The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Discussion Paper
IBBI released Discussion Paper on Guidance to Insolvency Professionals for Due Diligence to Identify Fraudulent or Malicious Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, and Recourse under Sections 60(5) and 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
IBBI, on August 14, 2026, issued a Discussion Paper seeking stakeholder comments on draft guidance requiring Insolvency Professionals (IPs) to identify fraudulent or malicious initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and to seek recourse under Sections 60(5) and 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Board noted that it has received information from law-enforcement and other regulatory agencies indicating that the CIRP framework is, in certain cases, being resorted to with malafide intent to settle debts outside the ordinary recovery process, mitigate tax and other statutory liabilities, close or merge companies without regulatory scrutiny, or to monetise or ring-fence assets.
The draft Circular annexed to the paper sets out an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of red-flag indicators such as a corporate debtor with negligible operations and persistently negative net worth, related-party loans or investments written off without adequate basis, qualified audit opinions on recoverability, a Committee of Creditors dominated by a single creditor who acquired debt shortly before CIRP initiation, or a cluster of connected corporate debtors taken into CIRP within a proximate timeframe. Where such indicators are found, the IP must file an application under Section 60(5) read with Section 65 before the Adjudicating Authority, in addition to any application warranted under Sections 43, 45, 50 or 66.
Source: 64e3b5bc6d53160f1919f952ceecd7c1.pdf
Judicial Curve
Srinivasa Reddy Velagala v. Sravanthi Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether a Section 9 application filed by an operational creditor was barred by limitation where the underlying EPC contract had not been formally terminated. The dispute arose from a ₹827-crore EPC contract for a 225 MW gas-based power station in Andhra Pradesh, where the operational creditor claimed non-payment of milestone dues after completing the first three milestones, ultimately suspending and demobilising the site in 2011.
The Court held that default under Section 3(12) of the IBC occurs at a singular point in time when payment falls due and is not made, and that the mere subsistence of the underlying contract does not create a continuing cause of action capable of resetting the limitation clock under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It clarified that the Adjudicating Authority cannot treat multiple invoices in aggregate and use the earliest invoice date as the limitation trigger for the entire claim.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent orders of the NCLT and NCLAT admitting the Section 9 application, holding the claim time-barred since it crystallised in 2012 but was not pursued within three years, while granting the operational creditor liberty to pursue arbitration under the EPC contract.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/6443/6443_2021_6_1501_73194_Judgement_12-Aug-2026.pdf
Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court examined whether an advocate acting as an Insolvency Professional is liable to pay GST under the forward charge mechanism, or whether the reverse charge mechanism applicable to legal services rendered by advocates would apply instead. The petitioner, a registered Insolvency Professional appointed IRP for a corporate debtor, was directed by IBBI to furnish GST-compliant invoices for his professional fees.
The Court held that when an advocate renders services as an Insolvency Professional, the role in which he acts, and not his underlying professional qualification as an advocate, is determinative of the GST classification, and that the reverse charge mechanism applicable to advocates cannot be extended to insolvency and receivership services performed as an IP.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was liable to obtain GST registration and discharge tax under the forward charge mechanism for his fees as IRP, while clarifying that legal services rendered by him purely in his capacity as an advocate remain governed by the reverse charge mechanism.
Source: kanwal-chaudhary-v-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-board-1782551.pdf
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Notifications
CCI approves merger of AAPC India, Triguna, Caddie and other Accor-linked entities into InterGlobe Hotels
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving share acquisitions and the merger of AAPC India Hotel Management Private Limited, Caddie Hotels Private Limited, Triguna Hospitality Ventures (India) Private Limited, Srilanand Mansions Private Limited, Techpark Hotels Private Limited, and Accent Hotels Private Limited with and into InterGlobe Hotels Private Limited (IGH). InterGlobe Enterprises Private Limited, an investment holding company wholly owned and controlled by the Bhatia Family, and AAPC Singapore Pte. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Accor S.A., are jointly interested in the transaction.
IGH is engaged in developing and owning Accor-branded hotels managed by AAPC India, in addition to leasing office and commercial spaces and providing consultancy and support services in India. The transaction consolidates ownership and management of Accor-branded hotel assets under a single corporate structure. (Approved August 5, 2026.)
Source: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?PRID=2295120®=5&lang=1
CCI approves acquisition of additional shareholding in Acko Technology & Services by General Atlantic Singapore ACK
CCI has approved the acquisition of additional shareholding of Acko Technology & Services Private Limited (Acko Tech) by General Atlantic Singapore ACK Pte. Ltd. (GASACK) on a fully diluted basis, crossing the 25% threshold pursuant to Acko Tech’s Rights Issue. GASACK is an investment holding company incorporated in Singapore, affiliated with General Atlantic investment funds that provide capital and strategic support to businesses across sectors including technology, healthcare, life sciences, infrastructure and financial services.
Acko Tech is an India-based insurtech company with three wholly owned subsidiaries Acko General Insurance and Acko Life Insurance, licensed general and life insurance providers respectively, and Assurelink, which is awaiting an IRDAI corporate agency licence to undertake insurance policy distribution in India.
Source: https://cci.gov.in/images/pressrelease/en/press-relese1787055828.pdf
CCI approves 100% acquisition of TAO Digital Solutions Inc. by Cyient Limited
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of 100% of the share capital of TAO Digital Solutions Inc. by Cyient Limited. Cyient is a public limited company incorporated in India and is engaged in engineering and technology services across sectors including aerospace and defence, automotive, rail transportation, healthcare and life sciences, semiconductors, energy, industrial manufacturing, utilities, communications and spatial intelligence.
TAO Digital Solutions, headquartered in Santa Clara, California, provides digital transformation and technology services globally, spanning product engineering, managed services, cybersecurity, payments, digitisation, artificial intelligence, cloud services and data services. In India, it operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, TAO Digital India Private Limited. (Approved August 25, 2026, under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.)
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/687/0
CCI approves acquisition of 100% stake in Kestrel Coal Group Pty Ltd. by Yancoal Australia Limited from certain sellers
CCI has approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of 100% of equity interest and warrants in Kestrel Coal Group Pty Ltd by Yancoal Australia Ltd from EMR Capital Advisors Pty Ltd, Kestrel Coal (EMR) Ltd, EMR Capital Management, and Adaro Capital Ltd (collectively, the sellers).
Yancoal Australia is a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong, and is primarily engaged in the production of thermal coal, with a smaller presence in metallurgical coal. It has no physical presence in India and only limited exports of coal into India through certain affiliates.
Kestrel Coal Group Pty Ltd. holds an 80% interest in the Kestrel Joint Venture, which owns and operates the Kestrel Coal Mine in Queensland. The mine primarily produces metallurgical coal, with a smaller volume of thermal coal. Kestrel Coal Group has no physical presence in India, and its Indian nexus arises only from sales of metallurgical coal into India through the Kestrel Joint Venture. The transaction was approved on August 25, 2026.
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/688/0
CCI approves acquisition of certain equity shareholding in Bharti Life Insurance Company Limited by Prudential Corporation Holdings Limited
CCI approved Prudential Corporation Holdings Limited’s acquisition of certain equity shareholding in Bharti Life Insurance Company Limited, an IRDAI-licensed Indian life insurer majority owned by Bharti Enterprises with a minority investment held by funds managed by 360 ONE Asset Management. Prudential Corporation Holdings acts as the holding company for the Prudential Group’s insurance and asset management operations in Asia and provides management and support functions for its business operations across Asia and Africa. The underlying transaction involves Prudential plc acquiring a 75% controlling stake in Bharti Life for an initial cash consideration of ₹3,500 crore. (Approved August 18, 2026.)
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/683/0
CCI approves acquisition of 23% equity shareholding of TM International Logistics Ltd. by Tata Steel Ltd
CCI approved Tata Steel Limited’s acquisition of the entire 23% equity shareholding held by IQ Martrade Holding Und Management GmbH in TM International Logistics Limited (TMILL). TMILL is presently a 51:23:26 joint venture between Tata Steel, IQ Martrade, and NYK (Europe) B.V., incorporated primarily to cater to Tata Steel’s logistics and cargo transportation requirements, spanning railway cargo transportation, port operation and cargo handling, freight forwarding, and other value-added logistics services. Upon completion of the transaction, IQ Martrade will cease to be a shareholder of TMILL, and shareholding will consolidate to Tata Steel (74%) and NYK Europe (26%). (Approved August 18, 2026.)
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/media-gallery/press-release/details/682/0
CCI notifies Competition Commission of India (Commitment) Amendment Regulations, 2026
CCI, vide notification dated August 18, 2026, notified the Competition Commission of India (Commitment) Amendment Regulations, 2026, further amending the CCI (Commitment) Regulations, 2024, with effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. The amendments extend the timeline for filing commitment applications from 45 to 60 days, introduce a structured defect-rectification and refiling mechanism (requiring refiling within 10 working days of a defective application being returned, failing which it becomes invalid), extend the timeline for placing a complete Commitment Application before the Commission from 7 to 15 days, and extend the outer limit for concluding commitment proceedings from 130 to 180 days, while excluding time attributable to the applicant or other parties from these computations and providing for automatic resumption of the Section 26 inquiry where proceedings remain inconclusive within the stipulated period. (Notified August 18, 2026.)
Source: https://www.cci.gov.in/images/whatsnew/en/2755571787113627.pdf\
Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Circulars
SEBI permits IFSCA-regulated products and 54EC bonds on Online Bond Platforms, eases compliance officer norms
SEBI, vide Circular dated August 14, 2026, has modified Chapter XXI of the Master Circular for Non-Convertible Securities dated October 15, 2025, governing Online Bond Platform Providers (OBPPs). OBPPs may now offer products, securities or services regulated by the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), subject to FEMA/LRS compliance and clear labelling as international/overseas instruments, and may offer bonds issued under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 85 of the Income-tax Act, 2025), subject to prescribed disclaimers and disclosures on eligible issuers, lock-in, investment limits, non-transferability and tax features.
The Circular also revises the compliance officer requirement for OBPPs, permitting a Compliance Officer under the SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 2026 who holds NISM-Series-III-A certification, in place of the earlier requirement of a Company Secretary.
SEBI permits InvITs to add back debt-funded major maintenance expenses on road projects while computing NDCF
SEBI, vide Circular No. HO/17/11/17(5)2026-DDHS-POD2/I/18791/2026 dated August 14, 2026, has amended the framework for computation of Net Distributable Cash Flows (NDCF) for Infrastructure Investment Trusts under Section F (Para 3.19) of Chapter 3 of the Master Circular for InvITs, permitting payments towards major maintenance of road projects, to the extent funded through external borrowing, to be added back at both the SPV/HoldCo and Trust level.
InvITs must obtain unitholder approval for each project before raising such debt, and any deviation requiring additional debt will need fresh approval. Statutory auditor certification confirming the expenses align with the concession agreement is mandatory, along with disclosure of project-wise borrowing, categories of major maintenance expenses, and the possible impact on future growth and distributions. Outstanding debt for major maintenance must be separately disclosed in debt maturity profiles.
Judicial Curve
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) was correct in exonerating the Chairman and Managing Director of Tara Jewels Limited (TJL) and his two daughters, its promoters and Vice Presidents, of insider trading charges by relying on a “legitimate corporate purpose” defence. During the Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) period from October 2 to November 29, 2017 spanning a quarter in which TJL’s net losses rose to ₹166.80 crore from ₹6.62 crore with net sales falling nearly 69% the respondents sold substantial shareholdings, avoiding a cumulative loss of approximately ₹1.38 crore.
The Court held that trading in securities while in possession of UPSI creates a rebuttable presumption of insider trading under Regulation 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, and that neither the purpose behind the trade nor the use of sale proceeds has any bearing on whether the offence is made out. It clarified that the “legitimate corporate purpose” defence developed under the 1992 Regulations in Rakesh Agrawal v. SEBI is unavailable under the Note to Regulation 4(1) of the 2015 Regulations.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the SAT’s order and restored SEBI’s Whole Time Member order in full as regards disgorgement and the penalty for violation of the Code of Conduct under Regulation 9(1), while reducing the monetary penalty on the principal respondent from ₹25 lakh to ₹10 lakh under Section 15G of the SEBI Act.
Source- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/19863/19863_2022_7_1501_73151_Judgement_11-Aug-2026.pdf
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
Circulars
Reserve Bank of India (Priority Sector Lending – Targets and Classification) Second Amendment Directions, 2026
RBI, vide Circular RBI/2026-27/232, FIDD.CO.PSD.BC.No.08/04.09.001/2026-27 dated August 7, 2026, amended the Reserve Bank of India (Priority Sector Lending – Targets and Classification) Directions, 2025 to align with its June 2026 measures introducing a USD-Rupee swap facility for fresh Foreign Currency Non-Resident (Bank) [FCNR (B)] deposits and corresponding Cash Reserve Ratio/Statutory Liquidity Ratio exemptions for FCNR(B) and Non-Resident (External) Rupee (NRE) term deposits.
The Amendment Directions exclude from Adjusted Net Bank Credit (ANBC) computation: (a) advances against fresh FCNR(B) deposits of minimum three-year and maximum five-year tenor mobilised between June 8 and September 30, 2026, and (b) advances against NRE term deposits of three years or more mobilised between June 19 and September 30, 2026, updating the earlier 2013-14-era exemption mechanism with reference to the new CRR/SLR Amendment Directions dated June 8 and June 19, 2026. The amendment took effect immediately.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13674&Mode=0
Implementation of Section 51A of UAPA, 1967: Updates to UNSC’s 1267/1989 ISIL (Da’esh) & Al-Qaida Sanctions List: Amendment of 21 Entries
RBI, on August 19, 2026, notified regulated entities of an update to the United Nations Security Council’s 1267/1989 ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List, amending the particulars of 21 listed individuals/entities. This followed two similar notifications dated August 18, 2026, each amending 4 entries on the same sanctions list. Under Section 51A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, banks and other regulated entities are legally required to freeze without delay any funds, financial assets, or economic resources held by or for the benefit of individuals/entities designated on the UNSC list, and must not make funds or services available to them, directly or indirectly.
Regulated entities are directed to update their internal watchlists to reflect the amended particulars so that screening systems continue to correctly flag the designated persons. Any request received by a bank for delisting or for access to frozen funds under this provision must be forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is the nodal authority for such determinations under the UAPA framework.
Source: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=13678&Mode=0
Judicial Curve
In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents
On August 4, 2026, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana passed interim directions in this suo motu proceeding (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025) concerning digital-arrest scams, building on its earlier orders dated December 1, 2025, December 16, 2025, and February 9, 2026. The Attorney General placed on record the Fourth Status Report dated August 3, 2026, filed by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, noting that complaints on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal for digital-arrest scams had fallen sharply from 1,23,672 in 2024 to 58,239 in 2025, and to 16,377 for the period ending June 30, 2026, while a data-sharing MoU between the Reserve Bank Innovation Hub and I4C had been executed on May 11, 2026.
The Court directed RBI to formally adopt and circulate, within four weeks, a Standard Operating Procedure prescribing action for banks to place temporary debit holds on accounts linked to money-mule activity and cyber-enabled fraud, and to implement a delayed-transaction safeguard/lagged-credit mechanism along with Customer Protection in Electronic Banking Transactions measures — with the final SOP to be furnished to I4C and the Registrars General of all High Courts. The Court also directed expeditious operationalisation of Grievance Redressal and Money Restoration Modules, which by then covered 1,23,590 branches of 69 banks and 57 participating banks across all States and Union Territories, with ₹18.05 crore restored in 36,290 cases.
The Court further directed the CBI to examine lowering its ₹10-crore threshold for commencing investigation and to consider aggregating cases involving the same organised network, and listed the matter for further consideration on September 16, 2026.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/59769/59769_2025_1_30_72575_Order_04-Aug-2026.pdf
Corporate
Circulars
MCA notifies Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Amendment Rules, 2026
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, vide Notification G.S.R. 725(E) dated August 12, 2026, issued under Section 133 read with Section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013, in consultation with the National Financial Reporting Authority, amended Ind AS 101, 107, 109, 110 and 7, to bring them into closer alignment with corresponding amendments issued by the International Accounting Standards Board to the International Financial Reporting Standards.
The amendments cover classification and measurement of financial instruments, hedge accounting for nature-dependent electricity contracts, treatment of ESG-linked loans with contingent contractual cash flows, electronic-payment settlement of financial liabilities, non-recourse arrangements, de facto agents, and cash-flow reporting for investments in associates, joint ventures and subsidiaries, together with Annual Improvements to Ind AS (2024) amending paragraph B74. The amendments take effect from the date of Gazette publication, with most substantive provisions applicable for annual reporting periods beginning on or after April 1, 2026.
Arbitration
Judicial Curve
KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Ashiesh Shukla and Others
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether a non-signatory to a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), who had separately executed a connected Share Purchase Agreement (SPA), could be treated as a “veritable party” bound by the arbitration clause contained in the MoS. KKH Finvest Private Limited had entered into an MoS dated May 9, 2022 to acquire Sensorise Digital Services Private Limited and its sister concern from the ex-promoters and other shareholders; Ashiesh Shukla, a consultant-shareholder holding 1,480 equity shares (0.05% shareholding) under Schedule 2 of the MoS, was not a signatory to the MoS itself but executed an individual SPA for the sale of his shares.
Applying the principles laid down in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the Court (Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva) held that a non-signatory’s participation in the performance of the underlying contract is the most important factor indicating an intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement. Since the performance of Shukla’s obligations under his SPA was fundamental to completion of the MoS,the MoS would inevitably remain incomplete unless he also transferred his shares, there was no real basis to distinguish him from four other management-team members already held to be veritable parties in the same proceedings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment insofar as it concerned Ashiesh Shukla, held him to be a veritable party to the MoS, and referred the disputes concerning him to the same sole Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur (Retired), Former Chief Justice of India, already seized of the connected disputes.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/55910/55910_2024_9_1501_72971_Judgement_05-Aug-2026.pdf
Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Dinowic Pte Ltd.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court examined a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an Arbitral Award dated September 3, 2019 passed in an International Commercial Arbitration, directing refund of USD 714,760.74 deducted by the petitioner towards liquidated damages from a security deposit, along with simple interest at 6% per annum, arising from a dispute over delayed lifting of Naphtha under an e-auction Sale Order. The Sole Arbitrator had held that the petitioner waived strict compliance with delivery timelines under Sections 55 and 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 by accepting delayed performance without contemporaneous objection, and had further held that the deduction of liquidated damages was contrary to the contractual pre-condition requiring a claim to be raised before any deduction.
The Court reaffirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 is narrower for International Commercial Arbitrations, since the “patent illegality” ground under Section 34(2-A) is unavailable to such awards, and that any challenge to the Arbitrator’s construction of contractual terms falls within “patent illegality” and is therefore not an available ground of challenge. It held that the Arbitrator’s findings on waiver, and on the absence of proof of loss under Section 74 of the Contract Act (applying Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority), did not contravene the “fundamental policy of Indian law” under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), and that rejection of a belated application to file additional documents did not breach Section 34(2)(a)(iii) since the petitioner had adequate opportunity earlier in the arbitral proceedings.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34, upholding the Arbitral Award in its entirety.
Source: https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59217082026OMPCOMM5342019_221015.pdf