Photo of CAM Disputes Team

The CAM Disputes team can be reached at


The Delhi High Court, had recently in the case of National Highway Authority of India v. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd. O.M.P. (COMM) 95/2023 and Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd. v. National Highway Authority of India O.M.P. (COMM) 106/2023 (collectively the “Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Matters”), invited counsels to advance submissions in relation to a court’s powers under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), and more particularly on the power of courts to partially set aside arbitral awards.Continue Reading Determining the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

What is the Cost of Environmental Breaches? A Look at the Evolving Jurisprudence of Environmental Compensation

The term ‘compensation’ has been legally defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be a return for loss or damage sustained. The Court expressly states that compensation must always be just, and not based on a whim or arbitrary.[1]

Environmental compensation refers to payment of monetary reparation by industries, imposed by authorities and judicial bodies for violating environmental rules and regulations. The imposition of environmental compensation on industry finds its basis in the key environmental law principle of ‘Polluter Pays.’ The Polluter Pays Principle, simply put, makes the offending industry responsible for the damage caused to the environment and to human health.[2] In the 1990s, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India began relying heavily on this principle to order industries to pay environmental compensation for breach of environmental regulations. [3]Continue Reading What is the Cost of Environmental Breaches? A Look at the Evolving Jurisprudence of Environmental Compensation

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code

Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”). As per the data provided by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”), a total of 344 corporate debtors engaged in construction and real estate activities have been admitted into corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) as of September 2022.[i]Continue Reading Proposed Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code- A Real Solution For Real Estate Insolvencies?

Energy Conservation

The Energy Conservation Act, 2001, was amended with the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2022 (“Amendment Act”), recently. The amended Act received the President’s assent on December 19, 2022, and by way of a notification issued by the Ministry of Power, dated December 26, 2022, the amended Act along with all its provisions came into force on January 1, 2023. The amended Act has brought about some significant changes that are detailed hereunder:Continue Reading The Energy Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2022: Key Highlights

Legal Regime of Negotiable Instruments


Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), ascribes criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque. The purpose of the provision has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be the promotion of efficacy of banking operations and to ensure credibility in transacting business through cheques.[i] Since a large number of such transactions and cheque payments are done by companies, the very same intent appears to be captured in Section 141 of the NI Act, which extends vicarious criminal liability on officers associated with the company or firm. The law on Section 141 of the NI Act has been clarified and elaborated upon from time to time. However, the broad principle guiding the extent of liability remains the involvement of the director concerned in the day-to-day business affairs of the company. This is, however, not a straight-jacket formula, and the nuances determining the extent of liability need to be examined closely.Continue Reading Directors’ Vicarious Liability under Current Legal Regime of Negotiable Instruments Act: An Analysis of Evolving Judicial Precedents

claim for refund of advance amount


Since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“IBC”), the Indian judiciary has been facing numerous interpretational challenges on various provisions of the IBC. While certain challenges have been put to rest by introducing amendments to the legislation, a larger bunch of the issues have been settled by interpretations adopted by the judiciary. The Courts and Tribunals, in interpreting the provisions of the IBC, have aspired to achieve the objective of the IBC, i.e. maximising the value of assets of the corporate debtor.Continue Reading Is Claim for Refund of Advance an ‘Operational Debt’? SC Comes to Rescue

Liquidation Process


The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), an umbrella legislation, has successfully envisaged the process of speedy resolution or liquidation of a corporate entity and has proved to be a milestone in the Indian legal framework. By bringing IBC in force, the legislature has sought to maximise the value of the assets of the debtor, and to adopt a fair and transparent procedure for the disposition of the assets while balancing the interests of all stakeholders.Continue Reading Enforcement directorate under PMLA can no longer attach assets once liquidation process has been initiated under IBC

Product Liability


‘Product Liability’ has been defined for the first time under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”). As per the 2019 Act, product liability means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, or product service provider, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by a defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services in relation to the product.[1]Continue Reading Product Liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An Overview

Duly Noted” Notice period for subsequent sale notice under Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 relaxed by the Supreme Court.


A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in S. Karthik & Ors. v. N. Subhash Chand Jain & Ors.[1](“S. Karthik”), recently relaxed the mandatory pre-requisites prescribed for sale of mortgaged assets under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“The SI Rules”), under certain circumstances. It was held that when a sale notice under the SI Rules does not result in a sale due to reasons entirely attributable to the borrower, then the lender need not wait another 30 days before selling the mortgaged assets through a subsequent sale notice. This decision assumes significance as it is indicative of a lender friendly approach in monetising their security interests by adopting a flexible standard in interpreting the procedural prerequisites, rather than reading them pedantically. This blog examines the judgement in detail.Continue Reading “Duly Noted”: Notice period for subsequent sale notice under Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 relaxed by the Supreme Court