Phoenix Legal

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 was passed by the Parliament on August 21, 2025, and received Presidential assent on August 22, 2025, thereby becoming the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“ Online Gaming Act ”). This marks a significant step towards regulating the online gaming sector in India. The Online Gaming Act will come into force once notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. While positioning online gaming as one of the most dynamic and fastest-growing segments of the digital and creative economy, the Online Gaming Act simultaneously imposes for a blanket ban on online money gaming. The industry, presently valued at USD 3.7 billion and has been projected to expand to USD 9.1 billion by the year 2029, is expected to undergo significant restructuring, as the prohibition on online money gaming may curtail a large segment of the market.[1] Concerns over online money gaming, including threats to public safety and national security like youth addiction, mental health issues, financial losses that have led to suicide in extreme cases, and the potential abuse of gaming platforms for money laundering or terrorism financing, prompted the introduction of the Online Gaming  Act. Despite being home to an estimated 400-420 million gamers and gaming platforms[2], India presently lacks a uniform regulatory environment, resulting in numerous policy, legal and consumer protection concerns. The Online Gaming Act seeks to establish a comprehensive legal framework for India's online gaming sector by formally recognising e-Sports and online social games, while prohibiting and criminalising online money gaming services in line with constitutional provisions such as Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 47 (Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health). Key definitions The Online Gaming Act rests on a precise set of definitions, the interpretation of which is crucial to effectively demarcate boundaries and the structure proposed by the legislature. It defines an "Online Game" as any game played on an electronic or digital device and managed through the internet or other technology facilitating electronic communication. This broad definition covers a wide range of digital gaming experiences, irrespective of format or genre, while drawing a clear distinction between "e-Sports", "Online social games", and "online money games." "e-Sports" are defined as online games that form part of multi-sport events, involving organised competition conducted under predefined rules, where outcomes are determined by participants' skills. Importantly, this definition specifically excludes any element of monetary stakes such as betting or wagering. In contrast, an "Online Money Game" has been defined as any digital game that involves a payment or stake (in money or its equivalent) with the expectation of winning a monetary return. Notably, e-Sports are explicitly excluded from this definition. The Online Gaming Act further brings within its ambit all "Persons", a term that extends to include individuals, companies, and foreign entities offering services to Indian users. It is pertinent to note that, until recently, courts and local gaming laws permitted games of skill but forbade games of chance. Once notified into force, all Online Money Games, whether they are skill-based or chance-based will stand completely prohibited. Salient Features of the Online Gaming Act As part of a policy shift that strikes a balance between prohibition, regulation, and promotion, the Online Gaming Act recognises e-Sports, while restricting Online Money Games. It also creates an enabling framework for the government to promote and regulate the industry. Blanket Ban on Online Money Games, Online Money Gaming Services and any related Advertisements The Online Gaming Act provides that no Person shall provide, aid, abet, induce or otherwise facilitate the provision of Online Money Gaming Services. This provision covers not only direct operators, but also third-party intermediaries and facilitators that provide assistance in any shape or form. The prohibition also applies to aiding, abetting, inducing, or otherwise facilitating the making of any advertisement which in any medium of communication, including electronic communication, directly or indirectly invites or induces a person to play or participate in Online Money Games. As per the Online Gaming Act, any information generated, transmitted, received or hosted in any computer resource in relation to an Online Money Gaming Service in contravention of the provisions of the Online Gaming Act will be blocked for access by the public under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Promotion of e-Sports In contrast to its strict stance on Online Money Games, the Online Gaming Act expressly recognizes e-Sports as a legitimate competitive sport. It empowers the Central Government to frame guidelines for the promotion and development of e-Sports which include establishing academies and research centers, implementing incentive schemes for e-Sports innovation and coordinating with state governments and sporting federations. This marks a significant shift in policy, positioning e-Sports as an organized and regulated sector. The official recognition and growth of e-Sports presents tremendous opportunities, opening an emerging market and encouraging investment in sports infrastructure to support its growth, even though the ban on online money games will cause enormous economic losses. Prohibition on Transfer of Funds The Online Gaming Act places restrictions not only on Online Gaming Platforms, but also on financial intermediaries. Banks, financial institutions and any other Person involved in the facilitation of transactions or authorisation of funds pertaining to Online Money Games would all be seen to permit, aid, abet or induce those prohibited activities. Hence, they will be brought directly within the scope of regulatory and penal provisions. Establishment of a Central Authority A cornerstone of the Online Gaming Act provides for the establishment of a central authority to supervise the online gaming industry. In 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information technology introduced provisions under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, for the appointment of self-regulatory bodies (“ SRBs ”) to oversee online games. However, no such SRBs have been appointed till date.[3] Under the Online Money Gaming Act, the Central Government is empowered to vest such the Online Gaming Authority (which is yet to be established), or any such pre-existing body so designated, with the responsibility of performing the following functions, namely registering and classifying online games, issuing operating and compliance guidelines, determining whether a game is an online money game, managing complaints, and ensuring compliance in the industry by providing an industry-wide unified and transparent regulatory framework. The establishment of a central authority is a positive development and brings a much-needed consistency to the online gaming space that has been inconsistent to date due to different state level policies. Offences and Penalties Violation of the provisions of the Online Gaming Act will attract strict criminal liability and substantial monetary penalties. A Person who offers any Online Money Gaming Service may face imprisonment of up to 3 (Three) years and/or a fine which may extend to INR 10 million (USD 1,14,611). Further, any Person who makes or causes to make an advertisement in contravention of the provisions of the Online Gaming Act in any media faces imprisonment of up to 2 (Two) years and/or a fine which may extend up to INR 5 million (USD 57,310). Banks, financial institutions or any Person enabling Online Money Games or financial transactions will be subject to imprisonment for a term of up to 3 (Three) years and/or a fine of up to INR 10 million (USD 1,14,611). The Online Gaming Act also provides for harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Companies will also be included in the scope of liability, as every individual who is in charge of, or who is responsible for, the conduct of the company at the time of the offence will also be liable to punishment. According to the Online Gaming Act, anyone who provides an online money gaming service or game, as well as any bank, financial institution, or intermediary that provides funds for such activities, will be deemed guilty of an offence that is both cognisable and non-bailable. This gives the police the authority to register, investigate, and make an arrest without a warrant, with bail being entirely up to the court's discretion. Existing Laws Governing Gaming Prior to the enactment of the Online Gaming Act, India's legal framework on gaming was fragmented and outdated. Gambling is assigned as a state subject in Entries 34 and 62 of the State List, and regulations varied widely on a state-by-state basis, creating ambiguity. The only central law was the Public Gambling Act, 1867 "PGA", which focused on physical gaming houses and was unfit for digital platforms. Although the PGA allowed for games of "mere skill" to be exempt from consideration, with the rise of online gaming, these gaps became stark. States like Nagaland and Sikkim introduced licensing laws for online skill games, but their effect remained territorially limited. Judicial interpretations on key questions, such as the classification of rummy, poker, or fantasy sports remained varied, with different High Courts and the Supreme Court offering divergent rulings on what constituted a game of skill. The interplay between the current state-level gaming laws and the federal framework is still up for debate. However, since online gaming is not limited to a single territorial jurisdiction and by its very nature operates across state borders, it is anticipated that central legislation will prevail guaranteeing consistent regulation and enforcement throughout India. Conclusion Industry stakeholders like the All-India Gaming Federation, E-Gaming Federation, and the Federation of India Fantasy Sports, have raised serious concerns over the blanket ban on online money gaming and warned that such a law, once brought into force, could cause considerable damage to what they claim is a legitimate, job-creating industry. The Online Gaming Act is poised to spark a constitutional showdown in India. By providing for a ban on Online Money Gaming, it intends to change the established jurisprudence on game of skill vs. chance. One will have to wait and watch whether this legislation threatens prominent gaming companies and jeopardizes India's broader fintech industry or if it practically realises the objectives it professes, such as to establish a safe, innovative, and robust online gaming environment. It will be critical for the financial intermediaries like banks and financial institutions to prepare for and implement appropriate checks and balances to ensure they are not implicated in the prohibited activities. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are as on August 23, 2025, and may change subject to further notifications or updates issued by the Government of India. [1] https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/game-over-for-online-gaming-firms-industry-in-shock-over-proposed-blanket-ban-2773881-2025-08-20#:~:text=India's%20online%20gaming%20market%20is,to%20%249.1%20billion%20by%202029. [2] https://gamingshow.in/gamingindustry.php [3]https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/online-gaming-rules-are-not-enforceable-govt-tells-court-101743202910764.html Author: Rahul Deodhar, Partner and Rencie Rodrigues, Associate

Restrictive covenants remain central to Indian employment law debates, given the country's persistently high attrition rate, 17.4% in 2024, marginally improved yet still a significant concern for businesses and corporations.[1] Beyond the statistics, high attrition leads to the loss of valuable talent and may harm an organisation’s external reputation. In response, many organisations have increasingly begun incorporating such clauses into their agreements to address the rising challenges of employee turnover, moonlighting as well as the loss of expertise, creativity and investment in employee training. While potentially useful, such clauses are counterproductive if not inadequately worded, considering that their enforceability is subject to judicial scrutiny under Section 27 of the of the Indian Contract Act 1872 (“ICA”), which voids agreements in restraint of trade except in the sale of goodwill. This underscores the importance of crafting restrictive covenants with careful precision from the outset, not only to enhance their likelihood of being upheld but to also avoid protracted and costly litigation, which has the potential to compound the expenses associated with attrition. Employment Contracts In the prevailing business climate, employers often include restrictive covenants in employment contracts to protect proprietary information, trade secrets, and client relationships. Among the most used are non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. A non-compete clause prohibits or limits an employee from working with a competitor or a rival organisation upon expiry of their employment. A non-solicitation clause prevents a former employee from soliciting employees, clients, suppliers, distributors and other business associates engaged with the company after termination. Employees often tend to have unequal bargaining power when it comes to signing standard form employment contracts.[2] Notably, Indian law does not recognise restrictions on trade or business. Nevertheless, Indian Courts have upheld such restrictions in limited cases. Non-Compete Indian Courts have consistently held that post-employment non-compete clauses are unenforceable as they constitute a restraint of trade. While the non-compete clause is valid and reasonable during the term of the agreement, it is considered a restraint once the agreement ends.[3] In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held post termination employment restrictions are void and contrary to Section 27 of the ICA. Further, while assessing enforceability, the court observed that negative covenants can only be inserted to protect the confidential and proprietary information of the employer or to restrain client solicitation.[4] Broadly worded non-compete clauses are often deemed to be unenforceable.[5] Courts have varied in interpreting these clauses. In the case of Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd.,[6] the court held that “A negative covenant that the employee would not engage in a trade or business or not get himself employed by any master for whom he would perform similar or substantially similar duties is not a restraint of trade, unless the contract is unconscionable or excessively harsh or unreasonable or one sided.” Garden Leave Businesses have often circumvented the limitations of restrictive covenants by including garden leave provisions in employment contracts, requiring employees to stay away from work for a set period while receiving salary and benefits. The underlying rationale is that even after employment, the employee remains unavailable to competitors and is restricted from disclosing trade secrets and confidential information acquired during employment. Courts have adopted divergent views on the enforceability of garden leave clauses, with some holding that such clauses, if intended to operate post termination of employment would prima facie fall foul of the ICA, being regarded as a restraint of trade, and employers could not sidestep the law to further their own interests. In the case of VFS Global Services Private Limited v. Mr. Suprit Roy[7], a garden leave clause intended to apply after the employee had served the notice period or upon cessation of employment was deemed unenforceable, constituting a restraint of trade. Conversely, in M/s. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Ashish Kishore[8], the court upheld such a clause to protect trade secrets, noting that post-employment restrictions can be valid if tied to trade secret protection and if the employee is duly compensated. Non-Solicitation Courts have evolved a nuanced interpretation for non-solicitation clauses, especially where these clauses are reasonable and serve to guard against legitimate business interests, including confidential and proprietary information, trade secrets or client relationships.[9] These clauses are enforceable where they are reasonable and are not contrary to public policy.[10] For a non-solicitation clause to be valid, it must pass the test of reasonableness, that demands that restrictions placed are reasonable and proportionate to the protected interests. A non-solicitation clause would be reasonable if it is reasonable in terms of the restrictions placed on (i) Geographical Scope; (ii) Time Limit; (iii) Trade Secrets; and (iv) Goodwill.[11] Lock In periods Evolving work practices have introduced challenges such as job-hopping. To combat this, employers insert lock-in clauses to prevent an employee from resigning for a set duration from their appointment date. Lock-in periods operative during the term of a contract are not subject to Section 27 of the ICA[12]; the only issue that remains is determining the quantum of damages that may be claimed. In K. Tapas K. Behera v. MD, O.H.P.C. and Ors[13], the court held that employment bonds are enforceable if four key criteria are met: (i) the employer proves investment in the employee (e.g. Training); (ii) the investment is tied to a service commitment; (iii) loss results from the employees premature departure; and (d) the bond amount is reasonable and proportionate to the loss incurred. In cases where the bond amount was unreasonable and the employer was unable to prove significant loss or damage; the courts have lowered the damages.[14] Similarly if the employer could show they spent an equivalent amount on training, the court awarded damages.[15] To ensure the enforceability of such clauses, employers must ensure that the terms are reasonable, they should be clearly drafted and should only operate during the term of the employment rather than post-termination and a detailed record of investment made in the employee in terms of training and development be made, in the event the need arises. Conclusion  Standard form employment contracts prima facie shows unequal bargaining power and are scrutinised through the lens of undue influence and public policy concerns. Employer’s must keep in mind that the onus to prove a restrictive covenant is not in restraint of trade or opposed to public policy lies on them, not the employee. Key words: Non-compete, Non-solicitation, Lock-in Periods, Standard Form Employment Contracts Employment Law, Garden Leave, Corporate Law.   [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/mid-career/india-incs-attrition-rates-hit-lowest-point-since-2020-amid-hiring-slowdown/articleshow/118767184.cms?from=mdr [2] Vijaya Bank and Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware, Civil Appeal No. 11708 of 2015. [3] Percept D’Marker (India) Private Limited v. Zaheer Khan and Anr., AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3426. [4] Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited, 2025 SC Online Del 4589. [5] Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, MANU/SC/0457/1980. [6] Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. The Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd, 1967 AIR 1098. [7] VFS Global Services Private Limited v. Mr. Suprit Roy, 2008(2) BOMCR 446. [8] M/s. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Ashish Kishore, 2007 (6) ALL MR 808. [9] Varun Tyagi, supra note 4. [10] Vrentin Tech (P) Ltd. v. Udit Gogoi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3688. [11] FL Smidth Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Secan Invescast (India) Pvt.Ltd, (2013) 1 CTC 886. [12] Lily Packers v. Vaishnavi Vijay Umak, ARB Pet 1210 of 2023. [13] K. Tapas K. Behera v. MD, O.H.P.C. and Ors, W.P.(C) NO.576 of 2012 [14] Ladella Ravichander. v. Satyam Computer Services Limited, MANU/AP/0416/2011. [15] Toshniwal Brothers (Private) Limited v. Eswar prasad, 1997 LLR 500. Authored by Rahul Deodhar (Partner) and Rencie Rodrigues (Associate)

Introduction  Over the past decade, there has been a growing emphasis on the need for investors to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors as part of their investment strategy. However, this process becomes challenging when companies engage in “greenwashing”—misleading disclosures that exaggerate or falsely claim ESG credentials. For Indian publicly listed companies and large corporates, ESG disclosure under BRSR (Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting)[1] is now mandatory, increasing the need for objective external ESG audits. Firms that neglect ESG criteria face significant risks, including consumer boycotts, difficulties in attracting and retaining talent, and restricted access to capital. Therefore, adherence to ESG principles is not only a matter of legal compliance but also one of strategic importance for business sustainability. This article discusses the ESG audit landscape in India, its relevance, and the regulatory developments driving this shift towards compulsory external ESG audits.  ESG Greenwashing: The Deception of Sustainability  The term ‘greenwashing’ refers to a scenario, where companies create a misleading impression of their ESG efforts, typically by exaggerating or misrepresenting the company’s commitment to sustainability, thus threatening consumer trust and the global push for sustainability.[2] As more stakeholders look for options that reflect their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) values, the demand for sustainable funds has risen sharply. Unsurprisingly, this surge in interest has also led to a rise in deceptive practices, with some organisations caught red-handed making false sustainability claims just to capitalise on the growing ESG movement. For example, in the 2015 [3] Volkswagen fitted vehicles with software to cheat on emissions tests, which negatively affected its business reputation. While greenwashing may give companies competitive gains and positive brand image in the short run, it also has serious downsides such as misleading consumers, environmental degradation, lost opportunities for sustainable growth, and possible legal penalties. In addition, greenwashing damages the image of stakeholders, which negatively affect consumers and investors that are misled into investing in the company.  Indian Regulatory framework to prevent Greenwashing.  In India, ESG initiatives have been actively promoted through robust frameworks such as SEBI’s BRSR, which has been made mandatory for the top 1,000 listed companies. The BRSR framework emphasizes uniform ESG disclosures by these companies. Similarly, the Companies Act, 2013, champions ESG compliance through key provisions—Section 134[4] mandates sustainability reporting, and Section 135[5] requires certain companies to spend on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. The ESG framework offers a comprehensive method to evaluate corporate performance across environmental, social, and governance parameters, serving as a measure of success for a firm's sustainable development efforts. While Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, along with the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014[6], and Regulation 34 of SEBI's Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR),[7]makes CSR compliance mandatory for businesses that meet the specified threshold. Some other key frameworks are National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct (NGRBC),[8] which are in alignment with international standards such as the UN Sustainable Development[9], and environmental laws such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986[10], and Energy Conservation Act, 2001[11]. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016[12], also support governance, resource management, and responsibility of the lifecycle of waste, notably, none of the laws or frameworks specifically mandate green audits, thereby leaving a regulatory gap that could potentially expose investors to the risk of greenwashing. However, it is important to note that while these legislative and regulatory frameworks strongly advocate for ESG disclosures and compliance, none of these provisions specifically mandate or address the requirement for external, independent “green audits.” The current regulations focus on self-disclosures and internal compliance, leaving the area of formal external ESG audits largely unaddressed by law. The Gaps in the Current System to Curb Greenwashing. The efforts made in India have been guided to a significant degree by the global move towards improved and standardized reporting, i.e., by implementing standard CSR systems and the evolving types of ESG reporting. Though India has taken several regulatory measures to increase transparency and prevent greenwashing, the gaps in enforcement remains. The Consumer Protection Act[13] provides a platform for consumers who have been negatively affected by misleading and deceptive advertising to seek remedies. Although Central Consumer Protection Authority Guidelines[14] are a step forward in explaining and prohibiting greenwashing, rigorous enforcement of guidelines remains to be seen. The Advertising Standards Council of India Guidelines[15] address only the advertising and marketing aspects of greenwashing. These guidelines do not cover greenwashing in corporate reporting, investor communication, or other business operations. As a result, the consumer protection guidelines are limited to consumers, and the advertising guidelines focus only on advertising. The BRSR framework does not necessitate third-party review of ESG disclosures to make them complete and more credible,[16] which is where there is a need for a mandatory audit of these ESG reports to tackle the problem of greenwashing. Moreover BRSR, only addresses the listed top 1000 entities, and the greenwashing activities of small or un-listed entities are not subject to scrutiny of the ESG requirements. These mandated disclosures represent an important step toward transparency and accountability in Indian corporate behaviour. This move helps to limit corporate greenwashing to some extent. However, despite these positive changes, there are still notable gaps in the existing ESG and related legal regulations. As a result, these measures alone are not sufficient to fully address the problem. Suggestion  SEBI could play a crucial role in promoting responsible business practices by introducing ESG reporting requirements for all publicly traded companies and mandating external ESG audits. At the same time, smaller businesses should be encouraged to adopt ESG principles in their operations. Making third-party certification mandatory for all disclosures under the BSRS framework, along with supporting evidence, would go a long way in enhancing transparency and strengthening public trust. There is an urgent need for a clear and robust legal framework to prevent companies from resorting to greenwashing and to ensure that those who do so are held accountable through effective enforcement mechanisms and meaningful penalties. Raising awareness among the public, investors, and consumers is equally important, as their collective scrutiny can push companies toward greater accountability—at least until comprehensive and stringent anti-greenwashing laws are firmly in place. Conclusion The ESG and CSR frameworks have been instrumental in guiding companies toward higher sustainability. India, however, remains in the infancy phase of addressing the problem of greenwashing. Green audits are emerging as a critical component of the due diligence process for investors, as they provide an objective assessment of a company’s actual sustainability practices and guard against the pitfalls of greenwashing. For investors, the existence of an independent green audit serves as reliable evidence of a company's genuine commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles, enabling more informed investment decisions and reducing the risk of reputational or financial losses associated with misleading sustainability claims. Moreover, companies that proactively adopt green audits before such assessments become statutory stand to gain a market advantage by demonstrating transparency, accountability, and adherence to best practices. This foresight helps establish a track record of responsible conduct, reassuring stakeholders of the company’s integrity and preparedness for future regulatory requirements, thereby projecting a clean image and fostering long-term investor confidence. Authored by Rahul Deodhar (Partner) and Sudhanshu Singh (Associate) [1] BRSR Core - Framework for assurance and ESG disclosures Jul 12, 2023| Circular No.: SEBI/HO/CFD/CFD-SEC-2/P/CIR/2023/122 [2] HK. Keerthi, H. Lakshmi, Shilpa Ajay, and Sendhil Kumar Manoharan, ‘Greenwashing’s Influence on Corporate Performance and Strategies for Regulation and Oversight’ (2024) 11(3) Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities https://doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v11iS3-Feb.7249 [3] Russell Hotten, ‘Volkswagen: The Scandal Explained’ (bbc.com, 10 December 2015)https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 [4] Section 134, Companies Act, 2013 [5] Section 135, Companies Act, 2013 [6] The Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014 [7] Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, Gazette of India, Notification No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2015-16/013, dated Sept. 2, 2015. [8] Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India · National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct (NGRBC), 2019 · Report of the Committee on Business Responsibility Reporting, 2020 [9] United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – https://sdgs.un.org/goals [10] Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29 of 1986, enacted on 23rd May 1986 [11] Energy Conservation Act, 2001, No. 52 of 2001, enacted on 29th September 2001 [12] Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Notification S.O. 1144(E), dated March 18, 2016 [13] Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India). [14] https://doca.gov.in/ccpa/files/Greenwashing_Guidelines.pdf [15]https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guidelines-for-Advertisements-Making Environmental-Green-Claims.pdf [16] V Rishi Kumar, ‘ESG: A pragmatic recipe for India Inc.’ (hindubusinessline.com, 18 September 2022) https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/clean-tech/esg-a-pragmatic-recipe-for-india-inc/article65840750.eceaccessed

Date: July, 2025 We are pleased to share that Phoenix Legal advised and assisted Mr. Nikhil Vora (Founder & CEO, Sixth Sense Ventures), a veteran of India’s venture capital ecosystem along with other investors, in connection with their investment in INDICOLD, India’s leading cold chain solutions company. This investment underscores investor confidence in Indicold’s vision of developing a technology-driven and sustainable cold chain infrastructure across India. The Phoenix Legal team advising on this transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) and Mokshiv Malla (Associate). The due diligence was led by Sumit Sinha, with Mokshiv Malla (Associate), Vishesh Minocha (Associate), and Aayush K. (Associate) providing key support. Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_dealupdate-dealdisclosure-coldchain-activity-7354043861897236481-BwmD?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM Date: July, 2025 Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in matter involving allegation of economic offences and money launderingWe are pleased to share that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to grant bail to our client in FIR registered by the EOW for offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC, involving allegations of receiving foreign direct investment in violation of FDI norms and causing financial loss to the ex-chequer. Treating the EOW FIR as the predicate offence, ECIR was also registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The Court was persuaded to grant the relief considering the documentary nature of the evidence, the prolonged duration of the investigation, and the Petitioner’s continued cooperation with the enforcement authorities. The matter was successfully led by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, along with our team comprising Aman Avinav, Partner and Kumar Rishabh Parth, Associate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_phoenix-legal-activity-7354103823054852096-4JlN?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM Date: July, 2025 We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal advised and assisted Bodo Möller Chemie Group in the execution of an asset purchase agreement for the acquisition of the adhesives chemical business of Aqua Engineering Services by Bodo Möller Chemie Group. This strategic acquisition strengthens Bodo Möller Chemie Group’s footprint in the Indian subcontinent and enhances its capabilities across key sectors such as automotive, electronics, and railways.Nitin Arora, Partner, and his team at Baker Tilly ASA India which included Bhupendra Bijlani and CA Nishtha Chawla, acted as the exclusive financial advisor to Bodo Möller Chemie Group. The Phoenix Legal team for this transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner), Sukanya Bhattacharya (Associate Partner) and Vishesh Minocha (Associate). Learn more about this development here: https://lnkd.in/gbpGHZrm Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_legal-acquisition-aquaengineering-activity-7350421536652095488-LCjp?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM Date: May, 2025 Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Dominance Under Competition ActIn a landmark judgment dated May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified that Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, does not inherently prohibit dominance but targets its abuse. Emphasizing the necessity of an effects-based analysis, the Court dismissed appeals by the Competition Commission of India and Kapoor Glass in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 668), affirming the Competition Appellate Tribunal's decision that no appreciable adverse effect on competition was established. The Court also highlighted procedural lapses, including the denial of cross-examination, which undermined the investigation's credibility. Our Partner, Kunal Mehra, and Associate Partner, Danish Khan, shed light on this significant development. Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_phoenix-legal-activity-7329037423718342656-99Si?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM Date: April, 2025 | Disputes Update |We are delighted to share that the Calcutta High Court on 8.04.2025 in CRR 1187 of 2022 [Arnab Goswami & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.], was pleased to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 153A/153B/500/504/120B IPC against the petitioners in connection with a live news broadcast. Phoenix Legal led by our Partner, Zoeb Cutlerywala represented Mr. Goswami in the said matter. The Calcutta High Court accepted our submissions that: The impugned remarks/controversial statements were made by a panelist during a live debate and were neither endorsed nor pre-approved by the petitioners. • The petitioners had immediately interrupted, condemned, and distanced themselves from the comment, both on-air and across social media and therefore there was no endorsement, intention, or conspiracy attributable to the petitioners. • The legal ingredients of the offences, particularly under Section 153A IPC, were not satisfied, as there was no intent, no two-group enmity, and no provocation attributed to the petitioners. Significance of this Judgment: The Calcutta High Court agreed and quashed the criminal proceedings, reinforcing that editorial hosts cannot be held liable for unscripted third-party remarks when due diligence and condemnation follow. This case highlights the delicate balance between free speech and reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), particularly in the context of live media. This judgment upholds the importance of editorial independence, the boundaries of criminal liability in live media broadcasts and the responsibility of courts to draw that line with care. Read the full judgement below for detailed insights. Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_phoenix-legal-disputes-update-activity-7315722805910638593-NA1N?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM Date: March, 2025 | Disputes Update |𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞: The case involves registration of FIR No. 276 against Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of the Republic Media Network, and another person, under sections 153A, 295A, 120B, 499, 501, 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the NSA Act. The FIR was registered at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, Rajasthan, based on a complaint by Mr. Pawan Khera, Spokesperson of the All-India Congress Committee. The complaint alleges that the accused spread false, malicious, and ill-motivated lies against the Government of Rajasthan, intending to destabilize it and incite communal disharmony. 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞: -The Petitioner claims no involvement in the day-to-day operations of 'Republic Bharat' and did not participate in the broadcast in question related to the temple demolition in Rajgarh and he has neither any role to play in the day-to-day operations of R. Bharat. - The FIR does not disclose any specific date or time of the alleged statements, making it baseless and makes no reference to any date and time. - The FIR does not constitute any offense under the sections mentioned and that the proceedings are arbitrary and malicious allegations in FIR No. 276, even if they are taken on their face value. In summary, the Petitioner argued that the FIR is politically motivated, lacks a factual basis, and constitutes an abuse of legal process aimed at silencing a free press. 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝟑.𝟎𝟑.𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬: - The allegations in the FIR do not disclose an offence under Section 153A of the IPC do not disclose the commission of an offence. -The FIR lacks essential particulars such as exact statements or evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's culpability lacks essential particulars such as the exact nature. -The continued investigation appears to suppress journalistic freedom and subject the Petitioner to unwarranted legal proceedings attempt to suppress journalistic freedom. -The Stay Application was allowed with the direction that no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner until the disposal of the main petition. In summary, the court has granted a stay on coercive actions against the Petitioner, citing insufficient evidence and concerns over journalistic freedom. Linkdin Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_disputes-update-activity-7303681845999677441-Rg1S?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM  

We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Palatine Private Equity LLP, a UK based private equity investor, on acquisition of a majority stake in Atombit Group, an experience intelligence innovator and AI services provider, including indirect acquisition of its Indian subsidiary. Phoenix Legal advised on the Indian leg of the transaction. The Phoenix team comprised Pranav Srivastava (Partner) and Anwita Bhattacharyya (Associate). Link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/phoenixlegal_acquisition-dealdisclosure-dealannouncement-activity-7326558365898145792-tZb6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADVNd5cBbooKC-g7SgtgJdqKQ1E5rL9OUZM

Phoenix Legal has announced the expansion of its partnership with the onboarding of Kunal Mehra as a Partner in its Antitrust & Competition and Mergers & Acquisitions practices. An alumnus of Queen Mary, University of London, where he pursued his Master of Laws in International Business Laws, and ILS Law College, Pune, where he completed his law degree, Kunal brings extensive experience in antitrust & competition law, mergers and acquisitions including NCLT driven mergers and de-mergers. Prior to joining Phoenix Legal, he was a Partner at DSK Legal. Over the years, he has been associated with several leading law firms, including AZB & Partners, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Dua Associates, and Luthra & Luthra Law Offices. Welcoming him, Manjula Chawla, Co-Founding Partner Phoenix Legal, said, “Kunal’s joining marks a continued effort to deepen our capabilities in the Antitrust & Competition and Mergers & Acquisitions practices. His deep and extensive experience of more than two decades, combined with his relatable personality, makes him a great fit for our team.  Having worked across diverse matters over the years, his addition brings depth and continuity to our efforts, and we look forward to the value he will add to our team.” Sharing his vision for the new role, incoming Partner Kunal Mehra stated, “I’m pleased to be joining Phoenix Legal, a firm that has established itself as a steady and dependable advisor to clients, and I look forward to working alongside the team to address any challenges with clarity and precision.  It is exciting to be working in these practice areas and I look forward to contributing to the growth of the firm in every way I can. I’m confident this platform will allow me to contribute meaningfully and grow in the role.” About the Firm: Phoenix Legal is a leading full service, multi-disciplinary Indian law firm with principal offices in Delhi and Mumbai. As part of its continued growth, the firm onboarded Piyush Mishra in 2024 to strengthen its Bankruptcy and Restructuring practice. This was followed by the recent elevation of three senior lawyers to key leadership positions. Chandni Chawla has been promoted to Partner, while Ashita Bali and Sukanya Bhattacharya have been elevated to Associate Partners, reinforcing the firm’s capabilities across core practice areas. The emphasis on nurturing internal talent complements its broader strategy of thoughtful and sustained expansion.

Vayudh (BotLab) - Deal announcement Matter/ Deal Detail  - 1 Basic Information:           Deal/ Matter Name: Raising funds from Dharana Capital, its Affiliates and existing investors Client Name: Vayudh (Defence vertical of BotLab Dynamics Private Limited) Client sector/ Industry: Drone manufacturing, Defence technology Client permission to share with media (Yes/ No): Yes Confidential/ Public: Please ensure that Confidential matters are marked in RED. Public Deal Overview Deal/ Matter Summary: The deal description paragraph should consist of: About the client Firms' role Importance/significance Outcome (If the case is ongoing, then currently, at what stage?) Founded in 2016 by Sarita Ahlawat, Tanmay Bunkar and Anuj Barnwal, Vayudh has developed expertise in swarm drone technology, with over 300,000 autonomous flying hours in defence and other commercial applications like drone shows and industrial surveying. The company recently launched Atri, India’s first nano drone for precision surveillance and reconnaissance operations.   Phoenix Legal, led by Rahul Deodhar (Partner), acted for Vayudh and the founders in this round of investment and advised, negotiated and assisted the company with the transaction documents.   The investment will be directed towards strengthening the Company’s research and development (R&D) capabilities, enhancing manufacturing infrastructure, and accelerating deployments in collaboration with India’s defence forces. Date of completion: April 17, 2025 Start and End date: January, 2025 – April, 2025 Date of execution/ Date of order: April 3, 2025 Cross Border ( Yes/ No): Yes Governing Law: India Key Jurisdictions: India Deal Value: USD 10 million Other parties involved: Dharana Capital, Deepinder Goyal; Ajay Aggarwal (Action TESA); Sumit Jalan; LetsVenture; and Navam Capital. Role of the Firm: Advising the company and its founders and negotiating the transaction documents. Confidential/Publishable: Publishable Type of transaction: Investment Legal Advisors Involved: Lead Partner/Attorney: Rahul Deodhar Other Key Team Members: Shivani Vyas Other laws firms/ counsel involved: Kaizen Law Transaction Type: Investment Significance of the Deal: The investment will be directed towards strengthening the company’s research and development (R&D) capabilities, enhancing manufacturing infrastructure, and accelerating deployments in collaboration with India’s defence forces. Key Challenges/Issues Addressed: - Innovative Legal Strategies (if any): - Outcome/Achievements: Press Release (website link, if available): https://www.business-standard.com/companies/start-ups/vayudh-raises-10-million-in-funding-round-led-by-dharana-capital-125042201123_1.html Practice Profile Can be added in the practice Profile? Yes/No: Yes Short Description for the Profile: Advised Vayudh (Defence vertical of BotLab Dynamics Private Limited) and its promoters on a Series A funding round of USD 10 million.    

Chandni Chawla was named Partner; Ashita Bali and Sukanya Bhattacharya were elevated to Associate Partner Phoenix Legal, a leading full-service/ multi-disciplinary Indian law firm with principal offices in Delhi and Mumbai, has announced the elevation of three senior lawyers to key leadership positions within the firm, reinforcing its capabilities across core practice areas. Reflecting the firm's commitment to recognising exceptional talent from within its ranks, Chandni Chawla has been promoted to Partner, while Ashita Bali and Sukanya Bhattacharya have been elevated to Associate Partners. Chandni Chawla, now a Partner, is a key member of the firm's corporate practice. Her expertise encompasses foreign direct investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, restructuring, and advising multinational corporations on a spectrum of general corporate, commercial, regulatory, and compliance matters, including anti-corruption and data privacy laws. Ashita Bali, elevated to Associate Partner, specialises in Projects, Energy, and Infrastructure. She has extensive experience advising on diverse projects in power (conventional and renewable), mining, oil & gas, and public-private partnerships, including significant work in urban infrastructure development and project finance. Sukanya Bhattacharya, also promoted to Associate Partner, has been instrumental in the firm's corporate practice, mainly focusing on venture capital funding, private equity transactions, and mergers & acquisitions, often advising investors and companies in the technology and edtech sectors. Welcoming them, Sawant Singh, Co-Founding Partner Phoenix Legal, said, “We are thrilled to announce the induction of our talented batch of lawyers as partners. With their unique blend of experience and expertise, they will play a vital role in delivering outstanding results for our clients and shaping the future of Phoenix Legal." Reflecting on her promotion, Chandni Chawla shared, "This promotion is a significant milestone, and I am truly grateful for the opportunities and support provided by Phoenix Legal throughout my journey here. I am enthusiastic about continuing to guide our clients through nuanced work and collaborating closely with my colleagues to enhance our firm's capabilities further." The firm looks forward to the continued contributions of its newly appointed leaders as they take on expanded responsibilities. This focus on nurturing internal talent complements the firm's strategic expansion following the recent announcement of Piyush Mishra joining the partnership to bolster the Bankruptcy and Restructuring practice.

Date-31/12/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7279831613864079360 We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal acted as legal advisors to Lightspeed India Partners and Elevation Capital in connection with their participation in the USD 8 million Series A funding round of Keyaro Edutech Private Limited (Seekho). The round was led by Lightspeed India Partners, with participation from Elevation Capital, an existing investor of Seekho. The transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) along with Ashima Dewan (Partner) and were assisted by Sukanya Bhattacharya (Principal Associate), Vaibhav Asher (Senior Associate) and Srishti Sharma (Associate). The transaction team was further assisted by Vishesh Minocha (Associate) and Esha Dinesh (Associate) in relation to the legal due diligence on Seekho.   Date-18/12/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7275127526262251522 We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal led by our co-founding Partner Saket Shukla along with Zoeb Cutlerywala (Partner), Rahul Tyagi (Principal Associate) and joy pereira (Senior Associate) successfully managed to obtain a stay on investigation in connection with the FIR registered against Mr. Arnab Goswami, director of ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. before the Karnataka High Court on 17 December 2024, in the nick of time. The FIR u/s 505(2) of the then Indian Penal Code (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) was registered at the behest of one of the office bearers of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, pursuant to the news reporting conducted by the R. Kannada News channel with regards to a video which was received by the news channel, shot by members of the public. Mr. Goswami was wrongly and out of context implicated in the present case as being the owner of Republic Kannada and it was alleged that the reporting was done by the channel to rile up public opinion during the time of election. Mr. Goswami had no role nor had he hosted or participated in any manner whatsoever, in the reporting in question. In any event, the FIR/complaint failed to establish any case u/s 505(2) of the IPC. Terming the FIR to be a "reckless registration of a crime", the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court while exercising its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stayed the investigation in relation to the FIR observing that it was not understood how section 505(2) could spring even in the remotest sense in the present case.   Date-20/11/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7265005106767491072 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Z47 and Nexus Venture Partners on its investment in Series A funding round of USD 30 million in Neysa Networks Private Limited (Neysa). This latest funding comes after a USD 20 million seed round earlier this year and marks a significant milestone for Neysa a pioneering AI Acceleration Cloud System provider. The new funding will enable Neysa to scale its AI infrastructure, advance research and development, and gear up for the launch of its integrated Gen AI Acceleration Cloud Service. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Mr. Sumit Sinha, Partner along with Ashima Dewan, Partner and was assisted by Vishesh Minocha, Associate and Devika Rana, Associate.   Date-12/11/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7262063112189587456 We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal advised leading edtech platform ‘Bhanzu’ in raising $16.5 million in its Series B funding round from Epiq Capital, Z3Partners, and the existing investors, Lightspeed Ventures, Eight Roads and B Capital . The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) along with Ashima Dewan (Partner) and was assisted by Sukanya Bhattacharya (Principal Associate), Esha Dinesh (Associate) and Srishti Sharma (Associate).   Date-26/7/2024 Link-https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7222558808168939520 We are proud to share that our litigation team was successful in securing a favourable order for our client, Kharghar Vikhroli Transmission Limited (Adani group company), from the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC). In a crucial case where Long Term Transmission Customers (LTTCs) imposed Liquidated Damages and threatened to invoke a Bank Guarantee, MERC has passed an order restraining the LTTCs from taking any coercive action till final adjudication of Petition filed by Kharghar Vikhroli Transmission Limited. The litigation team was led by Gaurav Dudeja, Partner who was supported by Anumeha Smiti, Associate.   Date-19/6/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7209084332940939264 We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal advised Z47 on their investment in the USD 1.5 million funding round of GreyLabs AI. GreyLabs AI, a pioneering artificial intelligence start-up, focuses on developing innovative AI solutions for various industries. This funding round, led by Matrix Partners India, marks a significant milestone in GreyLabs AI's journey, enabling them to expand their technological capabilities and market reach. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Sumit Sinha, Partner, along with Ashima Dewan, Partner, and was assisted by Vaibhav Asher, Senior Associate, and Vipluv Mittal, Associate. Sayli Petiwale, Senior Associate, assisted the team in the due diligence exercise. Date-7/6/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7204827469357477888 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Iron Pillar Fund, one of the existing investors of Sedemac Mechatronics Private Limited (Sedemac Mechatronics), in relation to their follow-on investment in the USD 100 million funding round led by Xponentia Capital Partners, A91 Partners and 360 ONE Asset. Sedemac Mechatronics is an electronic controller manufacturing enterprise, engaged in the designing, research and development, manufacturing and supplying electrical, electronic and electro-mechanical products, services and solutions to largely cater to the two and three-wheeler segments. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by our Partner, Sumit Sinha along with Associate, Jyoti Vats Mishra.   Date-5/6/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7204080292809109504 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Apis Partners LLP, a leading private equity asset manager focused on financial services, on Apis Growth Fund I’s full exit from Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd through a block deal on the National Stock Exchange. The Phoenix team comprised Pranav Srivastava (Partner) and Radhika Khanna (Associate).   Date-27/5/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7200730673085636609 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised REC Limited on the funding aggregating INR 89.75 Crores availed by Vishvam City Bus Operations Private Limited for the purposes of part financing the estimated project cost for procurement, installation, operation, maintenance of 100 air-conditioned coach 9 meter electric buses along with allied charging infrastructure to be operated across Rajkot in the state of Gujarat on Gross Cost Contract basis under FAME-II in Rajkot, under the contract awarded by Rajkot Rajpath Limited. https://lnkd.in/d8ZPkuVu The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by our Partner, Harsh Arora, along with Associate Partner, Aishwarya Samanta and Associates, PRABHLEEN GURUNAY and Sunjoy Chaudhary.   Date-10/5/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7194609067653226496 Manjushree Technopack Ltd (“MTL”), India's largest rigid plastics packaging manufacturer, has entered into definitive agreements to acquire the plastics packaging business of Oricon Enterprises Limited (“Oricon”). Oricon is one of the largest manufacturers of plastic caps and closures and preforms in India. This transaction will double MTL's current market share in the caps and closures segment, making it the market leader, with an installed capacity of nearly 15Bn pieces per annum. We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Oricon and was led by Sawant Singh, along with, Vaibhav Asher, Naman Saxena and Alivya Sahay.   Date-8/5/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7193954656870359041 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal has successfully advised Punjab National Bank (PNB) on the funding aggregating INR 2000 Crores advanced to SJVN Green Energy Limited for funding its ongoing/upcoming renewable energy projects. This credit facility is of a revolving nature that allows SJVN Green Energy Limited to draw down funds on an ongoing basis as per the construction requirements of its projects. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by our Partner, Harsh Arora, along with Associate Partner, Aishwarya Samanta and Associate, Sunjoy Chaudhary.   Date-3/5/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7192068260169670656 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Z47 and Kae Capital on their follow-on investment in the USD 14 million Series B funding round of Foxtale Consumer Private Limited (Foxtale). The Series B funding round was led by Panthera Growth Partners. The investment round also attracted investment from Foxtale's existing investors, Matrix Partners and Kae Capital, who had last invested in Foxtale in 2023. Foxtale, a Mumbai-based start-up is a D2C skincare brand and is engaged in selling its products through its platform and through other online marketplaces. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by our Partner, Sumit Sinha, along with Principal Associate, Sukanya Bhattacharya and Associate, Vipluv Mittal.   Date-30/4/2024 Link -https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7191035700606066690 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Sehgal Path Lab Private Limited and its promoter, Dr. kunal sehgal, in relation to a strategic collaboration with Neuberg Diagnostics. Sehgal Path Lab Private Limited, headed by Dr.Kunal Sehgal, is engaged in the business of running and operating a pathology laboratory and providing clinical diagnostic services. Neuberg Diagnostics is one of India's leading diagnostic service providers with reach in 250+ cities across the globe (including in countries such as UAE, South Africa and USA). This strategic collaboration marks a significant event as it will expand the portfolio of routine and specialized tests including in genetic and oncology areas of medical sciences. This collaboration will specifically focus on Bone Marrow and Flow Cytometry Assays. The transaction team of Phoenix Legal was led by Mr. Sumit Sinha, Partner along with Ms. Ashima Dewan, Partner and Mr. Vishesh Minocha, Associate. Mr. Saket Shukla, Co-founding Partner, provided strategic inputs on the deal.   Date-12/4/2024 Link -  https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7184519155302252544 We are pleased to announce that Phoenix Legal advised Matrix Partners and Nexus Ventures Partners on its investment in a seed funding round of USD 20 million in Neysa Private Limited (Neysa). This investment marks a significant milestone for Neysa, India's first AI cloud and platform-as-a-service startup. Neysa will offer a suite of Generative AI platform and services, helping clients discover, plan, deploy, and manage their Generative AI projects cost-effectively and secure their AI landscapes in the cloud and at the edge in a consumption-based model. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Mr. Sumit Sinha, Partner along with Ashima Dewan, Partner and was assisted by Vishesh Minocha, Associate and Vipluv Mittal, Associate.

We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal acted as legal advisors to Iron Pillar Fund in connection with Series B2 fund raise of Naffa Innovations Private Limited (ToneTag). ToneTag is a sound based proximity communication provider that enables contactless proximity communication, location based services and customer engagement services among a multitude of other solutions. The round was led by Value Quest and Iron Pillar Fund co-invested in this round. ToneTag plans to utilise the investment to scale operations, enhance research and development efforts, support recruitment, and drive marketing initiatives. Additionally, it aims to accelerate expansion into new markets across Asia, South America, and the Middle East. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) along with Ashima Dewan (Partner) and assisted by Sukanya Bhattacharya (Principal Associate) and Jyoti Vats Mishra (Associate).   The Karnataka High Court on 13.02.2025 in a record time quashed an FIR against the Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, Mr. Arnab Goswami in relation to criminal proceedings instituted against him in Bengaluru. We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal led by our Partner, Zoeb Cutlerywala successfully represented Mr. Goswami in the said matter. This is one of the landmark cases where the Court has come to the rescue and protected the liberty and fundamental right of a citizen of India from being abused by the State and quashed the FIR in flat 2 hearings.   Our litigation team successfully represented our client, a multinational company, in a writ petition filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court by an unsuccessful bidder, which sought a stay against proceeding with the tender for the installation of advanced medical equipment in certain hospitals in Himachal Pradesh and for its award to our client. The Petitioner challenged his disqualification as a bidder on the ground of not meeting the technical specifications of the tender as being arbitrary and suffering from bias. We submitted that in a writ petition involving a tender matter: (a) the court cannot substitute its own opinion for the decision of the technical experts; and (b) the court can only examine the process for the award of tender and not the merits of the decision of the tendering authority. After hearing us and all parties concerned at length, the Court was pleased to dismiss the application for stay filed by the Petitioner. The team comprised of Abhishek Saxena, Co-founding Partner, Pranav Srivastava, Partner, Zoeb Cutlerywala, Partner and Rahul Tyagi, Principal Associate.   Our litigation team successfully represented the employee of an Indian company, as well as employees of a philanthropic organisation, in a quashing petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court challenging criminal proceedings initiated against them under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, while conducting field visit for CSR activities. The petition challenged the complaint, chargesheet, and the trial court’s order taking cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid Acts. It was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the complaint or the chargesheet failed to prima facie disclose the alleged offences and were instead based on conjectures and surmises. Highlighting critical gaps in the investigation as well as the case set up by the forest department, our team was successful in securing a stay on the proceedings before the trial court.The team comprised of Abhishek Saxena, Partner, Aman Avinav, Partner, Kumar Rishabh Parth, Associate, Anwita Bhattacharyya, Associate.   We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal acted as legal advisors to Elevation Capital in connection with their participation in the USD 5.5 million Series A funding round of Maestroedge Solutions Private Limited (Snabbit), a quick service app providing on-demand home services. The round was led by Elevation Capital with participation from Nexus Ventures, an existing investor of Maestroedge Solutions Private Limited (Snabbit).The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner), Ashima Dewan (Partner) and was assisted by Srishti Sharma (Associate), Vishesh Minocha (Associate) and Devika Rana (Associate).   We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal acted as legal advisors to HARSORIA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. (a leading medical devices company with market leadership in the vascular access space) and its promoters in connection with USD 20 million investment in Harsoria Healthcare Private Limited with the lead investment by TATA Capital Healthcare Fund II (the healthcare focused private equity fund of Tata Capital Ltd) along with marquee investors, including Utpal Sheth, Ashish Kacholia and associates, and the LNB Group as co-investors. Harsoria Healthcare plans to utilize the investment to expand its manufacturing capacities, enhance R&D efforts, and drive business development. The transaction for Phoenix Legal was led by Rahul Deodhar (Partner) and was assisted by Vaibhav Asher (Senior Associate) and Alivya Sahay (Associate).   We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal acted as legal advisors to Lightspeed India Partners and Elevation Capital in connection with their participation in the USD 8 million Series A funding round of Keyaro Edutech Private Limited (Seekho). The round was led by Lightspeed India Partners, with participation from Elevation Capital, an existing investor of Seekho. The transaction was led by Sumit Sinha (Partner) along with Ashima Dewan (Partner) and were assisted by Sukanya Bhattacharya (Principal Associate), Vaibhav Asher (Senior Associate) and Srishti Sharma (Associate). The transaction team was further assisted by Vishesh Minocha (Associate) and Esha Dinesh (Associate) in relation to the legal due diligence on Seekho.

The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 3.03.2025 allowed the application for stay of investigation in connection with an FIR against the Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, Mr. Arnab Goswami in relation to criminal proceedings instituted against him in Udaipur. We are delighted to share that Phoenix Legal led by our Partner, Zoeb Cutlerywala successfully represented Mr. Goswami in the said matter. Brief narration of the case: The case involves registration of FIR No. 276 against Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of the Republic Media Network, and another person, under sections 153A, 295A, 120B, 499, 501, 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the NSA Act. The FIR was registered at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, Rajasthan, based on a complaint by Mr. Pawan Khera, Spokesperson of the All-India Congress Committee. The complaint alleges that the accused spread false, malicious, and ill-motivated lies against the Government of Rajasthan, intending to destabilize it and incite communal disharmony. Legal arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner include: (i) 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; (ii) The FIR does not disclose any specific date or time of the alleged statements, making it baseless makes no reference to any date and time; (iii) 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: (i) The allegations in the FIR do not disclose an offence under Section 153A of the IPC do not disclose the commission of an offence; (ii) The FIR lacks essential particulars such as exact statements or evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's culpability lacks essential particulars such as the exact nature; (iii) 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 a 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.