662 results found

A concession agreement is a contractual arrangement between a private party (Concessionaire) and a Concessioning Authority (CA)

In a notable judgment dated May 29, 2026, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan in Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr. v. CBI & Anr. quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) against a borrower whose loan account dues had already been settled through a compromise approved by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”).

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling on whether the admission of a claim by an Interim Resolution Professional during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process constitutes an acknowledgment of liability under the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling clarifying the threshold for rejecting insolvency applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In GLS Films Industries Private Limited v. Chemical Suppliers India Private Limited, the apex court addressed whether appellate tribunals can conduct mini-trials to evaluate the merits of pre-existing disputes, or whether they must simply confirm the existence of a plausible dispute. This judgment reinforces critical safeguards

The Bombay High Court recently addressed a critical question regarding the temporal application of Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which removed the interim moratorium protection for personal guarantors of corporate debtors. The ruling clarifies whether this amendment applies only to fresh applications filed after its enactment or extends to insolvency proceedings that were already pending when the law changed. This decision has significant implications for creditors seeking to pursue p

Under the Trademark law opposition to the registration of a mark can be filed on the ground that it is identical or similar to an earlier registered trade mark and also that the goods specification of both the marks are similar or identical.

I have watched several episodes of the series Suits in which US Courts issue Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) being emergency orders often granted ex-parte (without the respondent's present)...

In the case of Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India before the Supreme Court, a single judge bench of the Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud addressed a critical issue...

This case is one of the few instances where a High Court exercised it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with an arbitrator's order.

While dismissing the petitions challenging the Information Technology Rules 2023, Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the measures adopted by the Government...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court through its judicial activism and judgements concerning The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act') has altered the operation and dynamics of Indian Polity.

JSA successfully represented Chemco Plastic Industries Private Limited ("Plaintiff-Respondent") before the Bombay High Court ("Bombay HC"), which has inter alia held that in deciding whether a plaintiff.

Traditional conflicts of law rules regarded limitation as a matter of procedure that would be governed by the lex fori., i.e., by local law.

In Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings...

By a judgment delivered on 28 March 2018 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr v Central Bureau of Investigation , a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of ...

Understanding the critical timelines and legal frameworks governing money recovery suits in India requires navigating the complex interplay between the Limitation Act of 1963 and the Indian Contract Act of 1872. When does the clock actually start ticking on your right to sue, and how can acknowledgments or digital evidence extend or restart that crucial three-year window?

The Supreme Court has fundamentally reshaped arbitration practice in India by declaring unilateral arbitrator appointments largely impermissible. When one party holds exclusive power to select the arbitrator—or presents a curated panel—does this create an inherent bias that undermines fair dispute resolution? This analysis examines how Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and landmark judgments now protect parties from one-sided appointment clauses.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court ('Court') recently passed a significant ruling in the case of Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd.