The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Circular
IBBI issues Guidelines for Recommendation of Insolvency Professionals for Appointment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
IBBI, vide the Insolvency Professionals to act as Interim Resolution Professionals, Liquidators, Resolution Professionals and Bankruptcy Trustees (Recommendation) Guidelines, 2026 issued on May 18, 2026, has introduced a framework for preparing and sharing a panel of Insolvency Professionals (IPs) with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) viz Adjudicating Authorities for appointments under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The guidelines have been issued with the objective of ensuring timely appointments and avoid administrative delays in insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings.
The guidelines prescribe eligibility criteria for inclusion of IPs in the panel, including the absence of disciplinary proceedings, no conviction in last three years, a valid Authorisation for Assignment (AFA), and submission of an expression of interest along with consent to accept appointments. The panel will be prepared on a zone-wise and bench-wise basis, remain valid from July 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026, and will be shared with the Adjudicating Authorities by June 30, 2026. The guidelines further provide that inclusion in the panel shall constitute deemed consent to act in the assigned role, while any unjustified refusal to accept an appointment may result in removal from the panel for six months.
https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/legalframwork/e5383116b116b10af0f319903ee59ee4.pdf
Judicial Curve
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether the resolution plans approved for the projects of Earth Infrastructures Limited (EIL) could be implemented despite objections raised by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA). The dispute arose after the NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, set aside the approval of the resolution plans submitted by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited and Roma Unicon Designex Consortium, holding that the leased project lands could not be dealt with under EIL’s CIRP without GNIDA’s consent. The matter involved balancing the interests of GNIDA, the successful resolution applicants, and thousands of affected homebuyers.
The Court observed that GNIDA had been informed of the CIRP proceedings and had opportunities to submit its claims and participate in the process but failed to do so in a timely manner. Despite being aware of persistent defaults and stalled construction, GNIDA did not take adequate steps to monitor the projects or recover its dues. The Court held that GNIDA’s prolonged inaction and delayed conduct substantially contributed to the difficulties surrounding the projects and the losses suffered by homebuyers.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the resolution plans of Alpha Corp and Roma and directed GNIDA to recalculate its dues after excluding penal interest, penal charges, and time-extension penalties. While permitting recovery of the principal outstanding amounts, the Court directed the successful resolution applicants to clear such dues over a period of twenty-four months without burdening the homebuyers. The Court emphasized that the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, namely project revival and protection of homebuyers, must be given paramount importance.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/8392/8392_2023_12_1501_70789_Judgement_05-May-2026.pdf
Sanjay Dave v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether a Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) could refuse to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) by alleging that the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued by the Resolution Professional was conditional. The appellant, a promoter of the corporate debtor and an MSME applicant, had submitted a resolution plan that was approved by the CoC. However, he subsequently declined to accept the terms of the LoI, sought its reissuance, and challenged the forfeiture of his Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), leading ultimately to the liquidation of the corporate debtor.
The Court observed that once the CoC, in exercise of its commercial wisdom, approves a resolution plan, the SRA is bound to implement it in a time-bound manner and cannot seek to renegotiate its terms. It held that the appellant was fully aware of the pending proceedings and conditions referred to in the LoI and had expressly accepted them during CoC meetings. The Court found that the appellant’s objections were merely an indirect attempt to withdraw from the approved plan and that permitting such conduct would undermine the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of the EMD and affirmed the decisions of the NCLT and NCLAT, New Delhi. The Court held that the CoC’s decision to reject the appellant’s plan and proceed with liquidation was a valid exercise of commercial wisdom and did not warrant judicial interference. Dismissing the appeal, the Court directed the liquidator to continue the liquidation process in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/51722/51722_2024_7_1502_71653_Judgement_27-May-2026.pdf
Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited v. Mohammed Javed Sultan & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC could be invoked by a bank in relation to a loan transaction that was intrinsically linked to a property purchase and was already the subject matter of recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The appellant bank had sanctioned a loan to the Corporate Debtor for acquisition of a commercial property and disbursed the amount directly to the builder. After the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT and subsequently sought initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.
The Court observed that the transaction was governed by a quadripartite agreement involving the Bank, the Corporate Debtor and the builder, under which the rights and obligations of the parties were closely intertwined with the builder’s performance and the transfer of the property. It noted that the dispute was predominantly contractual in nature and involved competing claims relating to the property transaction rather than a straightforward case of financial debt and default. The Court further took note of the ongoing proceedings before the DRT, where the Bank’s claims were already being adjudicated and security had been deposited pursuant to the tribunal’s directions.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision setting aside the admission of the Section 7 application and held that the IBC could not be invoked as a substitute for debt recovery proceedings. The Court reiterated that insolvency proceedings are intended for resolution of genuine insolvency and not as a coercive mechanism for recovery of dues. Finding no reason to interfere with the NCLAT’s judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal and declined to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/27803/27803_2022_6_1502_70796_Judgement_07-May-2026.pdf
Competition Commission of India [CCI]
Notification
CCI approves creation of joint venture between Mercuria Energy B.V., Netherlands and Tata International (Pte) Ltd., Singapore
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving Mercuria Energy Netherlands B.V. and Tata International Singapore (Pte) Ltd. for the establishment of a joint venture company in the Dubai International Financial Centre, UAE. Pursuant to the transaction, the newly incorporated entity will operate as a joint venture of the parties and undertake commodities trading and investment activities through its subsidiaries across various jurisdictions, including India.
Mercuria Energy Netherlands B.V., a subsidiary of Mercuria Energy Group Limited, is part of a globally active energy and commodities group engaged in the trading of crude oil, petroleum products, natural gas, electricity, coal, carbon emission rights, metals and petrochemicals. The joint venture is proposed to engage in the trading of commodities, including metals, minerals, agricultural products, and oil and gas products, and will serve as a dedicated platform for the parties’ commodities trading and investment operations. (Press Release No. 20/2026-27 dated May 26, 2026).
https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/658/0
CCI approves merger of Indovida India Private Limited with and into EPL Limited
CCI has approved the proposed merger of Indovida India Private Limited with and into EPL Limited by way of absorption. Pursuant to the proposed combination, EPL Limited will remain the surviving entity and will issue and allot shares to the shareholders of Indovida India on a proportionate basis in consideration of the merger.
Indovida India Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Indorama Netherlands BV and forms part of the Indorama Ventures Group, a global conglomerate with business interests in fibres, packaging, recycling and specialty chemicals. EPL Limited is a listed Indian company engaged in the manufacture and sale of packaging products. (Press Release No. 19/2026-27 dated May 26, 2026).
https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/657/0
CCI approves acquisition of stake in Lloyds Engineering Works by Thriveni Earthmovers Private Limited and merger of three entities into the company
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of a 7.14% shareholding in Lloyds Engineering Works Limited (LEWL) by Thriveni Earthmovers Private Limited (TEMPL) and the merger by absorption of Lloyds Infrastructure & Construction Limited, Metalfab Hightech Private Limited and Techno Industries Private Limited into LEWL. Pursuant to the merger, LEWL will remain the surviving entity.
TEMPL is engaged in contract mining services, coal trading, manufacture of solid blocks and investment activities. LEWL is involved in the design and manufacture of heavy engineering equipment and machinery for sectors such as hydrocarbon, defence, steel, power and marine, and also undertakes construction contracting activities. The merging entities are engaged in infrastructure construction, engineering and manufacturing activities, including steel structures, process equipment, elevators, escalators, motors and pumps. (Press Release No. 14/2026-27 dated May 12, 2026).
https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/652/0
CCI approves acquisition of GVK Energy Limited by Adani Power Limited
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition of 100% share capital and control of GVK Energy Limited by Adani Power Limited pursuant to the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Adani Power Limited is a listed company and one of India’s largest private thermal power producers, operating thermal power plants across multiple states in India and a solar power plant in Gujarat. GVK Energy Limited, through its subsidiary, is engaged in the generation of hydroelectric power from a 330 MW project in Srinagar, Uttarakhand, and provides operation and maintenance services in relation to the project. (Press Release No. 13/2026-27 dated May 12, 2026).
https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/651/0
CCI approves acquisition of certain shareholding in Ctrl S Datacenters Limited by CPPIB India Private Holdings
CCI has approved the proposed acquisition by CPPIB India Private Holdings Inc. (CIPH) of certain shareholding in Ctrl S Datacenters Limited. The transaction will enable CIPH, a wholly owned subsidiary of Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), to acquire a stake in Ctrl S Datacenters Limited. (Press Release No. 11/2026-27 dated May 12, 2026).
CIPH is a Canadian investment holding company and a wholly owned subsidiary of CPPIB, a professional investment management organisation that manages the Canada Pension Plan Fund and invests across asset classes including public equities, private equity, real estate, infrastructure and fixed income instruments. Ctrl S Datacenters Limited is engaged in providing data centre and colocation services, along with managed services such as cloud optimisation, GPU private cloud, remote IT infrastructure and backup services in India.
https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/649/0
Judicial Curve
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, examined the validity of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order holding Grasim Industries Ltd. guilty of abusing its dominant Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) and imposing a penalty of ₹301.61 crores. Grasim challenged the order on the ground that the CCI had departed from certain findings of the Director General (DG) without providing an opportunity to respond.
The Tribunal observed that while the DG had found Grasim’s pricing practices to be discriminatory, it had not considered the non-disclosure of its pricing policy or refusal to sell to traders as independent violations of the Competition Act. However, the CCI issued directions on these aspects without notifying Grasim of its disagreement with the DG’s findings. The Tribunal held that such a course violated the principles of natural justice, as a party must be given an opportunity to address any adverse findings proposed by the CCI.
Accordingly, the NCLAT set aside the CCI’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the CCI to provide Grasim an opportunity of hearing on all issues where it proposed to differ from the DG’s findings before passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142482990
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether the CCI could keep a previously approved combination in abeyance and direct Amazon to file a fresh merger notification after having already granted approval under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The dispute arose when, more than a year after approving Amazon’s investment in Future Coupons Private Limited, the CCI alleged non-disclosure of material information, imposed a penalty of ₹202 crores, suspended its approval, and directed Amazon to submit a fresh notice in Form II. The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, substantially upheld the CCI’s decision.
The Court observed that Section 45(2) of the Competition Act, which deals with penalties for furnishing false information, cannot be expanded into a power to review, suspend, or reopen a concluded merger approval. It held that once a combination has been approved and implemented, the CCI cannot circumvent the statutory one-year limitation prescribed under Section 20(1) by disguising a fresh competition review as information-related proceedings. The Court further noted that the final directions travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, resulting in a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed Amazon’s appeal and set aside both the CCI’s order and the NCLAT’s judgment. The Court held that the CCI lacked statutory authority to keep the approval in abeyance or compel a fresh merger filing in respect of an already approved and implemented transaction. Emphasising the importance of finality and certainty in merger control, the Court directed that all penalties or amounts recovered from Amazon pursuant to the impugned orders be refunded within eight weeks along with simple interest at 6% per annum. In the event the refund is not made within the aforesaid period of eight weeks, the amount remaining unpaid shall carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of eight weeks until the date of payment.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/22360/22360_2022_2_1501_71618_Judgement_27-May-2026.pdf
Securities and Exchange Board of India [SEBI]
Circulars
SEBI discontinues Investor Risk Reduction Access platform
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/38/44/12(3)2025-MIRSD-TPD1/I/10705/2026 dated May 7, 2026, has discontinued the Investor Risk Reduction Access (IRRA) platform with immediate effect. The platform was introduced in December 2022 to provide stock brokers with an alternative access point for trading during disruptions in their trading services. The decision has been taken in view of significant improvements in business continuity and technological resilience measures implemented across the securities market.
The circular notes that the operationalisation of business continuity and disaster recovery frameworks, enhanced cyber security and cyber resilience measures, Market Security Operations Centre (M-SoC), and strengthened technical glitch frameworks have substantially improved the ability of stock brokers to ensure uninterrupted trading services. SEBI has also considered the availability of the Contingency Pool Trading facility provided by stock exchanges, which serves as an alternative mechanism during business disruptions. Accordingly, the circular supersedes the earlier SEBI circular dated December 30, 2022 and has come into force with effect from May 7, 2026.
SEBI specifies permitted use of borrowings by InvITs exceeding prescribed leverage threshold
SEBI, vide Circular No. SEBI/HO/DDHS/DDHS-PoD-2/I/11700/2026 dated May 15, 2026, has specified the permissible uses of fresh borrowings by Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs) where net borrowings exceed forty-nine percent of the value of InvIT assets. The circular has been issued pursuant to the amendment to Regulation 20(3)(b)(ii) of the SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014, notified on April 17, 2026.
The circular provides that borrowings above the prescribed threshold may be utilised for capital expenditure aimed at enhancing asset performance or capacity augmentation, major maintenance expenses in respect of road projects, and refinancing of existing debt. In the case of refinancing, only the principal component of the original debt may be refinanced, provided such debt was utilised for purposes permitted under Regulation 20(3)(b)(ii) of the SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014. The circular has come into force with immediate effect.
Judicial Curve
Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether Reliance Industries Limited’s (RIL) futures and cash market transactions in shares of Reliance Petroleum Limited (RPL) constituted fraud and market manipulation under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations). SEBI had alleged that RIL, through twelve entities acting under agency agreements, cornered a substantial portion of the futures market while simultaneously selling shares in the cash market, and accordingly directed disgorgement of ₹447.27 crore along with interest. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) had largely upheld SEBI’s findings.
The Court observed that merely taking large futures positions through multiple entities or exceeding position limits could not, by itself, establish fraud or market manipulation under the PFUTP Regulations. It held that SEBI was required to prove a fraudulent scheme, inducement, or market distortion, which was absent in the present case. The Court further noted that the futures positions were taken as part of a legitimate hedging strategy linked to RIL’s planned divestment of shares in RPL and that there was no legal requirement to maintain a perfect one-to-one hedge ratio.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the findings of fraud and market manipulation recorded by SEBI and SAT, along with the disgorgement direction. The Court directed the refund of ₹250 crore deposited by RIL in the Investor Protection Fund. However, it upheld the penalties imposed for technical violations relating to disclosure requirements and position limits under the applicable SEBI circulars, distinguishing such regulatory breaches from allegations of fraudulent conduct.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/26825/26825_2020_6_1501_71676_Judgement_29-May-2026.pdf
Reserve Bank of India [RBI]
Notification
RBI discontinues Investment Fluctuation Reserve requirement for commercial banks
The RBI, vide Circular No. RBI/2026-27/83 dated May 18, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Classification, Valuation, and Operation of Investment Portfolio) Second Amendment Directions, 2026, discontinuing the requirement for commercial banks to maintain an Investment Fluctuation Reserve (IFR). The amendment has been introduced in view of developments in the prudential frameworks governing market risk and investment portfolios of commercial banks.
The directions provide that the requirement to maintain IFR shall stand discontinued with effect from May 18, 2026. Banks have been directed to transfer the balance available in the IFR as on May 17, 2026, to the Statutory Reserve, General Reserve, or Balance of Profit and Loss Account. In the case of foreign banks operating in India through branch mode, the balance is required to be transferred to statutory reserves maintained in Indian books or to remittal surplus retained in Indian books. The directions have come into force with immediate effect.
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13450&Mode=0
RBI amends financial statement disclosure requirements for commercial banks
The RBI, vide Circular No. RBI/2026-27/91 dated May 18, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) Sixth Amendment Directions, 2026. The amendment has been introduced pursuant to the discontinuation of the Investment Fluctuation Reserve (IFR) requirement under the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Classification, Valuation, and Operation of Investment Portfolio) Second Amendment Directions, 2026.
The directions amend the disclosure requirements relating to ‘Revenue and Other Reserves’ under Schedule 2(IV) of the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) Directions, 2025. The revised provision clarifies that ‘Revenue Reserve’ shall include all reserves other than Capital Reserve and reserves separately classified elsewhere, while excluding amounts retained towards depreciation, renewals, diminution in asset value, or any known liability. The directions have come into force with immediate effect.
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13458&Mode=0
RBI prescribes cooling-off period for directors of Urban Co-operative Banks
The RBI, vide Circular No. RBI/DOR/2026-27/94 dated May 25, 2026, has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Urban Co-operative Banks – Governance) Amendment Directions, 2026, introducing additional governance requirements relating to the tenure of directors on the boards of Urban Co-operative Banks (UCBs). The amendment has been introduced to prevent circumvention of statutory tenure limits through repeated resignations and reappointments.
The directions provide that a director who has completed a continuous tenure of ten years on the board of a UCB shall be eligible for reappointment to the same UCB only after undergoing a cooling-off period of three years. During this period, the individual shall not be associated with the UCB in any capacity other than as a member or customer. This, however, shall not preclude him / her from being appointed as a director on the board of another bank, if otherwise eligible. The directions further clarify that, for calculating the period of continuous tenure, the total time served on the board of the UCB including the period of directorship preceding an interruption of less than three years but excluding the period of directorship preceding at least a three-year interruption shall be reckoned. The amendment has come into force with immediate effect.
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13461&Mode=0
Foreign Exchange Management Act [FEMA]
Notifications
RBI issues Foreign Exchange Management (Authorised Persons) Regulations, 2026
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 09 dated May 6, 2026, has notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Authorised Persons) Regulations, 2026 pursuant to Notification No. FEMA 401/2026-RB dated April 30, 2026. The regulations have been introduced following a review of the existing framework governing authorised persons under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, with the objective of rationalising the regulatory framework, improving the delivery of foreign exchange services, and easing compliance requirements.
The circular provides that all authorised persons shall comply with the newly notified regulations as applicable to them. Consequent to the notification, certain instructions contained in the Master Directions on Money Changing Activities and Other Remittance Facilities have been amended, and specified A.P. (DIR Series) Circulars have been superseded. The directions have been issued under Sections 10(4) and 11 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and have come into effect from the date of notification.
https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=13445&fn=5&Mode=0
RBI revises framework for outward remittance services facilitated through non-bank entities
The RBI, vide A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 10 dated May 13, 2026, has revised the operating framework for facilitating outward remittance services through non-bank entities in association with Authorised Dealer Category-I banks. The circular dispenses with the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the RBI for such tie-up arrangements and introduces a principles-based framework to facilitate cross-border outward remittances for non-trade current account transactions through online platforms.
The circular requires Authorised Dealers to remain responsible for compliance with FEMA requirements, customer due diligence, transparency of charges, grievance redressal mechanisms, data protection measures, and timely execution of remittances. It further prescribes disclosure requirements relating to exchange rates, transaction costs, settlement timelines and customer support, while mandating appropriate contractual arrangements with third-party entities. The framework also requires remittances to be routed directly between the remitter’s and beneficiary’s bank accounts and provides safeguards to ensure protection of customer funds and data. The directions have come into force with immediate effect.
https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=13449&fn=5&Mode=0
Corporate
Notification
MCA permits CSR implementation through Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Amendment Rules, 2026 notified on May 27, 2026, has amended the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014 to permit companies to undertake Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities through Zero Coupon Zero Principal (ZCZP) Instruments issued by Not for Profit Organisations registered with the Social Stock Exchange segment of a recognised stock exchange.
The amendment introduces definitions of ‘Not for Profit Organisation’ and ‘Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instrument’ and provides that expenditure incurred through subscription to such instruments shall not exceed ten percent of a company’s total CSR expenditure for a financial year. The rules further exempt companies subscribing to ZCZP instruments from undertaking impact assessments of projects funded through such instruments. Additionally, the issuing Not for Profit Organisation is required to complete the funded project within three succeeding financial years and transfer any unspent amount, upon termination of listing, to a fund specified under Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013. The amendment has come into force with immediate effect.
Judicial Curve
Hindustan Medical Institution v. Birla Corporation Limited
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined disputes concerning the exercise of voting rights attached to shares held by three societies – Hindustan Medical Institution, Eastern India Educational Institution, and Belle Vue Clinic in Birla Corporation Limited (BCL). The controversy arose from rival claims regarding who was authorised to vote on behalf of the societies and whether priority should be accorded to the vote cast first. The Calcutta High Court had held that trustees were required to act in consonance and further directed that the vote cast first would prevail irrespective of the source of authority.
The Court observed that the societies’ by-laws expressly permitted decisions to be taken through resolutions evidenced by the majority of trustees and did not require unanimous action. It further held that the governing framework vested authority over the societies’ assets and shareholding rights primarily in the Board of Trustees, while the Managing Committee could exercise only such powers as were specifically delegated by the trustees. Accordingly, the High Court erred in treating the Board of Trustees and the Managing Committee as interchangeable for the purpose of authorising votes.
The Supreme Court also held that the validity of a vote cannot be determined merely by the order in which it is cast. Under the statutory framework governing e-voting, lawful authority is the foundation of a valid vote, and chronology cannot override authorisation. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the suits for fresh consideration, while clarifying that it had not adjudicated upon the validity of any particular resolution or authorisation, which would be decided independently by the competent forum.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/35072/35072_2022_2_1501_71557_Judgement_26-May-2026.pdf
Arbitration
Judicial Curve
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined challenges to an arbitral award arising from disputes relating to the supply of PVC pipes by Saryu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. to the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The Board contended that the arbitrator’s mandate had expired, that the award was passed in violation of natural justice, and that the Commercial Court was justified in modifying the award by substituting simple interest with compound interest for the pendente lite period. The dispute stemmed from arbitration proceedings that continued over several years owing largely to repeated delays and non-compliance by the Board.
The Court observed that the arbitral mandate validly subsisted when the award was rendered, as the parties had consented to extensions and the Board had actively participated in the proceedings. It further held that the principles of natural justice had been fully complied with, noting that the Board was afforded numerous opportunities to file pleadings, produce documents, and participate in hearings, but repeatedly failed to do so. The Court also found that the award had been dispatched before the Board’s subsequent communication objecting to the proceedings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the arbitral award and rejected the Board’s challenge on the grounds of mandate and procedural fairness. However, it held that the Commercial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the award to grant compound interest instead of simple interest, as such a change amounted to a substantive modification rather than correction of a clerical or computational error under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court therefore restored the award granting simple interest at the rate determined by the arbitrator and set aside the contrary modification made by the Commercial Court.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/4480/4480_2023_6_1503_71561_Judgement_26-May-2026.pdf
Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a challenge to an arbitral award arising out of a Concession Agreement between Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC) and Jabalpur Corridor Pvt. Ltd. (JCPL) for the development and operation of the Jabalpur–Sagar–Damoh Road Project on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis. Following disputes relating to project implementation and the termination of the concession agreement by MPRDC, arbitration was initiated by the concessionaire. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded termination payments along with contractual and post-award interest in favour of JCPL. Challenges under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were rejected by the District Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Court reiterated that the Arbitration Act is founded on the principles of party autonomy, minimal judicial intervention, and finality of arbitral awards. It held that courts exercising jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 cannot act as appellate forums, reappreciate evidence, or substitute a plausible interpretation adopted by the arbitral tribunal. The Court also rejected MPRDC’s contention that the Tribunal had exceeded the scope of reference, holding that the issue of termination payments had been specifically raised and adjudicated during the arbitral proceedings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the arbitral award and dismissed the appeal. It further held that where parties have consciously agreed to a contractual rate of interest in a commercial contract, courts must ordinarily respect such bargain in deference to party autonomy unless the rate is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. The Court consequently upheld the award of contractual and post-award interest and directed release of the amounts due to the concessionaire.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/1389/1389_2017_3_1502_71678_Judgement_29-May-2026.pdf
M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty v. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that High Courts should exercise extreme restraint while entertaining writ petitions challenging interlocutory orders passed by arbitral tribunals under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose after the appellant challenged an arbitral tribunal’s rejection of its objection that the underlying agreements were insufficiently stamped and therefore incapable of being acted upon in arbitration proceedings.
The Court observed that questions relating to the stamping of agreements fall within the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and that an erroneous decision on such issues does not amount to a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. It held that the Single Judge had exceeded the limited scope of writ jurisdiction by examining the nature of the agreements and directing their impounding during the pendency of arbitration proceedings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision setting aside the Single Judge’s order and reiterated that judicial interference in ongoing arbitral proceedings should be confined to exceptional cases. The Court clarified that the issue relating to the stamping of the agreements remains open and may be raised by the aggrieved party in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, if necessary.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/50059/50059_2025_3_1501_71619_Judgement_27-May-2026.pdf