The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Circular
IBBI extends timeline for filing Forms to monitor Insolvency Resolution Processes for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors
IBBI vide Circular No. IBBI/II/104/2026 dated July 9, 2026, has extended the timeline for filing electronic forms (PGIRP-1 to PGIRP-6) prescribed for monitoring insolvency resolution processes of personal guarantors to corporate debtors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The extension has been granted considering the technical difficulties and transitional time required by Insolvency Professionals (IPs) and Insolvency Professional Agencies (IPAs) to familiarise themselves with the electronic filing platform.
Accordingly, the last date for submission of all applicable PGIRP forms has been extended from June 30, 2026 to September 30, 2026, with penalties for delayed submission or modification to be levied only after the extended deadline. IBBI has further directed IPs to ensure that information submitted is accurate, complete, and consistent with the supporting documents.
Source: https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/legalframwork/c5b6fc2780e54cba89916c008a5f6982.pdf
Judicial Curve
M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether pending civil suits and arbitration proceedings initiated by Operational Creditors for recovery of pre-CIRP dues could continue after approval of a Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), where such claims had not crystallised into determinable and quantifiable amounts by the date of approval of the Resolution Plan. The dispute arose in the context of recovery proceedings initiated against Bhushan Steel Limited, which subsequently underwent CIRP, with the claims of the Operational Creditors being admitted at a notional value of ₹1 each. The Resolution Plan, approved by the NCLT, provided for extinguishment of all pending claims and proceedings relating to the period prior to its effective date.
The Court observed that the Final List of Operational Creditors, which had not been challenged, was final and binding on the parties. It further held that permitting uncertain or unquantified claims to survive after approval of a Resolution Plan would be contrary to the clean slate principle underlying the IBC. The Court noted that the Resolution Plan unequivocally provided for all pending legal proceedings initiated by Operational Creditors to stand withdrawn, abated, settled or extinguished. Accordingly, claims which had not crystallised and been quantified by the date of approval of the Resolution Plan could not subsequently be pursued against the Successful Resolution Applicant.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Bombay High Court and the Trial Court. It held that civil suits and arbitration proceedings concerning claims which had not crystallised into determinable and quantifiable claims by the date of approval of the Resolution Plan stood abated, extinguished, waived or withdrawn. Only crystallised claims as on the effective date were payable in accordance with the Resolution Plan, and no amount beyond ₹1 each was payable to the concerned Operational Creditors.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/36520/36520_2019_10_1501_72202_Judgement_17-Jul-2026.pdf
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the validity of an NCLT order admitting a Section 7 application under the IBC, where the NCLT had relied upon non-existent and AI-generated judgments in support of its findings. The appellant, a suspended director of Essel Infraprojects Ltd., challenged the initiation of CIRP against the company as corporate guarantor for the financial facilities availed by Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd. The NCLT had admitted the Section 7 application, which was subsequently upheld by the NCLAT.
The Court observed that the judgments relied upon by the NCLT were either non-existent, incorrectly cited or contained non-existent paragraphs attributed to genuine judgments. It held that reliance by an adjudicating authority on fake or hallucinated material presented as legal precedent taints the judicial process and amounts to a subversion of the rule of law. The Court emphasised the need for zero tolerance towards the production, citation or reliance upon AI-generated precedents without verification, while clarifying that its observations did not concern the legitimate use of AI in adjudication.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT and restored the Section 7 application to its original number. The NCLT was directed to reconsider the application and decide it in accordance with law, without the Supreme Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the insolvency proceedings. The Court further directed that the application be disposed of expeditiously and that the parties maintain status quo pending its disposal.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/52338/52338_2025_5_1501_71939_Judgement_02-Jul-2026.pdf
Sashi Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court examined the validity of an order passed by the Chairperson of the IBBI cancelling the registration of an Insolvency Professional under Section 220(2) of the IBC. The proceedings arose from the petitioner’s conduct as the Interim Resolution Professional of INCAB Industries Limited, particularly concerning the constitution of the Committee of Creditors and treatment of certain financial creditors as related parties. Following observations by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the IBBI issued a show cause notice and subsequently cancelled the petitioner’s registration.
The Court primarily considered whether the Chairperson of the IBBI had jurisdiction to act as the Disciplinary Committee under Section 220 of the IBC. It observed that Section 220 expressly provides that the Disciplinary Committee shall consist of Whole Time Members only, and that the Chairperson and Whole Time Members constitute distinct categories under the IBC. The Court held that the Chairperson could not assume the functions of the Disciplinary Committee merely by virtue of delegated powers. It further observed that the procedure prescribed under Sections 218 and 219 of the IBC had not been followed, as the show cause notice was issued without the requisite inspection or investigation contemplated under Section 218.
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court held that the Chairperson lacked jurisdiction to act as the Disciplinary Committee and that the impugned order was a nullity. The Court set aside the order cancelling the petitioner’s registration, holding that the lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with the statutory procedure warranted interference in judicial review, while granting liberty to the IBBI to proceed in accordance with law on the same issue.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153405258/
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Notification
CCI approves amalgamation of Go Digit Infoworks Services Private Limited with Go Digit General Insurance Limited
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the amalgamation of Go Digit Infoworks Services Private Limited (Infoworks), the holding company of Go Digit General Insurance Limited (Digit General), with Digit General, pursuant to which Digit General will be the surviving entity. Infoworks is a private limited company incorporated in India and is not currently engaged in any market-facing business activity in India or outside India.
Digit General is a public limited company engaged in the provision of various general and health insurance products and services in India, with a specialised focus on general insurance. Fairfax Asia Limited (FAL), a Mauritius-based investment holding company and part of the Fairfax group, is focused on long-term investments across Asia. The Fairfax group is primarily engaged in property and casualty insurance, reinsurance and associated investment management through its subsidiaries. (Press Release No. 41/2026-27 dated July 28, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/679/0
CCI approves acquisition of NCR Atleos Corporation by The Brink’s Company
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of 100% of the equity share capital of NCR Atleos Corporation (Target) by The Brink’s Company (Acquirer), pursuant to which the Target will become wholly owned and controlled by the Acquirer. The Brink’s Company is a global provider of cash and valuables management, digital retail solutions and ATM managed services, operating in over 100 countries. In India, it principally provides cash replenishment and ancillary first-line maintenance services through its subsidiary, Brink’s India Private Limited.
NCR Atleos Corporation is a financial technology company providing self-directed banking solutions globally. In India, its activities include the manufacture and supply of ATM hardware, development and licensing of ATM software, ATM managed services, including monitoring, help-desk and transaction processing, and first-line and second-line ATM maintenance services. (Press Release No. 39/2026-27 dated July 22, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/677/0
CCI approves acquisition of 100% shareholding in STT GDC Pte. Ltd. by Opal Bidco Pte. Ltd.
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of 100% shareholding in STT GDC Pte. Ltd. (STT GDC) by Opal Bidco Pte. Ltd. (Opal Bidco), with Ruby Asia Holdings II Pte. Ltd., Singtel Interactive Pte. Ltd., Sunstone Investment Pte. Ltd. and One Hundred And Thirty First Investment Company – Sole Proprietorship LLC acquiring economic interests in STT GDC on a see-through basis. Opal Bidco is an investment vehicle indirectly wholly owned by funds and accounts advised and managed by subsidiaries of KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR).
STT GDC is a data centre provider and is an indirect subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Telemedia Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-headquartered group engaged in communications and media, data centres and infrastructure technologies. In India, STT GDC operates through its indirect subsidiary, STT Global Data Centres India Private Limited, and is active in the data centre sector. (Press Release No. 38/2026-27 dated July 14, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/676/0
CCI approves merger of 51 Malabar Group companies with Malabar Gold and Diamonds Limited
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the merger of 51 companies of the Malabar Group (Transferor Companies) with Malabar Gold and Diamonds Limited (Transferee Company). Most of the Transferor Companies are engaged in the jewellery business and undertake activities relating to the manufacture, trading and retailing of jewellery.
Malabar Gold and Diamonds Limited is the flagship company of the Malabar Group and is engaged in the manufacture, trading, retailing, wholesaling, supply, distribution, import, export, purchase and franchising of gold, gold ornaments, diamonds, bullion, silver, platinum, precious stones and other jewellery products. It also undertakes related activities as dealers, franchisees, agents and other business arrangements. (Press Release No. 34/2026-27 dated July 7, 2026).
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/672/0
Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Circulars
SEBI issues updated Master Circular for Merchant Bankers
SEBI, vide Master Circular No. HO/49/14/15(3)2026-CFD-POD1/I/16178/2026, last updated on July 14, 2026, has issued an updated Master Circular for Merchant Bankers registered with SEBI. The Master Circular consolidates the applicable circulars issued under the SEBI (Merchant Bankers) Regulations, 1992 and has been updated to align with the amendments to the MB Regulations notified on December 5, 2025, which came into effect from January 3, 2026. It also incorporates subsequent circulars relating to the online registration mechanism for securities market intermediaries and consequential requirements with respect to Amendment of the SEBI (Merchant Bankers) Regulations, 1992 and extension of timelines for compliance with certain provisions of Circular dated January 02, 2026. .
The Master Circular provides a consolidated regulatory framework for Merchant Bankers and rescinds the directions and instructions contained in the earlier circulars listed in its Appendix. However, actions taken, applications made, rights and obligations accrued, penalties incurred and proceedings initiated under the rescinded circulars remain unaffected and will continue to be governed by the corresponding provisions of the Master Circular.
SEBI operationalises freezing of promoter holdings at ISIN level during buy-back period
SEBI, vide Circular dated July 21, 2026, has operationalised the freezing of shares and other specified securities held by promoters, promoter groups and their associates at the ISIN level during the buy-back period, pursuant to Regulation 24(i)(ea) of the SEBI (Buy-back of Securities) Regulations, 2018. The freeze will apply from the date of approval of the board or special resolution, as applicable, until closure of the buy-back offer, while permitting tendering of securities under the tender offer route and invocation of encumbrances created before commencement of the buy-back period.
The Depositories are required to establish the necessary operational framework and system enhancements, including modalities for freezing promoter holdings, permitting tendering and handling invocation or release of pre-existing encumbrances, by August 1, 2026. Listed companies, stock exchanges, Depositories, Merchant Bankers and RTAs are required to ensure compliance with the framework. The Circular is effective immediately.
SEBI simplifies and standardises framework for transmission of securities
SEBI, vide Circular dated July 23, 2026, has introduced a harmonised, standardised and risk-based framework for transmission of securities to make the process more efficient and investor-friendly. The revised framework, issued pursuant to Regulation 40(7) of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, introduces Quick Transmission Processing (QTP) for low-value claims and revises the monetary thresholds for transmission under the simplified documentation framework.
The framework standardises documentation and procedures by removing the mandatory requirement of probate of a Will, permitting a combined affidavit-cum-No Objection Certificate (NOC), and recognising QR-coded death certificates. It also provides additional verification mechanisms for death certificates issued in foreign jurisdictions. The revised framework, along with the model forms, will come into force 30 days from the date of issuance, with processing entities required to submit monthly reports to SEBI for six months.
Judicial Curve
Neville Tuli v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court considered whether a Special Court constituted under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) is required to provide an opportunity of hearing to an accused under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before taking cognizance of offences under the SEBI Act. The challenge arose from an order of the Special Court issuing process against the petitioner, a director of Osian’s Connoisseurs of Art Pvt. Ltd., for alleged non-compliance with directions issued by SEBI in relation to an unregistered collective investment scheme. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as cognizance had been taken without affording the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing prescribed under Section 223(1) of the BNSS.
The Court observed that while Section 26 of the SEBI Act prescribes that cognizance can be taken only upon a complaint made by SEBI, it does not provide a special procedure governing the manner of taking cognizance. It further noted that Section 26D expressly applies the provisions of the BNSS to proceedings before Special Courts, save as otherwise provided in the SEBI Act. Since the SEBI Act does not exclude the application of Section 223 of the BNSS, the Court held that the requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance is mandatory and applies equally to prosecutions under the SEBI Act.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court held that the Special Court could not take cognizance of offences under the SEBI Act without complying with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. The Court therefore quashed the order taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner and directed the Special Court to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the allegations and kept all contentions open for consideration by the Special Court.
Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86900943/
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
Notification
RBI revises income recognition norms for Specified Non-Financial Assets
The RBI, vide Circular No. RBI/2026-27/195 dated July 16, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning) Second Amendment Directions, 2026, introducing specific income recognition norms for Specified Non-Financial Assets (SNFAs) acquired by commercial banks. The amendment has been issued pursuant to the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Resolution of Stressed Assets) Third Amendment Directions, 2026 dated July 16, 2026.
The amendment provides that any accrued but unrealised interest and/or charges from the extinguished exposure relating to periods prior to acquisition of an SNFA shall not be recognised as income upon its acquisition. Any such income recognised and remaining unrealised as on September 30, 2026 shall be reversed through the Profit and Loss account by September 30, 2027. Further, income received from an SNFA shall be recognised as non-interest/other income in the financial year of realisation, while expenses incurred towards its upkeep shall be accounted for in the financial year in which they are incurred. The amendments will come into force from October 1, 2026.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13573&Mode=0
RBI revises framework for interest rates on bulk deposits
The RBI, vide Circular No. RBI/2026-27/214 dated July 30, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Interest Rate on Deposits) Second Amendment Directions, 2026, revising the framework governing interest rates on Rupee bulk deposits and disclosure of interest rates on deposits. The amendments will come into effect from October 1, 2026.
The revised framework requires banks to disclose interest rates on bulk deposits on their websites at 10:00 a.m., with a grace period of 10 minutes, on each business day. It further permits banks to offer differential interest rates on bulk deposits based on the applicable run-off rates under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) framework. The amendments also reiterate that interest rates on deposits, including bulk deposits, should be uniform across branches and customers, without discrimination between deposits of similar amounts accepted on the same date.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13656&Mode=0
RBI issues Directions on Compliance Function for Commercial Banks
The RBI, vide the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Compliance Function) Directions, 2026 dated July 31, 2026, has issued a comprehensive framework governing the Compliance function of Commercial Banks. The Directions establish governance and oversight requirements for managing compliance risk, including responsibilities of the Board, senior management and the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), and mandate an independent, adequately resourced Compliance function.
The Directions prescribe specific requirements relating to the appointment, tenure, independence and reporting of the CCO, including a minimum three-year fixed tenure, direct reporting to the MD & CEO and/or Board/Audit Committee, and restrictions on business targets and conflicting responsibilities. Banks are also required to implement risk-based compliance programmes, annual compliance risk assessments, compliance testing and technology-enabled monitoring mechanisms. The Directions come into force with immediate effect and repeal the existing directions and guidelines relating to the Compliance function applicable to Commercial Banks.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13645&Mode=0
Judicial Curve
M P Jackson v. The Reserve Bank of India
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court examined the validity of an order issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 36AAA read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, superseding the Board of Directors of an Urban Co-operative Bank and appointing an Administrator. The petitioner, the former President of the Bank, challenged the order on the grounds that it was passed without an opportunity of hearing and without the mandatory consultation with the State Government prescribed under Section 36AAA.
The Court observed that Section 36AAA does not contemplate an opportunity of hearing before an order of supersession, noting that the Legislature had expressly provided for an opportunity of representation under Section 36AA but had omitted the same under Section 36AAA. However, the Court held that consultation with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not substitute the mandatory consultation with the State Government under the proviso to Section 36AAA(1). The Court further held that the RBI was empowered to supersede the Board of a co-operative bank under the Banking Regulation Act notwithstanding the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court held that the supersession order was unsustainable for want of consultation with the State Government. However, considering that the order had already been implemented, the Administrator had been managing the Bank for several months, and the period of supersession was due to expire on 06.10.2026, the Court declined to set aside the order or restore the elected Managing Committee in the interests of the Bank and its depositors. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed, with a direction that any continuation of the supersession beyond 06.10.2026 would require consultation with the State Government.
Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA)
Notifications
RBI consolidates and rationalises FEMA framework governing Special Rupee Vostro Accounts
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 19 dated July 17, 2026, has consolidated and rationalised the instructions governing Special Rupee Vostro Accounts (SRVAs), superseding the earlier circulars issued between July 2022 and October 2025. The revised framework provides that Authorised Dealer (AD) banks in India may open SRVAs for their branches outside India or banks resident outside India, in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016.
The circular clarifies that SRVAs may be used for cross-border trade transactions involving invoicing, payment and settlement in INR, as well as permissible capital and current account transactions under FEMA. SRVAs may be funded through inward remittances or transfers from other repatriable INR accounts, while investments in debt instruments from SRVA balances will be governed by the RBI (Non-resident Investment in Debt Instruments) Directions, 2025. The instructions have come into force with immediate effect.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13581&Mode=0
Corporate
Circulars
MCA extends Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide notice dated July 8, 2026, has extended the validity of the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026) from July 15, 2026 to August 31, 2026. The Scheme was introduced to provide companies an opportunity to complete their pending statutory filings.
The extension has been granted in view of capacity enhancement and restoration activities being undertaken at the MCA data centre following a fire incident on June 5, 2026. Accordingly, companies may avail the extended period to regularise pending filings under the Scheme.
Source: https://www.mca.gov.in/bin/dms/getdocument?mds=cZO4R5jrA7agXf0qpt0zzA%253D%253D&type=open
Judicial Curve
Tata Coffee Limited v. Ramla
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court examined whether offences under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, relating to wrongful withholding of company property, had been decriminalised by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020, and whether such offences could be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Officer under Section 454. The dispute arose after Tata Coffee Limited filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, alleging that its former employee had wrongfully retained residential accommodation provided by the company despite repeated demands to vacate. The Magistrate returned the complaint on the ground that the 2020 amendment had shifted proceedings under Section 452 to the Adjudicating Officer.
The Court observed that the 2020 amendment had only inserted a proviso to Section 452(2), restricting imprisonment of a former employee in specified circumstances where the company had failed to pay statutory dues, and had not otherwise altered or decriminalised the offence. It further held that the powers of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 454 are confined to administrative and civil penalties and do not extend to criminal offences or punishments. The Court also noted that Section 452 is expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Special Courts constituted under Section 435, and that such offences remain triable by the competent Judicial Magistrate.
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate’s conclusion that the offence under Section 452 had been decriminalised was baseless and unsustainable. The Court allowed Tata Coffee Limited’s revision petition, set aside the order returning the complaint, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, to receive the complaint and proceed with it in accordance with law.
Arbitration
Judicial Curve
Manash Kamal Bezboruah v. M/s. Bokahola Tea Company Private Limited & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined whether a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution could be maintained against an Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting an objection to its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose after the Supreme Court had referred the parties to arbitration, following which certain non-signatory companies sought deletion from the arbitral proceedings. The Tribunal rejected their applications, and the High Court entertained a revision petition under Article 227 and stayed the arbitral proceedings.
The Court observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a self-contained code and, in view of Section 5, contemplates minimal judicial intervention. It held that although the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be ousted, such jurisdiction must be exercised with extreme circumspection in challenges to orders passed under Section 16. In the absence of a manifest or patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, interference at the interlocutory stage would be contrary to the legislative policy of expeditious arbitration and limited court intervention.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a Section 16 jurisdictional objection is ordinarily challengeable only under Section 34 after the final arbitral award. The Court set aside the High Court’s orders and dismissed the revision petition, while directing the Arbitral Tribunal to independently decide the status of the non-signatory parties and proceed with the arbitration expeditiously.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/7469/7469_2026_11_1501_72011_Judgement_14-Jul-2026.pdf
TBEA Energy India Private Limited v. M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court examined challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising from a purchase order dated 18.12.2017 for six 765 KV, 500 MVA ICT Transformers valued at ₹67,00,39,376. The disputes concerned liquidated damages of ₹7,85,41,104, withholding of ₹5,23,76,868 towards the Additional Performance Bank Guarantee (APBG), costs, and future interest. The Arbitrator directed release of ₹3,92,70,552, being 50% of the liquidated damages, permitted release of ₹5,23,76,868 upon furnishing the APBG, and awarded proportionate costs, but denied future interest.
The Court upheld the Arbitrator’s findings on liquidated damages, observing that although the site was not ready, TBEA was responsible for a 70-day delay in supplying the ICTs, which contributed to the overall delay. It also upheld the directions concerning the APBG of ₹5,23,76,868 and proportionate costs, finding no patent illegality or excess of jurisdiction warranting interference under Section 34.
On future interest, however, the Court held that Section 31(7)(b) mandates post-award interest at 2% above the prevailing current rate of interest from the date of the award until payment, unless the award otherwise directs. Accordingly, it held that the Arbitrator could not deny future interest by relying on Union of India v. Manraj Enterprises. The Court therefore dismissed O.M.P. (COMM) 294/2022 and allowed O.M.P. (COMM) 307/2022 to the extent of granting post-award interest.
Source: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/SMP01072026OMPCOMM3072022_190151.pdf