India: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

“Commercial disputes being given a criminal colour” is a routine issue faced by criminal courts across the country, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also quashed several criminal complaints pertaining to commercial/civil claims for that reason. It is important to note that, in such criminal complaints, the usual allegations involve offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and the use of forged documents.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah marks a significant development in Article 300A jurisprudence. While upholding the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court identified seven constitutional requirements for a valid compulsory acquisition of immovable property. The ruling reaffirms that, although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right after the 44th Constitutional Amendment, it remains constitutionally protected under Article 300A against arbitrary deprivation by the State.

In an era where intellectual property infringement is no longer merely about, copying products but also their designs, packaging, artistic works, and significant marketing materials, the Delhi High Court's decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Anr. v. Amazestore & Ors. CS(COMM) 737/2016 & CS(COMM) 1170/2016 stands as a notable case in Indian intellectual Property law.

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 19.06.2026 in M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. , dismissed a challenge to the directions prohibiting political advertisements at Delhi Metro stations during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”) on the ground that it is not violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, 1949 (“Constitution”).

Does a regulatory body like the Reserve Bank of India have the power to halt the enforcement of an international court decree?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 has introduced a significant change to the liquidation framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Section 33(1A), creating an opportunity to restore the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

The present appeal arose from acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant to notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act, the land belonging to Respondent No. 1 was acquired and vested in the Central Government. The Competent Authority passed an award determining compensation under Section 3G(1) of the Act.

The intersection of cooperative society governance, constitutional law, and writ jurisdiction has been a subject of enduring judicial discourse in India. A recurring question before courts is whether cooperative societies — particularly those that operate independently of Government control — can be classified as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby subjecting their actions to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226.

What happens if a party files an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking correction of an arbitral award, does the limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34 run from the date of the original award, or from the date on which the Section 33 application is disposed of?