- within Criminal Law, Tax and Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with readers working within the Technology and Law Firm industries
This newsletter is prepared for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to reach out
to the relevant practice group at Hammurabi & Solomon Partners for advice on specific facts and circumstances.
Arbitration Law
NOTABLE UPDATES – JULY 2026
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Article 227 cannot be invoked to challenge an Arbitral Tribunal’s rejection of a Section 16 application, even against non-signatories
Impacted Stakeholders: The parties to the arbitration agreement, the non-signatory parties sought to be bound by the arbitration clause, and the Arbitral Tribunals.
The Supreme Court narrowed the window for premature High Court intervention in arbitral proceedings and specifically forecloses non-signatory respondents from using Article 227 to exit arbitration mid-stream. Such parties must contest joinder before the tribunal itself and raise any jurisdictional objection only in a post-award Section 34 challenge, increasing procedural certainty for claimants seeking to bind non-signatory affiliates or successors.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Fresh notice under Section 21 is not required to appoint substitute arbitrator after an award is set aside
Impacted Stakeholders: The parties to the arbitration proceedings.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that a party need not issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator after an earlier award has been set aside, provided arbitration had already validly commenced. The Hon’ble Court rejected the respondents’ objection and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties afresh.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Defective Section 21 Notice does not defeat valid reference to Arbitration
Impacted Stakeholders: The parties to the arbitration agreement.
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that a defective notice invoking arbitration does not invalidate the commencement of arbitral proceedings where the arbitration agreement has clearly been invoked. Justice Arun R. Pedneker appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) after the parties failed to constitute the tribunal as agreed to adjudicate upon the disputes between Unistar Metals Private Limited and GE Power Limited.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Karnataka High Court holds only the Supreme Court can decide replacement of an Arbitrator it Appointed
Impacted Stakeholders: The parties to the arbitration proceedings, and the institutional arbitration centers.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that once the arbitrator is appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any subsequent issue affecting the tribunal’s constitution, including recusal, withdrawal or substitution, falls exclusively within the domain of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a High Court-ordered substitution in a dispute administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Constitutional Law
NOTABLE UPDATES – JULY 2026
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Subordinate Legislation Under MMDR Act Upheld as Constitutional: Presumption of Constitutionality Applies to Subordinate Legislation, Anti- Evasion Measures Survive Scrutiny Under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)
Impacted Stakeholders: Iron ore mining leaseholders, Ministry of Mines, State Governments receiving mineral royalty revenue, Indian Bureau of Mines, mineral concession holders.
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to Explanations to Rule 38 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, which bar deduction of royalty, DMF and NMET payments while computing the sale value used to determine iron-ore royalty. Rejecting the "royalty on royalty" argument, the Court held the provisions constitutional, not violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and not ultra vires Section 9 of the MMDR Act, treating them as legitimate anti-evasion measures addressing manipulation of Average Sale Price data.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Exclusion of Article 226 Against IBA's Caution List Rejected; Banks' Blacklisting of Advocates for Negligence Declared Impermissible: SC Mandates BCI Performance Audit and Continuing Legal Education
Impacted Stakeholders: Advocates empaneled with banks and financial institutions, the Indian Banks' Association, the Bar Council of India, State Bar Councils, the Reserve Bank of India, banking institutions maintaining Caution Lists.
The Supreme Court allowed an advocate's appeal against inclusion on the IBA's fraud-related "Caution List" over an allegedly negligent title opinion, holding the listing impermissible and directing immediate removal. The Court held Article 226 jurisdiction turns on the public function performed rather than only on "State" status under Article 12, and that allegations of professional negligence fall exclusively within the disciplinary domain of the Advocates Act, 1961. It further directed the BCI to audit disciplinary mechanisms and examine a National Legal Academy and institutionalised continuing legal education.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ex Parte Foreigner Declarations Without Meaningful Adjudication Violate Articles 14 and 21: Supreme Court Mandates Fair Procedure Before All Foreigners Tribunals
Impacted Stakeholders: Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, persons proceeded against as suspected foreigners, the erstwhile Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals, the Gauhati High Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs, civil society and legal-aid practitioners.
In a batch of 28 connected appeals, the Supreme Court set aside Foreigners Tribunal opinions and Gauhati High Court orders rendered in ex parte or effectively ex parte proceedings, holding that non-appearance cannot itself become proof of foreigner status. The Court formulated a five-limb minimum standard — service, disclosure of grounds, consideration of the State's evidence, sufficiency of material, and recorded reasons — and remitted all matters for fresh adjudication, directing that Tribunals decide references within six months and that no coercive action be taken meanwhile.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Governor's Clemency Power Under Article 161 Cannot Be Overridden by Statutory Remission Policy: Supreme Court Holds Raj Kumar Per Incuriam
Impacted Stakeholders: Life convicts in Haryana, State Governments administering remission policies, State Governors exercising clemency under Article 161, prison authorities, criminal law practitioners.
The Supreme Court held that Haryana's 2002 remission policy, framed under the Governor's constitutional power under Article 161, cannot be superseded by the 2008 statutory remission policy framed under Section 432 CrPC. Relying on the larger-Bench ruling in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, the Court declared its own 2021 decision in State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar per incuriam for treating the 2002 policy as merely statutory, and directed the State to reconsider the appellant's remission claim accordingly, with the ruling made prospective for already-decided applications.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
Consumer Law
NOTABLE UPDATES – JULY 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Complaint Alleging Deficiency in Legal Services Against an Advocate Not Maintainable Under the Consumer Protection Act; Advocate-Client Relationship Held a Contract of Personal Service
Impacted Stakeholders: Practising advocates and law firms, litigants and clients engaging legal counsel, District/State/National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, State Bar Councils and disciplinary authorities.
Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a complaint alleging deficiency of service by an advocate in conducting a civil suit is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, since the advocate-client engagement is a contract "of personal service" excluded from the definition of "service" under Section 2(42). The Court affirmed concurrent dismissals by the District Commission, State Commission and NCDRC.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Restaurants Levying Mandatory "Service Charge" Without Prior, Unambiguous Disclosure and Consent Commit Unfair Trade Practice, Even Where Renamed "Staff Contribution"
Impacted Stakeholders: Restaurants and hospitality establishments levying service charges, hotel and restaurant associations, dining consumers, Central Consumer Protection Authority.
The Commission held a restaurant liable for unfair trade practice for levying a compulsory 3% "service charge" without prior, clear disclosure or consumer consent, rejecting the defence that the Delhi High Court's substituted "staff contribution" terminology cured the deficiency where the bills themselves still described the levy as a service charge. The complainant was awarded a refund and compensation, while unsubstantiated allegations of staff misbehaviour and substandard food were rejected for want of evidence.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Consumer Protection Act's Jurisdiction Overrides Remedies Under the Co- operative Societies Act; Writ Appeal Against Rejection of 825-Day Delay Condonation in Repaying Matured Fixed Deposit Dismissed
Impacted Stakeholders: Co-operative banks and societies, fixed deposit holders/consumers, consumer disputes redressal fora, Registrars and Administrators of Co-operative Societies.
The Division Bench dismissed a co-operative bank's writ appeal against rejection of an 825-day delay-condonation plea, holding that the Consumer Protection Act operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, remedies under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Depositors may therefore proceed directly under consumer law regardless of sector-specific recovery mechanisms; the bank was granted six months to comply with the underlying repayment order.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Mrs. Bector's Food Specialities Ltd. (English Oven) Held Liable for Misleading Advertisement in Marketing Bread Containing Only 87% Wheat Flour as "100% Whole Wheat Bread"; Penalty of ₹1,00,000 Imposed
Impacted Stakeholders: Food business operators and bakery manufacturers, advertisers using absolute or numerical claims, consumers of packaged food products, FSSAI-regulated entities marketing bread and similar staples.
The CCPA held that English Oven's "100% Atta Bread" and "100% Whole Wheat Bread" claims were misleading where the product's own labels disclosed whole-wheat content of only 87%, rejecting the argument that "100%" merely signified wheat as the sole grain source. The Authority held that meeting a regulatory minimum threshold for category classification does not license an additional voluntary "100%" claim, directed discontinuation of the claims, and imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000.
Read Full HSP Analysis → Read Full Judgment →
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]