The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Circular
IBBI introduces electronic forms for monitoring insolvency resolution processes of Personal Guarantors
IBBI, vide Circular No. IBBI/II/92/2026 dated March 6, 2026, has introduced electronic forms for monitoring insolvency resolution processes of personal guarantors to corporate debtors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in terms of Regulation 23 of the applicable regulations. The framework replaces the existing email-based reporting system and introduces six forms (PGIRP1 to PGIRP6) covering the entire lifecycle of the process, including quarterly reporting, with filings required within prescribed timelines, generally by the 10th day of the subsequent month.
The forms are available on the IBBI portal with digital submission and OTP-based modification utility. The circular also prescribes timelines for ongoing and concluded cases, with deadlines extending up to June 30, 2026, and provides that no penalty shall be levied for delayed filing or modification till such date. It further clarifies that non-compliance or inaccurate filings may attract regulatory action, including refusal to grant or renew Authorisation for Assignment.
Source: https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalframwork/ea787956c30c57f52302ef56c10a13ea.pdf
Judicial Curve
Rakshit Dhirajlal Doshi and Anr. v. Chirag Shah (Liquidator)
The Hon’ble NCLAT considered whether remuneration withdrawals by suspended directors could constitute fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The NCLT had directed a refund of Rs. 26.42 lakhs on the basis of findings recorded in a Transaction Audit Report prepared during the CIRP. The appellants contended that the remuneration was consistent with past practice, duly accounted for, and was not attended by any fraudulent intent.
The Appellate Tribunal reaffirmed that Section 66 sets a high threshold of proof, requiring clear and cogent evidence of fraudulent intent or wrongful conduct. It noted that comparable remuneration drawn in subsequent years had been admitted as legitimate claims, that the underlying records were not in dispute, and that the payments had been made in the ordinary course of managerial duties. The Tribunal held that factors such as classification of accounts as NPA, routing of funds through related entities, or non-payment of statutory dues, taken in isolation, are insufficient to establish fraud or wrongful trading.
Accordingly, the NCLAT set aside the finding of fraudulent or wrongful trading in respect of remuneration withdrawals for FY 2019-20. However, it upheld the direction to refund amounts withdrawn after the commencement of CIRP and during the moratorium period, holding such transactions to be impermissible. The appeal was thus partly allowed, limiting the applicability of Section 66 to post-commencement withdrawals alone.
Source: https://www.livelawbiz.com/pdf_upload/2026/03/04/mr-rakshit-dhirajlal-doshi-659688.pdf
Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd. v. Sumit Binani & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal challenging the admission of a Section 7 application filed by State Bank of India and a consortium of lenders against Metal Closure Pvt. Ltd. The appellant contended that the application was barred by limitation and suffered from a lack of material particulars. The Court held that a Section 7 application that substantially complies with the prescribed Form I and discloses the essential ingredients of debt and default cannot be rejected on account of minor omissions or technical deficiencies.
On the question of limitation, the Court observed that acknowledgements of debt recorded in signed balance sheets and debt restructuring agreements constitute valid acknowledgements under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period. The Court found that the Non-Performing Asset (NPA) classification dates, read together with subsequent acknowledgements, sufficiently established that the application had been filed within the prescribed limitation period.
The Court further rejected the contention that pending counterclaims or criminal proceedings could bar the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It affirmed that the existence of such parallel proceedings does not constitute an impediment to the admission of a Section 7 application where debt and default are duly established, and accordingly upheld the NCLAT’s order admitting the insolvency proceedings.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/2002/2002_2025_12_1502_69554_Judgement_23-Mar-2026.pdf
Vave India Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Eastman Auto & Power Ltd.
The Hon’ble NCLAT examined an appeal against the rejection of a Section 9 application filed by an operational creditor seeking initiation of CIRP for unpaid warranty-related dues on inverter batteries. The NCLT had dismissed the application on the ground that a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties prior to issuance of the demand notice.
The Tribunal examined the factual timeline in detail, including the supply of batteries, complaints regarding defects, the issuance of a credit note in 2019 acknowledging limited liability, and subsequent communications between the parties. It noted that in an email dated December 8, 2022, the corporate debtor disputed its liability and alleged that the credit note had been issued under economic coercion. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. and settled jurisprudence thereunder, the Tribunal reiterated that at the admission stage, the Adjudicating Authority is required only to assess whether a plausible pre-existing dispute exists, without entering into the merits of the underlying claim.
On the facts, the NCLAT held that the pre-notice correspondence disclosed a real and substantive dispute concerning liability and warranty obligations, and could not be characterised as a mere feeble or moonshine defence. Accordingly, it upheld the NCLT’s finding that the threshold for admission under Section 9 had not been met, dismissed the appeal, and reaffirmed that CIRP cannot be invoked where a genuine pre-existing dispute is clearly discernible.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79764932/
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Notification
CCI approves State Street Global Advisors’ acquisition of stake in Groww Asset Management Limited
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of shareholding in Groww Asset Management Limited by State Street Global Advisors, Inc. The proposed combination involves State Street acquiring a stake in the target entity, which manages mutual fund schemes under the Groww Mutual Fund platform.
State Street Global Advisors, Inc., a subsidiary of State Street Corporation, operates under the “State Street Investment Management” brand and is engaged in asset management activities. Groww Asset Management Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Billionbrains Garage Ventures Limited, manages a diverse portfolio of mutual fund schemes including equity, hybrid, debt, and exchange traded funds. (Press Release No. 128/2025–26 dated March 25, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/638/0
CCI approves MUFG Bank’s acquisition of stake in Shriram Finance Limited
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of certain shareholding in Shriram Finance Limited by MUFG Bank Ltd. The proposed combination involves the acquisition of a stake in the target, a public listed non-banking financial company, by the acquirer.
MUFG Bank Ltd., a Japan-based banking institution and part of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., provides a range of banking services in India including corporate lending, trade finance, and remittances. Shriram Finance Limited is an NBFC-Upper Layer entity registered with the Reserve Bank of India, primarily engaged in financing across segments such as commercial vehicles, MSMEs, two-wheelers, gold, and personal loans. (Press Release No. 127/2025–26 dated March 25, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/637/0
CCI approves Coursera’s merger with Udemy
CCI has approved the proposed merger of Chess Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Coursera Inc., with and into Udemy Inc. The transaction involves the merger of Chess Merger Sub with Udemy Inc., with Udemy surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Coursera, thereby granting Coursera sole control over Udemy. Upon completion, existing Coursera stockholders are expected to hold approximately 59% of the combined company, with existing Udemy stockholders holding the remaining approximately 41% on a fully diluted basis.
Coursera Inc. is a global education technology company operating an online learning platform, while Udemy Inc. operates a global online learning and teaching marketplace, both delivering services digitally. Chess Merger Sub has been incorporated solely for effectuating the transaction. (Press Release No. 126/2025–26 dated March 25, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/636/0
CCI approves Central Bank of India’s acquisition of additional stake in Generali Central entities
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of additional shareholding in Generali Central Insurance Company Limited and Generali Central Life Insurance Company Limited by Central Bank of India. The transaction involves acquisition of 1.09% equity in GCICL and 0.82% equity in GCLICL by the acquirer.
Central Bank of India is engaged in providing banking and allied financial services in India. GCICL and GCLICL are engaged in general and life insurance services, respectively, in India. (Press Release No. 120/2025–26 dated March 3, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/630/0
Judicial Curve
M/s Zucol Solutions Private Limited v. Google India Private Limited
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) held that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was established against Google India Private Limited in connection with the alleged arbitrary termination of developer accounts on the Google Play Store. The Commission observed that the enforcement of transparent and uniformly applicable platform policies, in the absence of any discriminatory or exclusionary conduct targeting specific market participants, does not constitute abuse of a dominant position.
The matter arose from information filed by M/s Zucol Solutions Private Limited, which alleged wrongful termination of its developer account and the absence of effective grievance redressal mechanisms. While defining the relevant market as the “market for app stores for Android OS in India,” the CCI reaffirmed Google’s dominant position therein but noted material inconsistencies and suppression of facts on the part of the Informant, including its failure to disclose the reinstatement of its primary developer account and contradictory submissions made in respect of the impugned application.
Rejecting the allegations, the CCI held that Google’s actions were in accordance with its established policies aimed at maintaining platform integrity and user security. It further observed absence of any denial of market access or discriminatory treatment. Accordingly, finding no contravention of Section 4, the CCI closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/orders/details/1228/0
Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Circulars
SEBI relaxes certification requirements for non-core research personnel
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/38/12/(5)2026-MIRSD-POD/I/6703/2026 dated March 11, 2026, has introduced a relaxation in certification requirements for Persons Associated with Research Services (PARS) engaged in sales and other non-core activities, as part of its ease of doing business initiative. Under the revised framework, such personnel who are not directly involved in research but have client interaction are required to obtain certification by passing the “NISM Series-XXV-A” examination, while those engaged in core research activities must continue to obtain the “NISM Series-XV” certification. PARS who already hold the Series-XV certification are exempt from immediately obtaining the new certification and may do so upon expiry of their existing certification. The circular comes into effect immediately and directs the Research Analyst Administration and Supervisory Body to implement necessary changes and ensure dissemination of the updated requirements.
SEBI defers applicability of intraday borrowing norms for mutual funds
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/(92)2026-IMD-POD-2/I/7885/2026 dated March 25, 2026, has issued an addendum to its earlier circular dated March 13, 2026 on borrowing by mutual funds, deferring the applicability of guidelines relating to intraday borrowings. The revised timeline extends the implementation of clause 5.9.1 of the SEBI Master Circular for Mutual Funds dated March 20, 2026 to July 15, 2026, in order to address operational challenges faced by asset management companies.
SEBI relaxes reporting requirements for stock brokers and removes demat account reporting
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/38/11/(1)2026-MIRSD-POD/I/7656/2026 dated March 23, 2026, has introduced ease of doing business measures by relaxing reporting requirements for stock brokers and dispensing with mandatory reporting of demat accounts. The circular amends the Master Circular for Stock Brokers to provide that brokers which are banks or primary dealers need to report only those bank accounts used for stock broking activities, exempts certain demat accounts from tagging requirements, and shifts the responsibility of sharing demat account details to depositories, with the revised framework coming into effect from April 17, 2026.
Judicial Curve
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Terrascope Ventures Limited ETC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the question of whether the diversion of funds raised through preferential allotment, contrary to the disclosed objects of the issue, could be subsequently ratified by shareholders so as to extinguish regulatory liability. SEBI had imposed penalties on the company and its directors for violations of the PFUTP Regulations and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which had been set aside by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on the ground that the acts in question stood ratified by the shareholders.
The Court noted that the funds raised were immediately diverted towards investments and inter-corporate loans, in clear departure from the stated objects that had been disclosed to investors at the time of the issue. It held that disclosure obligations under securities law are foundational to market transparency, and any deviation that affects investor decision-making cannot be dismissed as a mere internal corporate matter. The Court further emphasised that “fraud” under the PFUTP Regulations carries a wide ambit, encompassing acts that induce investors on the basis of misleading disclosures, even in the absence of direct deceit or active misrepresentation.
Rejecting the defence of subsequent ratification, the Court held that acts that are illegal and that affect public interest and market integrity cannot be validated by shareholder approval. It observed that such post-facto ratification defeats the very purpose of regulatory safeguards and undermines investor protection. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the SAT’s order and restored the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer, reaffirming the imperative of strict compliance with disclosure norms and securities regulations.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/23328/23328_2022_7_1501_69386_Judgement_17-Mar-2026.pdf
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
Notification
RBI issues prudential norms on declaration of dividend and remittance of profits by banks
The RBI, vide Directions RBI/2025–26/387 dated March 10, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Prudential Norms on Declaration of Dividend and Remittance of Profits) Directions, 2026, to take effect from FY 2026–27. The Directions prescribe eligibility criteria and prudential conditions for declaration of dividends and remittance of profits, including compliance with regulatory capital requirements, a positive adjusted profit after tax, and the absence of any subsisting regulatory restrictions. The framework further mandates enhanced board oversight over asset quality, audit observations, and capital position. It links permissible dividend payout levels to CET-1 capital thresholds, subject to an overall cap of 75% of profit after tax; permits foreign banks to remit profits without prior RBI approval subject to specified conditions; restricts distribution of certain categories of profits; and introduces reporting requirements. The Directions also empower the RBI to impose restrictions or initiate enforcement action in the event of non-compliance.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13319&Mode=0
RBI amends disclosure requirements on DICGC insurance premium payments
The RBI, vide Directions RBI/DOR/2025–26/243 dated March 16, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) – Fifth Amendment Directions, 2026, amending the principal 2025 Directions. The amendment revises the disclosure requirements pertaining to payment of DICGC insurance premiums, mandating banks to disclose in their annual reports whether such premiums have been paid within the prescribed timelines, along with particulars of any delays or arrears, in conformity with the Risk-Based Premium framework introduced by the DICGC. The amended provisions shall come into effect from April 1, 2026.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13333&Mode=0
RBI issues Master Direction on Unique Identifiers in Financial Markets
The RBI, vide Master Direction RBI/FMRD/2025–26/392 dated March 27, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Unique Identifiers in Financial Markets) Directions, 2026, consolidating existing instructions on the implementation of key transaction and entity identifiers, namely the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) and the Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI). The Master Direction brings together various earlier circulars to provide a unified and cohesive framework governing the use of these identifiers in financial market transactions, with the overarching objective of enhancing transparency and promoting standardisation across RBI-regulated markets.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13343&Mode=0
RBI introduces trade relief measures for export financing
The RBI, vide Directions RBI/2025–26/263 dated March 31, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Trade Relief Measures) Directions, 2026, with a view to mitigating debt-servicing pressures on exporters arising from ongoing geopolitical disruptions and to ensure the continuity of viable export businesses. The Directions permit regulated entities to extend the tenor of pre-shipment and post-shipment export credit up to 450 days for credit disbursed until June 30, 2026, and allow flexibility in the liquidation of existing packing credit facilities through alternate legitimate sources, including domestic sale proceeds of goods or substitution of the original export order with proceeds from another order. The Directions are applicable to banks, co-operative banks, NBFC-factors, and all-India financial institutions, and have come into force with immediate effect.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13355&Mode=0
Judicial Curve
Bhalchandra Dinkar Gondekar & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.
The Hon’ble High Court examined challenges to the “Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Amalgamation with Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.) Scheme, 2022”, framed under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioners contended that the scheme was arbitrary, violative of constitutional rights, and unfairly structured particularly in relation to staggered payments and differential treatment of depositors.
The Court noted that the scheme was introduced in response to the severe financial distress of PMC Bank, which involved massive undisclosed credit exposures and a near-complete erosion of its net worth. It held that the RBI, acting in its capacity as an expert regulator, intervened in the public interest to protect depositors and to maintain the stability of the banking system. The classification between individual and institutional depositors, and the structured repayment mechanism adopted under the scheme, were found to be reasonable and grounded in intelligible differentia, thereby satisfying the constitutional standard of non-arbitrariness.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the scope of judicial review in matters of economic policy and regulatory intervention is inherently limited, and that no arbitrariness or illegality had been established on the facts. It further observed that the scheme offered depositors materially better recovery prospects than those available under a liquidation scenario. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the amalgamation scheme was upheld in its entirety.
Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA)
Notifications
FEMA amends regulations on export and import of currency
The RBI, vide Notification No. FEMA 6(R)/(5)/2026-RB dated February 23, 2026, has issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, amending the principal 2015 Regulations. The amendment has been notified in exercise of powers conferred under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and came into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=13337&fn=5&Mode=0
FEMA: RBI prescribes limit on NOP-INR positions for Authorised Dealers
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 24 dated March 27, 2026, has prescribed limits on the Net Open Position in INR (NOP-INR) for Authorised Dealers operating in the onshore deliverable market. Under the revised framework, Authorised Dealers are required to maintain their NOP-INR positions within a limit of USD 100 million at the close of each business day, in furtherance of the RBI’s exchange rate management objectives. The circular requires Authorised Dealers to achieve compliance with the prescribed limit at the earliest, and in any event not later than April 10, 2026.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=13344&fn=5&Mode=0
FEMA: RBI revises reporting framework for External Commercial Borrowings (ECB)
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 25 dated March 30, 2026, has revised the reporting framework for External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) under FEMA. The circular clarifies the treatment of ECB forms for the purposes of computing the Late Submission Fee (LSF), providing that each delayed ECB-2 return shall be treated as a separate instance for LSF computation. It further mandates submission of such returns by Authorised Dealer banks within seven calendar days of receipt, and prescribes the mechanism for payment and ongoing monitoring of the LSF. The revised framework comes into effect from April 1, 2026.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=13345&fn=5&Mode=0
Corporate
Notifications
MCA amends Accounting Standards to incorporate OECD Pillar Two tax framework
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), vide Notification G.S.R. 169(E) dated March 10, 2026, has issued the Companies (Accounting Standards) Amendment Rules, 2026, amending the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2021. The amendment introduces provisions under Accounting Standard (AS) 22 to address the OECD’s Pillar Two global minimum tax framework. Specifically, it provides an exception from the recognition and disclosure of deferred tax assets and liabilities arising in relation to Pillar Two income taxes, while simultaneously mandating targeted disclosures concerning current tax expense attributable to such taxes and the enterprise’s exposure to the Pillar Two regime. The rules came into effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Judicial Curve
Pannalal Bhansali vs Bharti Telecom Limited
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a reduction of share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, resulting in the exit of minority shareholders, is valid provided it is fair, reasonable, and compliant with the applicable statutory requirements. The Court clarified that mere dissatisfaction with the share price or the valuation methodology does not in itself amount to prejudice warranting judicial interference, particularly where the reduction has been approved by an overwhelming majority of shareholders and duly sanctioned by the Tribunal.
The matter arose from Bharti Telecom Limited’s decision to reduce its share capital by buying out minority shareholders at a fixed price. The appellants challenged the scheme on grounds of procedural lapses, non-disclosure of valuation materials, bias in the valuation process, and inadequately low pricing. They contended that the scheme effectively compelled minority shareholders to exit without adequate safeguards of fairness and transparency.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that Section 66 does not mandate the preparation of a formal valuation report, and that the valuation methodology adopted, including the application of a Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM), was well-founded and justified in the circumstances. It further observed that the scheme had been duly approved by a special resolution of shareholders and confirmed by the NCLT, and that no demonstrable arbitrariness or oppression had been made out. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/30967/30967_2025_12_1502_69150_Judgement_10-Mar-2026.pdf
Arbitration
Judicial Curve
Srei Equipment Finance Limited v. Roadwings International Private Limited
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that an arbitral award must be proved to exist as a valid and enforceable award in the eyes of law, failing which it is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court clarified that where serious doubts arise as to the very existence of the arbitral proceedings or the award itself, the burden shifts to the party seeking to rely on the award to establish its authenticity by cogent and reliable evidence.
The matter arose from petitions challenging two purported arbitral awards, where the petitioner contended that no such arbitral proceedings had ever in fact taken place and that the awards were fabricated. It was highlighted that no signed copies of the awards were produced, no records of any arbitral proceedings were available, and communications attributed to the alleged counsel and arbitrator were themselves riddled with serious inconsistencies. Furthermore, subsequent correspondence exchanged between the parties made no reference whatsoever to any arbitral awards, casting grave doubt on their existence.
Accepting these contentions, the Court held that the respondent had failed to produce any material capable of establishing the existence or validity of the awards, thereby inviting an adverse inference. It concluded that lending judicial recognition to such non-existent awards would be contrary to public policy and repugnant to basic notions of justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the purported awards as invalid and unenforceable, and dismissed the connected enforcement applications.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73957759/
Sarr Freights Corporation & Anr. v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that anti-arbitration injunctions may be granted only in truly exceptional circumstances, and declined to restrain parallel arbitration proceedings initiated before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). The Court emphasised that a bare allegation of lack of privity or multiplicity of proceedings is insufficient to warrant such relief, unless the arbitration is shown to be ex facie vexatious, oppressive, or unconscionable.
The dispute arose from a Booking Note dated April 4, 2023, for the transportation of cargo, pursuant to which the defendant initiated two separate arbitration proceedings in London against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the High Court seeking an anti-arbitration injunction on the grounds that there existed no valid arbitration agreement with the defendant, that the parallel proceedings were oppressive in nature, and that the arbitral process had been abused through procedural irregularities and a multiplicity of overlapping claims.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that questions pertaining to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as issues of jurisdiction and alleged procedural impropriety, properly fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and the supervisory courts at the seat of arbitration. It further held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish even a prima facie case of exceptional circumstances warranting judicial interference by an Indian court. Accordingly, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed, reaffirming the principle of minimal curial intervention in foreign-seated arbitrations.
Source: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59213032026S8682025_184835.pdf
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. M/s R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a party which participates in arbitral proceedings without raising any objection cannot subsequently mount a belated challenge to the jurisdiction or constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The Court observed that such conduct amounts to acquiescence and undermines the efficiency and finality of arbitration, and accordingly rejected the appellant’s attempt to invalidate the award on this ground.
The dispute arose from a consultancy agreement dated September 18, 1995, between the parties in connection with a World Bank-funded sewerage project. Following completion of the project, disputes over outstanding payments led to the commencement of arbitration proceedings in 2005. During the course of the proceedings, while certain objections were raised regarding the composition of the tribunal, the appellant continued to actively participate and only subsequently sought to challenge the resulting award on the ground of improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court affirmed the findings of the Bombay High Court and held that no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been made out. It emphasised that the view taken by the arbitral tribunal was a plausible one on the material before it, and that belated jurisdictional objections raised after active participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the arbitral award was upheld, with no order as to costs.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/46184/46184_2025_3_1501_69233_Judgement_11-Mar-2026.pdf
Disclaimer: The information in this newsletter is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. SD Partners has made every effort to ensure accuracy at the time of publication but assumes no responsibility for any errors, omissions, or actions taken based on the content. Readers should seek specific legal advice before acting on any information provided. For queries or suggestions for future editions, please write to us at info@sdpartners.in