Insights & Resources

Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.

Legal structuring across the startup lifecycle extends beyond compliance to shape valuation, governance, and investor confidence. From intellectual property protection and entity selection to funding arrangements and exit mechanisms, each stage involves critical legal considerations that determine risk allocation and long-term scalability within a regulated framework.

Here is a **crisp, publication-ready teaser (within 450 characters):** The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Ltd.* clarifies the contours of fairness under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013. It reinforces a market-based approach to valuation, affirms the permissibility of DLOM, and underscores judicial deference in the absence of oppression, marking a significant shift in minority exit jurisprudence.

The NCLAT clarifies that accounting set-offs may constitute preferential transactions under s. 43 of the IBC where they result in the extinguishment of receivables and confer a benefit on related parties. The ruling reinforces a substance-over-form approach and underscores that even non-cash adjustments impacting the asset pool of the corporate debtor are subject to avoidance.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Tiger Global International II Holdings re-examines how treaty claims under the India–Mauritius DTAA are tested. By permitting a prima facie avoidance enquiry despite the presence of TRCs and treaty grandfathering, the Court signals a stronger substance-over-form approach and raises important questions on the interaction between treaty certainty, GAAR, and anti-avoidance scrutiny.

This essay examines where preventive law has overreached: in compliance frameworks divorced from the actual causes of contraventions, in the systematic reversal of the burden of proof, and most acutely, in the routine deployment of provisional attachment as a pre-adjudicatory punishment. The law designed to address the fear of harm has itself become an object of fear.

Wealth without a will does not pass in silence; it passes under statute. When intention is unexpressed, the law steps in with mechanical rules that distribute entitlement but cannot preserve context, dignity, or harmony. Intestate succession offers certainty of rule, not certainty of outcome. A will is not an assertion of control beyond death, but an assumption of responsibility during life.

The IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a structural recalibration of India’s insolvency regime. Beyond procedural changes, it reshapes when insolvency becomes collective, how decisional authority is exercised, and what finality means post-resolution. This Insight examines the Bill through the normative foundations of insolvency law, asking whether speed and certainty can be pursued without eroding inclusion, equality, and legitimacy.

A concise overview of the personal insolvency and bankruptcy framework for personal guarantors under the IBC, with key NCLAT and NCLT rulings shaping the law. This piece explains initiation, moratoriums, repayment plans, creditor rights, bankruptcy triggers, and the 2025 Amendment Bill, offering a clear snapshot of the evolving jurisprudence and its practical implications for stakeholders.

Can property acquired before a crime be seized under the PMLA? This article examines how Indian courts have interpreted the concept of “proceeds of crime,” balancing enforcement power with constitutional safeguards, and compares global confiscation regimes to determine where the legal line truly lies.

In litigation practice, the authority of an advocate to act is often taken for granted, with vakalatnamas and authority letters treated as routine paperwork. Yet beneath this apparent formality lies a dense body of law that determines the very legitimacy of representation. Questions of who may sign, how consent is proved, and whether a scanned signature suffices are not clerical details: they cut to the root of agency, evidence, and procedure.

The Delhi High Court in HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax reaffirmed that GST proceedings against a company dissolved due to amalgamation are void ab initio. The Court held that such actions are not curable under section 160 of the CGST Act, nor authorised by section 87. This judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maruti Suzuki, reinforcing the principle that legal proceedings cannot be pursued against non-existent entities.