News and developments
Deal Disclosure/Deal Update/ Disputes Update/Judicial Ruling Update
Date: July, 2025
This investment underscores investor confidence in Indicold’s vision of developing a technology-driven and sustainable cold chain infrastructure across India.
The Phoenix Legal team advising on this transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) and Mokshiv Malla (Associate). The due diligence was led by Sumit Sinha, with Mokshiv Malla (Associate), Vishesh Minocha (Associate), and Aayush K. (Associate) providing key support.
Date: July, 2025
The matter was successfully led by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, along with our team comprising Aman Avinav, Partner and Kumar Rishabh Parth, Associate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
Date: July, 2025
The Phoenix Legal team for this transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner), Sukanya Bhattacharya (Associate Partner) and Vishesh Minocha (Associate).
Learn more about this development here: https://lnkd.in/gbpGHZrm
Date: May, 2025
Our Partner, Kunal Mehra, and Associate Partner, Danish Khan, shed light on this significant development.
Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_phoenix-legal-activity-7329037423718342656-99Si?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM
Date: April, 2025
The Calcutta High Court accepted our submissions that:
The impugned remarks/controversial statements were made by a panelist during a live debate and were neither endorsed nor pre-approved by the petitioners.
• The petitioners had immediately interrupted, condemned, and distanced themselves from the comment, both on-air and across social media and therefore there was no endorsement, intention, or conspiracy attributable to the petitioners.
• The legal ingredients of the offences, particularly under Section 153A IPC, were not satisfied, as there was no intent, no two-group enmity, and no provocation attributed to the petitioners.
Significance of this Judgment:
The Calcutta High Court agreed and quashed the criminal proceedings, reinforcing that editorial hosts cannot be held liable for unscripted third-party remarks when due diligence and condemnation follow.
This case highlights the delicate balance between free speech and reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), particularly in the context of live media. This judgment upholds the importance of editorial independence, the boundaries of criminal liability in live media broadcasts and the responsibility of courts to draw that line with care.
Read the full judgement below for detailed insights.
Date: March, 2025
The case involves registration of FIR No. 276 against Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of the Republic Media Network, and another person, under sections 153A, 295A, 120B, 499, 501, 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the NSA Act. The FIR was registered at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, Rajasthan, based on a complaint by Mr. Pawan Khera, Spokesperson of the All-India Congress Committee. The complaint alleges that the accused spread false, malicious, and ill-motivated lies against the Government of Rajasthan, intending to destabilize it and incite communal disharmony.
𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞:
-The Petitioner claims no involvement in the day-to-day operations of 'Republic Bharat' and did not participate in the broadcast in question related to the temple demolition in Rajgarh and he has neither any role to play in the day-to-day operations of R. Bharat.
- The FIR does not disclose any specific date or time of the alleged statements, making it baseless and makes no reference to any date and time.
- The FIR does not constitute any offense under the sections mentioned and that the proceedings are arbitrary and malicious allegations in FIR No. 276, even if they are taken on their face value. In summary, the Petitioner argued that the FIR is politically motivated, lacks a factual basis, and constitutes an abuse of legal process aimed at silencing a free press.
𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝟑.𝟎𝟑.𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬:
- The allegations in the FIR do not disclose an offence under Section 153A of the IPC do not disclose the commission of an offence.
-The FIR lacks essential particulars such as exact statements or evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's culpability lacks essential particulars such as the exact nature.
-The continued investigation appears to suppress journalistic freedom and subject the Petitioner to unwarranted legal proceedings attempt to suppress journalistic freedom.
-The Stay Application was allowed with the direction that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner until the disposal of the main petition. In summary, the court has granted a stay on coercive actions against the Petitioner, citing insufficient evidence and concerns over journalistic freedom.
Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_disputes-update-activity-7303681845999677441-Rg1S?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM