Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

What if a small group of shareholders could reopen deals that your board signed off years ago, loans, write‑offs or related‑party sales that everyone thought were "done and dusted"? Class...

India's justice system faces a paradox: while legal remedy is constitutionally enshrined, accessing it remains prohibitively expensive.

In the two decades that I've spent defending corporations and their promoters in disputes, I've watched regulatory enforcement priorities shift from insider trading to related party transactions to disclosure violations.

Velusamy Karuppannan (the ‘Informant’), a software professional, alleged before the CCI that AVEVA Group Limited and its Indian subsidiaries (collectively, ‘AVEVA’) contravened Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act by abusing its dominant position in the market for industrial automation software (Manufacturing Execution Systems (‘MES’), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (‘SCADA’), and Historian) through: (i) coercing customers into the AVEVA Flex Subscription model and hiding perpetual licenses, driving higher prices and minimum credit commitments...

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Jyoti Singh & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 29 September 2026, addresses whether maintenance proceedings can be defeated when the judgment debtor cannot be traced. The Court held that a claimant’s inability to provide the debtor’s current address is not, by itself, a reason to dismiss execution proceedings. Courts must use available legal mechanisms to trace the debtor and enforce the order.

When commercial negotiations fail, parties face a critical choice: pursue traditional court litigation or opt for arbitration. India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 established a comprehensive framework for alternative dispute resolution, but has arbitration truly delivered on its promise as an effective alternative? This analysis examines the practical realities, statutory provisions, and comparative advantages of arbitration versus conventional litigation in the Indian legal system.

The Bombay High Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Limited , held that post-award interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, though maintainable at the instance of an unsuccessful party, cannot be granted as a matter of routine. An adverse award raises the threshold to exceptional and compelling circumstances beyond the ordinary prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury test.

Examination of Supreme Court’s Orient Crafts judgment holding CBDT circulars bind revenue authorities but not courts, clarifying separation between executive interpretation and judicial precedent

Arbitration is known to be a preferred mechanism for dispute resolution in comparison to court proceedings. One of the many reasons arbitration is preferred to court proceedings is time efficiency. Arbitration stakeholders globally recognise the need for expedited outcomes and often advocate the necessity for further enhancing arbitration processes with newer expedited arbitration mechanisms.

This article examines the constitutional and policy case for establishing a no-fault compensation mechanism for vaccine-related injuries in India. Drawing on the right to health under Article 21 and experiences from mass public health interventions, it analyses the rationale, design considerations, and implementation challenges of such a scheme.

The Court confined the Section 9 proceedings to the Petitioner’s prayer seeking restraint against the Respondent from acting upon the Notice of Intention to Terminate dated 16.07.2026. It reiterated that Section 9 is protective in nature and aims to preserve the subject matter of arbitration and prevent the proceedings from becoming infructuous. Interim relief depends upon a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy held that the death of an alleged negligent doctor does not automatically extinguish a medical negligence claim against him. The Court held that claims relating to medical expenses and other pecuniary losses may survive against the deceased doctor's estate, whereas purely personal claims (against causing pain and suffering and other personal injuries) may not survive.