India: Corporate and Company Law

The recent developments in the United States concerning Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and Adani Enterprises Limited have been received in India through two vastly different perspectives. For some, the proposed settlement of civil proceedings and the reported movement towards dismissal of criminal proceedings represent a significant easing of legal pressure. For others, the very fact that the proceedings were brought remains the more important point. Both readings capture part of the story, but neither fully explains why the episode matters for the Indian business ecosystem.

In Nagaraj V. Mylandla vs. PI Opportunities Fund-I [2026 INSC 298], the Supreme Court considered a recurring problem in foreign award enforcement: whether an award debtor, after unsuccessfully challenging an award before the court at the seat, can resist enforcement in India by re-framing the same objections as questions of Indian public policy.

Seaview Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘Assessee’) was engaged in the business of developing and leasing commercial real estate property in India, particularly an SEZ project in Uttar Pradesh. Being an SEZ developer/operator, the Assessee was eligible to claim deduction under section 80-IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for profits derived from development and operation of the SEZ.

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”), by circular dated 19.06.2026 , has granted relaxation in payment of additional fees for delayed filing of Form DPT-3 (Return of Deposits) for the financial year ended 31.03.2026.

India's Ministry of Corporate Affairs has launched the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, offering defaulting companies a narrow 90-day window to clear backlogs with up to 90% fee waivers, transition to dormant status, or exit the registry at concessional rates. Will your company seize this strategic reset opportunity before the July 15 deadline triggers aggressive enforcement actions and director disqualifications?

In the case of Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited1, while examining the conditions for a tax-neutral demerger under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) (ITAT) has, inter alia, held that where the company receiving the demerged undertaking does not itself issue shares to the shareholders of the demerged company, the transaction fails to satisfy the definition of "demerger" under Section 2(19AA) of the IT Act, even if shares are issued by its 100% holding company.

India’s financial services sector stands at a historic inflection point. Driven by a population exceeding 1.4 billion and a rapidly growing middle class, the sector has transitioned from an emerging market story into a sophisticated, technology-enabled ecosystem.

A trading window email is missed. A designated person trades through a family account. A contra transaction is noticed only when the exchange asks for trade details. A pre-clearance approval form is signed without testing past trades. An SDD entry is incomplete. A senior executive is involved, and the compliance team is unsure who should inquire. The company has a code, but no real process to identify the breach, examine it fairly, decide the consequence and close the record.

The High Court of Calcutta in the matter titled as Dr. Arjun Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors., through its judgement dated 18.06.2026, held that the Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations (“Registrar”) cannot insist upon production or submission of a trade licence as a precondition for registration of a partnership firm formed for carrying on the professional practice of law.