction between indemnity provisions and change in law clauses. Judicial interpretation has consistently treated these provisions as operating in separate contractual spheres: Indemnity clauses generally address losses arising from breach, default, or fault-based liability; whereas Change in law clauses deal with external legal or regulatory developments beyond the control of contracting parties. Conflating these provisions would undermine the negotiated allocation of risk embedded within commercial contracts. Courts have therefore emphasised that contractual remedies must be interpreted independently in accordance with their intended commercial purpose. Coal Block Cancellation and Change in Law: Supreme Court’s Approach The Supreme Court’s decision in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Adhunik Power & Natural Resource Ltd.[3] provides a significant illustration of these principles in the context of coal block cancellation and fuel supply disruption in the Indian power sector. The dispute arose following the landmark judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary[4], through which the Supreme Court cancelled numerous coal block allocations across India. As a result, affected power generators were compelled to procure coal through more expensive alternative mechanisms such as e-auctions and market purchases. The Supreme Court held that: Judicial cancellation of coal blocks, read together with subsequent legislation, constituted a valid “change in law” event; The illegality of the original coal block allocation did not negate the existence of the prior legal regime under which parties had structured their commercial arrangements; and Compensation must correspond to the point at which legal rights were effectively extinguished. At the same time, the Court clarified that compensation could not extend to costs incurred prior to the occurrence of the relevant legal change. This reinforced the requirement of establishing a direct causal nexus between the legal development and the resulting economic impact. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that indemnity provisions cannot override change in law protections where the triggering event does not arise from contractual default or breach. The Judgment in Broader Legal Context Expansion of Change in Law Jurisprudence Earlier decisions such as Energy Watchdog v. CERC and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Ltd. primarily addressed foreign regulatory changes and environmental compliance costs affecting fuel pricing. The Adhunik Power decision significantly extends the doctrine by recognising that judicial cancellation of coal blocks and subsequent legislative intervention may also trigger change in law relief under PPAs. This marks an important development in Indian electricity law because it acknowledges that any public law intervention capable of altering the legal basis of fuel supply arrangements may affect the commercial assumptions underlying power generation contracts. Clarification of Contractual Risk Allocation The judgment also reinforces the principle that different contractual clauses allocate different categories of commercial risk. The Court’s reasoning aligns with earlier observations in Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC[5], where courts cautioned against conflating separate contractual remedies. The decision therefore strengthens legal certainty in infrastructure contracting by respecting negotiated contractual structures and preserving the commercial intent of sophisticated parties. Harmonisation of Public Law and Private Contracts By linking compensation to the extinguishment of vested rights rather than merely to the enactment of legislation, the Court harmonised public law developments with private contractual rights. The judgment reflects an important recognition that judicial decisions can substantially affect long-term commercial contracts in regulated sectors such as power and mining. Conclusion The doctrine of change in law has evolved into one of the most significant risk allocation mechanisms in India’s power sector and infrastructure financing framework. Through successive judicial decisions, Indian courts have recognised that legislative, regulatory, and judicial interventions can fundamentally alter the economic assumptions underlying long-term PPAs. The expanding interpretation of change in law clauses particularly in cases involving coal block cancellations, fuel supply disruptions, and judicial invalidation of allocation regimes reflects a broader judicial effort to preserve contractual equilibrium while respecting public law objectives. As India continues to attract investment in thermal power projects, renewable energy infrastructure, and large-scale energy transition initiatives, legal certainty surrounding change in law compensation in Indian PPAs will remain critical for investor confidence, tariff stability, and long-term infrastructure financing. The evolving jurisprudence ultimately demonstrates a careful balancing of contractual sanctity, commercial fairness, and regulatory intervention principles that will continue to shape the future of energy and infrastructure disputes in India. By Surbhi Kapoor, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva https://ksandk.com/people/surbhi-kapoor/ Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2017) 14 SCC 80 ↑ Appeal No. 210 of 2017 & IA No. 05 of 2018 ↑ 2026 INSC 202 ↑ 2014 (2) SCC 532 ↑ Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC (2025 INSC 1279) ↑

04 June 2026

Press Releases

King Stubb & Kasiva Strengthens Data Privacy Practice with the Addition of Dhruv Kaushal as Partner

New Delhi, 1st June, 2026 - King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK), one of India's fastest-growing full-service law firms, is pleased to announce the appointment of Dhruv Kaushal as Partner. Dhruv will lead the Firm's Data Privacy Practice, further strengthening KSK's capabilities in technology law, artificial intelligence, data privacy, cybersecurity, telecommunications, and digital regulatory compliance. Dhruv joins KSK with over a decade of experience advising global corporations, technology companies, and emerging businesses on complex technology and data protection matters. Prior to joining KSK, he served as Associate Director in Deloitte India's Legal and Regulatory Practice, where he advised clients on data privacy, artificial intelligence, telecom regulations, intermediary guidelines, and other critical regulatory frameworks shaping the digital economy. A Certified Information Privacy Professional (Europe) [CIPP(E)], Dhruv has been at the forefront of India's rapidly evolving privacy landscape, advising Fortune 50 companies and leading enterprises on compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and other global privacy frameworks. Over the course of his career, Dhruv has advised more than 110 organizations on DPDP readiness and implementation, conducted over 250 privacy awareness and compliance training sessions, and guided businesses through complex data breach response scenarios across multiple jurisdictions, including India, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Commenting on the appointment, Jidesh Kumar, Managing Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, said: "India's digital economy is entering a defining phase, driven by the implementation of the DPDP Act, the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence, and increased regulatory scrutiny across sectors. Dhruv's deep expertise in technology regulation and data privacy perfectly complements our growth strategy. His leadership will further enhance our ability to provide forward-looking, business-centric advice to clients navigating this dynamic environment." Speaking on his joining, Dhruv Kaushal said: "The intersection of technology, data, and regulation is becoming increasingly critical for businesses. KSK's entrepreneurial culture, strong pan-India presence, and commitment to innovation make it an exciting platform to build a market-leading technology and data protection practice. I look forward to working with the Firm's talented teams and helping clients navigate the opportunities and challenges of the digital economy." Dhruv’s appointment underscores KSK's continued investment in future-focused practice areas and reinforces the Firm's commitment to delivering sophisticated legal solutions for businesses operating in an increasingly technology-driven world. About King Stubb & Kasiva King Stubb & Kasiva (KSK) is a leading full-service law firm with offices across India and a strong presence across key sectors including corporate and commercial, disputes, employment, real estate, infrastructure, technology, data privacy, regulatory, and cross-border transactions. The Firm advises domestic and international clients across industries, combining legal excellence with practical business insight. For additional information, please contact: Shruti Thapa, Corporate Communications Executive, King Stubb and Kasiva Email – [email protected]

03 June 2026

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

21 May 2026

Labour and Employment Law

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

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

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

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

Global

News and developments

Green Hydrogen Projects in India: Financing, Regulation and Infrastructure Challenges Shaping the Sector in 2026

Insolvency and Stressed Infrastructure Assets in India: Opportunities, Risks and Resolution Trends in 2026

The Fourth Party at the Indian Tribunal Table

ESG and Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in India: The Investment and Regulatory Shift Reshaping Infrastructure in 2026

GIFT City’s Next Phase: How India’s IFSC Is Becoming a Global Financial Hub

Reconsidering Compromise and FIR Registration: A Doctrinal Analysis of Mandatory FIR Registration under the CrPC and BNSS

Challenging ‘Purported Awards’ under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Doctrinal Foundations and Emerging Jurisprudence

Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act: Variance of Contract and Limitation of Surety Liability upon Unilateral Enhancement of Credit Facilities

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act: Bombay High Court Clarifies That Compensation Is Not Capped by the Foundational Award

Investing in Indian Infrastructure: What Foreign Investors Need to Evaluate Beyond Financing

Change in Law in Power Purchase Agreements: Coal Block Cancellation and the Allocation of Contractual Risk

King Stubb & Kasiva Strengthens Data Privacy Practice with the Addition of Dhruv Kaushal as Partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Merger Oversight in India

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

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

KSK secures interim injunction protecting upcoming film against defamatory content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KSK Welcomes Two New Partners to the Firm